Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Danras

Question re: references cited by Danras
Has Danras cited references for his assertions regarding black holes? If not, this is an open-and-shut case from what I've seen so far (Danras has not posted his response yet, for instance). In this case, it's not a matter of physics, it's a matter of Wikipedia policies: WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:V.

If Danras has cited references, do they meet WP:RS?

Whether Danras is right or wrong in his assertions, he has to meet those rules, just as Newton, Maxwell, Einstein or Gallileo would were they editing Wikipedia. Fermi, Einstein, etc. all engaged in original thought, but they could not have published it here; like the local telephone book, my dishwasher's repair manual or the Thai Army's infantry field manual, this just isn't the appropriate forum for orginal thought in physics.

Thanks for any light you can shed on this. --A. B. 16:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I asked for a reference when I reverted his edit, to which he answered . He did not provide a reference then, and I have not seen any since. So the answer to your question is: no, Danras has not provided a reference. O. Prytz 19:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have asked repeatedly for references for specific statements that I quoted in each request. If anyone can be bothered, here are some examples:, , , ,.


 * After much badgering, he finally stated that he'd already given a reference (he did not repost it). I checked back and his "reference" was to the Wikipedia article itself! . We have still to see any external reference for any of Danras's ideas.--Oscar Bravo 07:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

After I posted an edit and someone deleted it, Oscar Bravo was badgering me for a reference. Wikipedia does not require me to give a reference for material that is no longer posted in the article. Besides, I posted references earlier in the discussion. I would think Oscar would have common sense to understand that I may no longer be interested in reposting the same edit that he wants a reference for. He did not sound as though he was asking for a reference merely to satisfy his own curiosity. On 20 Oct, I told him in discussion to relax as he seemed stressed out. On 23 Oct, he was badgering me again. He seems angry or wants to create a false impression in discussion. I hope he will stop this nonsense.

This RFC page seems to be an attempt to end run my demand that original research in the black hole article be referenced. Wikipedia requires that unreferenced material be removed. I posted an original research flag (and some discussion) on 23 Oct. Next thing I know this RFC is initiated on 24 Oct. --Danras 03:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the main RFC page; the RFC was raised because you repeatedly replaced mainstream comments with what was apparently OR. I (among others) asked you for references for your edits. Of course your edits are no longer in the article - they were removed as unreferenced OR. If you had come back with a decent reference, you could've put them back in. You still can...


 * BTW, I am curious as to the source of your ramblings - if you do find a reference, feel free to post it on my talk page. As regards you tagging the article OR, that turns out to have been quite a good thing to do - it has spurred some of us to go get some more references. I think the one that I and Kjoonlee have added is quite good, having been written by Hawking and Penrose and all... Anyway, it has certainly improved the article so thank you :-)


 * Finally, may I apologise if you ever felt I came across as angry. It is difficult to convey emotion accurately over the wire and occasionally our intentions may be misconstrued. I appreciate immensely your concern for my health and the good advice you have taken the trouble to give me.--Oscar Bravo 10:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that I apparently misunderstood you. I probably should watch myself better in the future, as I know English-speaking Wikipedians come from different cultures and it is easy to misinterpret others.  Here is the reference (although I know you have seen it.):  The article section entitled "Space-time distortion and frame of reference" contains "From the viewpoint of a distant observer, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow down, approaching but never quite reaching the event horizon."  I should point out that I did not author this statement and that the contents of the article are generally considered referenced.  Still, I would have no great objection to providing one or more external references.


 * I did not read anything special. My thinking evolved in discussion as participants made me think through things.  I knew the basics of this issue long ago, but until recently, it seemed like a petty point.  --Danras 04:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Debate regarding "outside views" section
''As Danras pointed out (and as I might've seen if I'd read to the bottom of the RFC...) Debate/responses etc., by involved parties should go here and not on the main page. I've moved them:''

It seems to me that Danras's reasoning is not actually as "far-out" as the above summary claims it to be. Black holes have always been a major sticking point in GR. I know Steven Hawkings has always been weary.

In any case I think the major problem here is not that the claims are "far out" but that there is a major lack of references being employed. My own personal view is that when something I've contributed is reverted with a call for sources then it's my job to find the sources before re-adding the content.

---J.S (t|c) 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the point is not whether his physics is valid or not. It is whether it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. His idea is certainly fringe so couldn't reasonably be plonked in the introduction. If it were well referenced, it could certainly go in the "alternative views" section, but if you read D's edits, they are clearly the results of OR - the only "reference" he has provided is to a paragraph in the article itself which, at best, could be interpreted as leading to his conclusion. Personally, I'd love Danras to provide a reference so I could go and read it - it's an interesting idea! ...but it ain't encyclopedic. --Oscar Bravo 08:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Endorse. I endorse J.S' summary and Oscar Bravo's response. Regardless of the physics, if there's a challenge for sources, then either acceptable sources (per proposed WP:SOURCE) should be cited somewhere (in-line, footnote, talk page) -- or the material should be deleted. Persistence in re-adding the material under these circumstance should be considered disruptive and the contributor warned; if it persists the contributor should be blocked. --A. B. 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Danras has also claimed his opponents have not sourced their material in the article; if this is still so, they need to do this. --A. B. 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There have always been numerous references in the article, but a particular point that D had raised has now been specifically referenced (in first line of article). --Oscar Bravo 07:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I note that Oscar Bravo is hardly an outside view (though neither am I.) This request for user comment began a day after I requested references showing how general relativity predicts black holes. In that vein, I agree with J.S. and A.B. that references should be provided. I have never disagreed that material needs references. Users were upset about me not responding to Oscar's request for repeat references to material that was no longer posted. I do not really care if black holes is "mainstream" belief. I just want a reference that shows how general relativity predicts it. If a reference cannot be provided, black holes can be listed as a popular POV, but not as a proven deduction from the equations of general relativity. --Danras 04:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Come now, Danras, you are mistaking correlation for causation; This RFC began a day after I requested references... It also began a day after my Aunt Nellie's birthday but neither was the cause of the RFC. As is clearly shown in Evidence of disputed behavior, the cause of the RFC was that you repeatedly removed canonical content and replaced it with your own fringe material. This, despite the reverts of several editors. Please be honest and accept that the RFC relates to your vandalism and do not try to present the case as some persecution of your noble quest for references.


 * Incidentally, a ref that shows how general relativity predicts BHs has been provided, so you can relax about that - a job well done! --Oscar Bravo 07:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)