Talk:Wolf effect/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Correction of Joshua Schroeder's edit

Joshua, I have restored your changes on the following grounds:

  • According to peer-reviewed souces, the description of Wolf Effect as (a) being able to produce redshifts and blueshift
it's more correctly defined as a frequency shift. --ScienceApologist 17:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (b) that it may produce Doppler-like shifts, appears to be accurate. There are several peer-reviewed articles on the Wolf Effect which consistently use the term "redshift", that are conveniently listed as footnotes on the article page.
Still, frequency shift is more accurate. --ScienceApologist 17:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As you can read from the peer-reviewed articles, the Wolf Effect has actually been demonstrated in the laboratory.
No objection to that. -ScienceApologist 17:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That the Wolf Effect will produce a redshift has been previously confirmed [1] to you by one of the article authors, Prof. Daniel F.V. James.
It's a frequency shift, no doubt. But it isn't NPOV to call it a redshift without acknowledging its differences.
  • I have previously made you aware that I have confirmation from three professors of physics that they use the term 'redshift' in the context of the Wolf Effect, including Prof. Daniel F.V. James [2], Prof. Emil Wolf [3] [4], and Prof. Theoretical Physics, Indian Statistical Institute, Sisir Roy [5]
  • This is not a point of view issue since (a) this is not my point of view (b) the information is accurate (as indicated by the numerous peer-reviewed references), and confirmed by at least three Professors of physics in the field.
This is your point of view. You conveniently ignored the real form of my edits which was to remove the suggestion that it provided a measure of "intrinsic" redshifts in quasars which is an argualbe POV. --ScienceApologist 17:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

--Iantresman 11:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that the Wolf Effect is a redshift is a POV issue. It is a frequency shift, but it doesn't always manifest itself as a redshift in the sense of redshift in astronomy. That's why it's important to keep it NPOV and remove the insinuation of new causes. --ScienceApologist 17:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As the article makes clear, the Wolf Effect is "a phenomenon in radiation physics". Three professors of physicists, and several peer reviewed papers, demonstrate that the term "redshift" is not only used freely and regularly in the peer reviewed papers (see my examples here); and where the Wolf Effect can produce a frequency-independent distortion-free redshift (again, see peer reviewed article describing this), it DOES use the term correctly in an astronomical sense too since it produces Doppler-like redshifts. That's not my point of view, that is the point of view of the literature and scientists doing the work.
Emil Wolf's original paper has been cited at least one hundreds time, and I am sure the other reference in the article have been cited too. Provide just TWO peer-reviewed paper which criticises the use of redshift as used by Wolf and James, and I'll revert to your wording. Otherwise the edit is only your Point of View.
--Iantresman 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Since you haven't responded to my request demonstrating you understand redshift, I have no reason to respond to this request since it evinces a truly limited understanding of the rationale for describing this as a frequency shift. --ScienceApologist 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether I understand redshift or not, is not the issue here. You are not my judge, and I have never questioned your knowledge, depite your persistent allegations against me [6]. What is important is that our peers do, and this amply demonstrated for the reasons given. Hence:

  • 1. I have cited credible sources, as suggested by Wikipedia Cite Sources page
  • 2. That according to Wikipedia, the information is verifiable "Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."[7]
  • 3. We have had extensive comments [8] on the Wolf Effect before, and the consensus does not support your view.

Consequently your ascertions do not appear to meet any of these criteria.
--Iantresman 17:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV version of this page is the previous one. There is no reason to assume that this effect need be dynamically linked to the redshift page unless you have an agenda. Frequency shift adequately defines the effect as shown in the quote you provided on the page. Therefore revert. --ScienceApologist 19:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

After all, we can dynamically link to the redshift page by quoting the name of his article. The NPOV definition of redshift is given on the redshift page and therefore we link appropriately via Wolf's own advocacy. --ScienceApologist 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

In other words YOU don't think it is a redshift (because I've provided abundant peer-reviewed evidence that it is), and it does not conform to YOUR definition of redshift which you've provided on the redshift page, despite my providing 500+ peer-reviewed references which use the term otherwise.
No, the definition corresponds to a frequency shift. That is the most generic definition. --ScienceApologist 20:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I've already provided peer-reviewed references showing that more than just Prof Emil Wolf says it's a redshift, and until you provide ANY KIND OF PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE OR CITATION, your word is not verifiable according to Wikipedia policy.
The verification is in the very quote you cite. --ScienceApologist 20:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Diagram?

Is there diagram that illustrates the Wolf Effect? (And while I'm leaving a comment, I find the splitting of hairs between a frequency shift and a red shift ludicrous. The red shift is a shift in frequency. What's the agenda??)

The agenda is, many proponents of nonstandard cosmology think that the Wolf Effect is an explanation that eliminates the Hubble Law even though the Wolf Effect creates shifting in lines toward higher frequencies and the process doesn't conform to the standard definition of redshift which is a proportional shift. --ScienceApologist 16:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
What crazy people think about the implications of this phenomenon should not influence the way it is described. Think NPOV. I've just corrected one of your edits where you introduce the idea that the "Wolf effect was..." (past tense.) It sounds as if you're scared to acknowledge that the nonstandard cosmology is a point of view, and you want to exclude them by fiddling definitions. --sittingduck123 20 January 2006, 21:21 UTC
Thanks for your correction of grammar which I assure you was not meant to be "POV". Nonstandard cosmology is a perspective outside of the scientific mainstream. Acknowledging that sometimes takes skill and often require a lot of wrangling on these talkpages. --ScienceApologist 23:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Find me one peer-reviewed citation where a critic has suggested that "the Wolf Effect is an explanation that eliminates the Hubble Law".
  • When Wolf and James write that the Wolf Effect ".. can generate arbitrarily large spectral shifts whose z numbers are independent of the central frequency of the spectral line [p.167] ... just as in the case when the shift is due to the Dopper effect, the relative frequency shift z induced by this mechanism is independent of frequency and can take any value in the range -1 < z < ∞, even though the source, the medium and the observer are at rest with respect to each other [p.169]" [9] (my emphasis)
  • This fits the definition of redshift as described in the Wikipedia article?
  • --Iantresman 17:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Points in turn:

  • Peer-review doesn't matter as the majority of proponents of nonstandard cosmology do not publish peer-reviewed papers. I remarked this as a point of fact about the agenda. You will notice it is not in the article, it is on the talkpage.
  • The problem is that Wolf and James are talking about a very narrow space for the emitted photon even though it extends through the entire spectrum for the observed photon. It's frequency dependent like any other scattering mechanism.
---ScienceApologist 22:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, Wolf has no interest in "non-standard" cosmologies. He's a Professor of Optical Physics & Theoretical Optics [10]. Likewise Daniel James, who is an Associate Professor of Theoretical Optical Physics and Quantum Information [11]. They have no agenda, and whether you think I have an agenda is irrelevent.
  • Why do you say "frequency dependent" when they clearly write "..they are frequency independent and they can generate reshifts or blueshifts of any magnitude" (p.167) [12] (my emphasis). Your claim appear to be the opposite of what they show in their paper(s).
  • --Iantresman 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As you well know, the Wolf Effect is often quoted by nonstandard proponents. You yourself being an example. I don't care if the people who made it up have an agenda, though their commentary about quasars and redshift "anomalies" makes me wonder if they are as "neutral" as you are implying. --ScienceApologist 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • They are writing in terms of individual lines. They are not writing for emission across the entire spectrum, for example. They cannot because of basic rules of optics. Many people have told you this many times, and yet you seem to be unable to understand this simple fact. --ScienceApologist 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You completly ignored by previous statement that you wrote "frequency dependent" when they clearly write "..they are frequency independent". I even gave you a citation (b) Your response provides no explanation. "The basic rules of optics" is an over-generalization; give me some specifics and a citation. (c) Who are these many people who have "told me so"; you're the only person, who has told me much, but substantitated with little (c) Daniel James also answered you that "the frequency shift will be the same for every line present in the spectrum of the incident light". [13] --Iantresman 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Ian, it is impossible for the Wolf Effect to be the same for the emission of gamma rays as it is for the emission of radiowaves by simple fact that the index of refraction is frequency dependent. There is no material-based mechanism that has ever been proposed that is frequency-indepedent in that manner. Photon-phonon coupling is never completely frequency-independent. You can read about it in any radiative transfer text. --ScienceApologist 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
So when Prof. Daniel James writes that the Wolf effect may be "frequency dependent", he must be wrong. --Iantresman 14:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean "frequency independent". My ideas are that he could be referring to a few things:
  1. Most spectra observations are not broadband. Usually spectral observations are confined to at most two or three order of magnitude in energy. If we talk about dozens of orders of magnitude in energy this is bound to change the analysis for photon-phonon interactions.
  2. The effect could be frequency independent in that all possible frequencies are available for the emission to shift to. This is, however, observational possibility independence. There seems to be some confusion however as saying that z can take on all values could be seen as the effect being "frequency independent" since you could get any redshifted frequency. This is a different sense from what I am using frequency independence to mean.
  3. James normally refers to resonance of line emission which are defined for a single type of atomic or molecular transition. In cases where we don't have line emission, it isn't clear that the effect works since it relies on the reasonance of the material and the "tuning fork" analogy maximally breaks down.
But I don't know precisely what he means: he hasn't been clear. --ScienceApologist 15:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are the intro-paragraphs from one of the papers you link to which seem to confirm my suspicions:

The influence of the statistical properties of random fluctuations of a light source on the spectrum of radiation Which the source generates has been a subjects of great interest in recent years. It was first shown by Wolf [ 1 ] that, as a consequence of spatial correlations within the source, the spectrum of light is, in general, not invariant on propagation even in free space, contrary to usual beliefs. Further, it was predicted theoretically that suitable source correlations can cause redshifts or blueshifts of spectral lines [2-5 ]. Experiments confirmed these predictions [ 6-11 ]. The spectral shifts which can be induced in this way are small (effectively of the order of or smaller than the width of the line in question) and, in general, have z numbers #~ (relative frequency shifts) which are frequency dependent.

Because of ihe intimate connection between radiation from localized sources and scattering from media of finite extent, one may expect that spectral shifts may also be produced by scattering on static as well as time fluctuating media and this has indeed been demonstrated theoretically [ 12,13 ]. Recently it was predicted [ 14 ] that dynamic scatterers can generate arbitrarily large spectral shifts whose z numbers are independent of the central frequency of the spectral line. Such scatterers can, therefore, produce a change in the spectrum which imitates the most important feature of the Doppler effect, although the source, the scattering medium and the observer are all at rest relative to each other. In this Letter we carry this investigation a stage further, by specifying correlation functions of scattering media which give rise to such shifts. A model scattering medium is introduced with a correlation function which, in general, is spatially anisotropic. Using a recently derived expression for the spectrum of the scattered radiation (ref. [ 15 ], eq. (5.10) ) such scatterers are shown to produce relative frequency shifts which depend on geometrical factors only; they are frequency independent and they can generate redshifts or blueshifts of any magnitude. In the special case when the collation function is isotropic, only redshifts are produced.

The authors here have clearly refering to relatively narrow-band spectra. Not their fault since they are mostly concerned with optical spectra anyway.

--ScienceApologist 15:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer-reviwed image

I've restored the image to the article which is based on one in a peer-reviewed article. If you have a problem with it, EDIT it according to the original, or conatact the authors. --Iantresman 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The image is included is a bad one, physically. We are committed here at Wikipedia to providing accurate facts. I'm sorry that these particular editors and authors placed a technically poor image out there, but it doesn't deserve inclusion in the encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 19:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Your arrogance is incredible, who made you the image police. Not even the courtesy of an explanation. As usual, you set yourself up as judge and jury. --Iantresman 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ian I just looked at your image in the paper. You reported the redshift incorrectly which is where the problem arises. Even so, this image is still not that good because what it illustrates is a theoretical construction based on a mathematical equation: not an actual observation of the Wolf Effect, so the detail shapes and amounts are necessary as there are no error bars on predictions. Anyone with a spreadsheet plotter and the ability to read algebraic formulae should be able to reproduce images of their own choosing using an appropriate VOIGT profile (though I see they use a strictly Doppler profile for somewhat dubious physical reasons). If you would like, I can make an accurate image for you. --ScienceApologist 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no problems having my own mistakes corrected, that's where editors with good knowledge of the subject, such as yourself, excel. But I am surprised that you had not checked the original source until now.
  • A theoretical construct, as you call it, is no problem. The Doppler shift and its equations are uncontested, and does allow us to produce an idealised representation. Likewise the Wolf effect; I am not aware of any sources which contest the Wolf effect.
  • Indeed, Wikipedia has many illustrations that are not based on actual images, and I suspect this is because idealised images are sometimes clearer than actual images. The other reason I did not choose an actual image is copyright issues.
  • While I have no doubt that you could construct your own image, the problem is that you are not verifiable, whereas the image from Wolf et al is.
  • So it seems that image is accurate, as based on a peer reviewed source, it's the caption that needs correcting. --Iantresman 09:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal point of view

ScienceApologist, your edits are appalling, and are clearly trying to reflect your own PERSONAL point of view.

  • It's one thing to remove "spoonfeeding" on the grounds that the supporting peer-reviewed quotes are excessive, but to remove the information they support (that the Wolf effect is considered to be a new redshift mechanism), is disgusting.
  • And to remove information that the Wolf effect does not occur "in free space" as described in the text, and supported by a quote, again is disgusting.
  • Your suggestion that Wolf used the term "noncosmological" apparently refering to a controversy in the 1970s, again is YOUR FANTASTY... I provided an ACTUAL QUOTE from Wolf giving his view, which you then removed.

--Iantresman 18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with some of additional information, DISCUSS them first before editing them. --Iantresman 18:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

All this has been discussed above. If you want to move on to dispute resolution, please do so. --ScienceApologist 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Learn some bloody courtesy, and discuss things before you make changes, epsecially where EVERYTHING I added included peer-reviewed citations. You've always insisted in discussion before changes yourself, so live up to your own standards. --Iantresman 20:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A new redshift mechanism

I have three references describing the Wolf effect as "a new redshift mechanism", including Wolf himself, who is a professor of optics, leader in his field, and peer reviewed too many times to mention. If anyone has some peer reviewed citations suggesting that this to be incorrect, please provide them.

  • Emil Wolf himself writes:
"In 1986 I predicted the existing of a new mechanism for producing redshifts of spectral lines. It arises from the coherence properties of sources and from somewhat similar properties of their atmospheres. What perhaps is most remarkable is that in some cases this mechanism may be shown to completely imitate the Doppler effect, even though the source is not moving away from us. This implies that if one detects a redshift of a spectral line from an astronomical source one cannot always be certain that the shift is due to recessional motion; it could be due to the new effect, which has nothing to do with motion." See Emil Wolf, "Selected Works of Emil Wolf: With Commentary" (2001) p.638, ISBN 981-02-4204-2.
  • Marco Marnane Capria of the University of Perugia, Italy, described the Wolf effect as:
"A New Optical Redshift Mechanism .. An important discovery made in 1986 that its finder calls correleation-induced spectral changes .. by Emil Wolf, professor of optical physics at the University of Rochester, and generally appears to have been ignored or incorrectly explained. .. According to Wolf's theory, in some well-defined circumstances, one may generate "shifts of spectral lines which are indistinguishable from those that would be produced by the Doppler effect" .. those theoretical predictions were subsequently verified by experiments conducted by two of Wolf's colleagues G.M. Morris and D.Falkis" Physics Before and After Einstein (2005) edited by M. Mamone Capria, p.303 ISBN: 1-58603-462-6.
  • Sisir Roy and S. Datta also note:
".. this new mechanism for redshift .. proposed by E. Wolf in the mid-eighties [Wolf 1987] that has no connection with relative motion and gravitation". See S. Roy, S. Data, in Gravitation and Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale (2002) by Colin Ray Wilks, Richard L Amoroso, Geoffrey Hunter, Menas Kafatos; page 104, ISBN: 1-4020-0885-6

(My embolding) --Iantresman 15:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Reporting

ScienceApologist, you say that "they do report it"; The caption says that they "do not report observing". This seems to be conflicting, or badly worded? I would suggest that the caption should say that "the authors report not observing..."? --Iantresman 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Would still appreciation your comment. --Iantresman 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Marginalization of this subject

What is not contentious is that this effect is a real effect of physical optics. What is contentious is that this effect has anything to do with quasars. I would appreciate an appropriate description of how marginalized this suggestion is with regards to the scientific community. In particular, while there are many research groups which theoretically model quasars, none of them see fit to use the Wolf Effect in their modeling. The references made by Ian were all to unreliable sources which do not themselves model quasars theoretically. As such, it is highly inappropriate to suggest that this is a reasonable mechanism for "intrinsic redshifts" (or that intrinsic redshifts exist at all). I would encourage all editors here to abide by the guidelines outlined in Wikipedia: Notability (science), WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --ScienceApologist 17:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • So I'll provide references that satisfy WP:V and WP:RS that say that the Wolf effect has been considered as (a) A new redshift mechanism (b) A non-cosmological redshift (c) Of possible relevance to quasars
  • And presumably you'll provide references that also satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, that say that the Wolf effect does not? --Iantresman 17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't start, please! If there is a disputed piece of text, bring it here, state the dispute in neutral language and sit back. You know what's going to happen otherwise. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this comment to me, or both of us? If it's to me, then I'm trying to establish a basic equality: that we BOTH abide by WP:V and WP:RS. Or do we just take it as read? --Iantresman 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh it's both, don't worry. I am an equal opportunities grouch, grumpy and short-tempered with all sides of a dispute. Seriously, if the two of you can't shelve your personal differences sufficiently to discuss this in neutral terms, then this is going nowhere. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

User:Iantresman has prudently undertaken to debate on Talk rather than risk being seen as disrupting this article. He has certain edits he would like to see made, which I understand are opposed by User:ScienceApologist. These two editors have a long history of deep differences and do not work well together. Following Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, Ian is in probation and SA did not come out of that process unscathed either. I suggest that Ian begin by giving a point-by-point summary of what needs changing and why, specifically addressing SA's points above, with the very best sources he can muster. Please note that if this degenerates into a cat fight I will probably lose my patience, block all concerned and consign them to the eternal fires. Or something :-) Guy (Help!) 17:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds quite reasonable to me. --Iantresman 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edits

New redshift mechanism

  • "that has been described as a new redshift mechanism" (Removed by ScienceApologist) [14]
  • I justified the inclusion of this statement above in "A new redshift mechanism", which ScienceApologist declined to discuss. It fulfils WP:V, WP:RS. I am not aware of any sources refuting the statement. The statement is important because some people believe that the Wolf effect is not a redshift. --Iantresman 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Who believes that the Wolf Effect is not a redshift? Emphasizing it as a "new" redshift mechanism gives undue weight to non-mainstream proponents looking for "new" redshift mechanisms. We should exclude comment per undue weight. --ScienceApologist 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't get ahead of yourself. Let's first of all agree a set of common premises, shall we? Guy (Help!) 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian's issue with undue weight

Do you disagree with any of the following:

  • WP:NPOV Undue weight tells us that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"?
  • Can you confirm that this statement is based Jimbo's which says "If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so."[15]
  • That the recent Arbitration case upheld this description in the very first point, "Neutral point of view" --Iantresman 19:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
What does this have to do with anything? --ScienceApologist 19:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you recall your earlier comment, you brought up the issue of Undue weight. My comment follows on from it, and discusses Undue weight also (hence the connection), in attempt to make sure we both understand Undue Weight as described by policy, and upheld by the recent arbitration case. I stand by the question. --Iantresman 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Guys, I think we need to establish some ground rules here. This is not WP:RFAR Mk. II, it is a content-specific debate and we're not going to rehash those arguments. I have barely read this article, I'm about to start going through it in detail. My general principles for articles on science topics are as
  1. If a view is held by a small but prominent group of people it should be attributed by name or group.
  2. If a view directly contradicts the mainstream, that should be noted either with an overarching statement in the lead or with specific criticisms sourced from peer-reviewed journals.
  3. Anything not in a peer-reviewed journal should, in the first instance, be excluded, we'll see if that leaves us short of sources (dissenting theories with widespread coverage in non-traditional sources need very careful consideration and should be noted as not being peer-reviewed).
  4. If there are multiple competing interpretations and no settled view, we maybe have a section on "interpretations of foo", otherwise we document the mainstream with a small section on notable dissenting views.
That's very vague and generalised, but does that model fit this case? Ian, if you think that means I am excessively biased towards the mainstream, you'll need to find someone else to mediate this discussion, or maybe get an advocate. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with that completely. I can provide both peer reviewed sources, and secondary sources (as described in WP:RS). (I note that the advice on Science articles was taken out on 1 Dec [16]). Presumably ScienceApologist can provide peer reviewed sources backing-up his statement too.
  • That the Wolf effect is described as a redshift, I have many peer reviewed sources, and can provide both the citations, and point you to the exact quote that says so. I can also make sure they are online so you can double check.
  • As far as I know, ScienceApologist has not provided any verifiable sources describing what he calls the mainstream view on the Wolf effect.
  • What would like from me next? --Iantresman 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian needs to disabuse himself of the notion that just because he has a source for something it necessarily belongs in the article. --ScienceApologist 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That's as maybe, but do you agree with these premises, or do we need to work on that? Guy (Help!) 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree with the assumption that WP:FRINGE viewpoints necessarily have counterpoints that are peer reviewed. In the case of the Wolf Effect, theoretical astrophysicists do not take the suggestions of intrinsic redshift seriously enough to even deign to comment on the Wolf Effect as an intrinsic redshift mechanism. This does not mean that they agree with the conclusions of Wolf and James regarding quasars. Quite the contrary. They disagree and ignore them because they do not believe the ideas are worthy of comment. The issue was, in the eyes of the community, settled decades ago. --ScienceApologist 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, so what do you suggest as a modification to the premises? If we can't even map out ground rules for debate then progress is not going to be possible, I think. Ian is saying that the idea of this being a redshift is available in peer-reviewed sources. What say we look at those and see what they say? Guy (Help!) 13:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't so much as to whether the Wolf Effect can be modeled as a redshift but rather what is the consensus of the community of scientists who model quasars and their spectra? The consensus is, currently, that quasars are powered by accretion and are distant cores of AGN subject to the three standard redshift mechanisms (Doppler, Expansion, and Gravitation). To say that X, Y, or Z researcher believes that quasar redshifts might have an intrinsic component is verifiable, but there are only two reliable sources to that effect: Wolf and James (who are generally astronomically disinclined) and Roy's group (who do not model quasar spectra). This characterizes the level of acceptance for the "Wolf Effect <-> quasar redshift" proposal. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
All sounds perfectly plausible, but what we have here is a situation where I don't actually understand the subject especially well (strictly a Carl Sagan pop-science interest in cosmology) and I need to establish a firm footing on which I can base any kind of judgement. If what you're saying is that the entire Wolf Effect is fringe, and that interpretations of it as a redshift mechanism are fringe fringe, then I need to be walked through that step by step, because I am a simple man with an electrical engineering degree and I don't "get" obscure philosophical arguments. I come back to ground zero, which is WP:NPOV (something which I do understand pretty well). How about if the two of you combine to give me the Janet & John version of this subject and the dispute? I'm not averse to working on understanding it, but I really do need to start at the beginning, and I can't tell after all this warring how much of the current article is asserted by either side to be biased towards the other. Incidentally, I haven't forgotten the dispute about the graph, that needs to be addressed early on I feel. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The Wolf Effect itself is not fringe, it's the application of the Wolf Effect to cosmology that's fringe. The Wolf Effect is included as a standard phenomena in physical optics. However, it is assumed by certain people (and for some reason Wolf and James themselves) that the Wolf Effect would be applicable to quasars. This pronouncement was made in the late 1980s and has garnered the support of fringe cosmology proponents who think that this can bring the quasars back to nearby distances. Especially excited by such an idea would be Halton Arp, for example, who is stuck in his machinations of peculiarity. However, you don't even see Arp commenting on these ideas.
The basic point is that the Wolf Effect is not a "redshift mechanism" in the same sense as the main redshift mechanisms illustrated on the redshift page. Can it cause shifts in frequency? Sure! Can you measure a z associated with those shifts? Absolutely. Does that make this a "redshift": only in the sense that it is a "shift" of optical light toward the color "red". In many other astrophysically important ways it is not a "redshift" in the sense that it is not important to astrophysical scenarios. This is not to say that astrophysics has "word ownership" over "redshift", only to say that redshift is being exploited by certain fringe characters (like Ian) to be due to alternative mechanisms in order to advance an obliquely related agenda. What we need to do is make sure the reader understands that no theoretical modeler of quasars considers the Wolf Effect to be an important part of the spectra models. Therefore, the Wolf Effect is not a quasar redshift mechanism. Nor is it a "redshift" mechanism in the sense of astrophysical redshift -- despite that claim being promoted by a FRINGE and not subject to critical review. --ScienceApologist 13:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Here are my additional premises (which I would tack on to the end of your premises):

  1. A view is a significant minority in science topics if it is both rejected by the majority and those who reject it have published about the subject (critical review).
  2. Views which are not subject to critical review should be ascribed to the adherents of such views on the pages about the views or the pages about the adherents, and such views should be completely excluded from mainstream pages.
  3. Amalgamation scientific proposals (such as the Wolf Effect AND quasars) should the have noncontroversial aspects of the proposal emphasized and the controversial aspects de-emphasized. (Thus, Wolf Effect being a proposed cause for "excess" redshift in quasars would be de-emphasized on this page).
  4. If a view directly contradicts the mainstream and there are no mainstream rebuttals because the mainstream has ignored the view, it is important that some NPOV description of the marginalization of this view be made. This would necessarily take the form of a negative proof.

--ScienceApologist 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Let me just give my two cents worth. This is all ScienceApologist's opinion, and effectively original research.
  • Wiki policy on NPOV tells in the introductory sentences that we should be (a) representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. (b) NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"[17]
  • WP:RS on science sources tells us that "The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs." If there are criticisms of the Wolf effect by the "community", by all means present some reliable sources describing them, otherwise we just have ScienceApologist's word for it.
  • ScienceApologist tells us that "the Wolf Effect is not a "redshift mechanism", but is not prepared to provide ANY verifiable reliable sources for this. I have provided sources that say that it is. You don't need to understand the subject, only Wiki policy, to know which view should be presented in the article... ScienceApologist's view, or the view of peer reviewed scientists? Personally, I don't know who is right, but I know which is verifiable. --Iantresman 14:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "original research" when it comes to new ground for editorial decisions. A neutral treatment of this subject will let readers know that parts of it are outside the scientific mainstream and that there are no theoretical cosmologists who use the Wolf Effect in their modeling of the redshift. A neutral treatment of this subject will not unduly weight the opinions of those who do not model quasars or work in astrophysics about those subjects. A neutral article will be honest about the fact that the Wolf Effect is not discussed in the peer review literature critically. A neutral article will not treat the Wolf Effect as a recognized redshift mechanism that can explain the astronomical observations of redshift. A neutral article will describe the frequency shift associated with the Wolf Effect, will ascribe to the fringe minority the opinions of the fringe minority, and will make appropriate marginalization and mention of such marginalization to the reader. Anything short of this is in violation of the guidelines, policies, and principles set-forth. If Ian disagrees with any of these points, then we need to work this out because as far as I'm concerned these ideals are non-negotiable. --ScienceApologist 14:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool it!
Ian, SA has a right to state his opinion. You can disagree, but that won't stop him stating it and it's useless to try. SA, Ian also has a right to state his opinion. Try not to hector each other, and try to stick to the subject at issue, which in this case is what constitutes a basis for discussion. Also, I think the both of you may fairly assume that it is not necessary to quote WP:NPOV the whole time, since we all three know it inside out; the issue has always been in interpreting it in specific circumstances, not the wording itself.
So, I said above that my base premises were
  1. If a view is held by a small but prominent group of people it should be attributed by name or group.
  2. If a view directly contradicts the mainstream, that should be noted either with an overarching statement in the lead or with specific criticisms sourced from peer-reviewed journals.
  3. Anything not in a peer-reviewed journal should, in the first instance, be excluded, we'll see if that leaves us short of sources (dissenting theories with widespread coverage in non-traditional sources need very careful consideration and should be noted as not being peer-reviewed).
  4. If there are multiple competing interpretations and no settled view, we maybe have a section on "interpretations of foo", otherwise we document the mainstream with a small section on notable dissenting views.
SA seeks to modify them, but I do not unconditionally accept his wording.
  1. A view is a significant minority in science topics if it is both rejected by the majority and those who reject it have published about the subject (critical review). - that sounds fair, can we all agree on that?
  2. Views which are not subject to critical review should be ascribed to the adherents of such views on the pages about the views or the pages about the adherents, and such views should be completely excluded from mainstream pages. That is a bit hard-line. Such views may be included if there is a consensus that they are interesting, for example if they have caught the public imagination. Flat-earthers are mentioned i the article on earth, it seems, despite it being an absurd theory. As long as we make it plain that the theory lacks critical review, and we don't give it excessive coverage, it's not an absolute that the view can't be included. But clearly bizarre notions that have not caught the public imagination and not been covered outside of their own closed circle, we probably should not cover in articles on related, more mainstream subjects.
  3. Amalgamation scientific proposals (such as the Wolf Effect AND quasars) should the have noncontroversial aspects of the proposal emphasized and the controversial aspects de-emphasized. (Thus, Wolf Effect being a proposed cause for "excess" redshift in quasars would be de-emphasized on this page). Um. What we're talking about here is novel syntheses, isn't it? A novel synthesis is essentially a discrete theory, for the purposes of this argument, and is unlikely to qualify for mention unless it has been widely disseminated as a distinct entity. We don't publish original research, from any source.
  4. If a view directly contradicts the mainstream and there are no mainstream rebuttals because the mainstream has ignored the view, it is important that some NPOV description of the marginalization of this view be made. This would necessarily take the form of a negative proof. And here we have the nub of the problem. Fundamentally, I agree. In practice, if we could only find a reliable source to say that such-and-such a theory is twaddle, we would be on much stronger ground. How do we, without original research, distinguish between new ideas not yet brought to the notice of the establishment, and ideas that the establishment has seen, understood and dismissed? This is where critical reviews in the journals can be really handy - a literature review which notes and explicitly dismisses a fringe theory is what we should be looking for. I am very uneasy, despite my innate scepticism for the proponents of fringe theories, of venturing into that territory without pretty strong backing from several expert editors. Which is why I have said from the beginning that what this article needs most is more eyes. Can't one or other of you write to the journals and start a debate on the letters pages that we can cite? That would be an imaginitive solution :-)
Anyway, we need to explore the premises for debate, and "I want it in" versus "I want it out" is not going to cut it, since both could be justified by some interpretation of policy. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The journals aren't likely to accept any papers that attempt to resurrect the dead ideas of decades ago. --ScienceApologist 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything, except the last point.
  • An alternative theory does NOT contradict a mainstream theory, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Observations may be consistent with two different theories. It certainly isn't for editors to speculate on whether the popularity of one theory implies the disdain of the other (it doesn't even logically follow).
  • I had already invited one of the authors of one of the papers (Prof Dan James) to comment as an expert in the field, which he did,[18] but ScienceApologist disagreed with him.
  • I had already suggested that ScienceApologist write to journals to make his point that refuting a minority is easy, but he suggested it was "a waste of my time to submit a paper to peer review refuting a bunch of amateurish drivel"[19].
  • Another editor has commented on the Wolf effect, which also noted that it is a redshift,[20]
  • I've never resorted to "I want it in". I've always started with peer reviewed sources, and have attempted to describe them. ScienceApologist on the other hand continues to provide personal reasons for not including an item, and has rarely provided a source. --Iantresman 16:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Peer review sources are not going to be available for a claim that quasars might not be at cosmological distances which definitely contradicts the mainstream model. Observations are manifestly not consistent with this proposal. --ScienceApologist 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Extragalactic astronomers do not spend much time studying alternative redshift theories"[21]. I think that is closer to the truth, and hardly implies a consensus dismissing any aspect of the Wolf effect. --Iantresman 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Because they don't bother with such fringe machinations. --ScienceApologist 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know anything specific about the Wolf effect, but I can apply my expertise on general extragalactic astronomy. Generally, the standard explanation for QSO redshifts is that they are located at large distances. They appear to have high redshifts because they are moving with the expansion of the universe. Alternative redshift explanations, such as the Wolf effect, are generally not studied by mainstream professional astronomers. Would an advanced astronomy textbook (Binney & Merrifield's Galactic Astronomy, or Peebles's Observational Cosmology) be an acceptable reference to demonstrate the mainstream astronomy viewpoint on QSO redshifts? (Part of the problem is that the cosmological interpretation of redshifts is so widely accepted that no one writes papers on it anymore. Scientific journals would treat this as "common knowledge" and would not require any references.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute about quasar redshifts, and the Wolf effect has not been used to suggest that "quasars might not be at cosmological distances" (unless ScienceApologist has a source verifying his statement). What some researchers of the Wolf effect have said is in the last quote of the article:
"we note the possibility that correlation-induced spectral shifts may contribute to the shifts observed in the spectra of some astronomical objects such as quasars"[22]
James also writes:
".. our results do demonstrate the plausibility of the existence of extra-galactic objects with discordant redshifts due to well established physical phenomena.
"It should be emphasized that our theory is based entirely on established principles of optics: no hypothetical new physics was introduced. Furthermore, certain aspects of the underlying phenomenon, the Wolf effect, have been tested extensively in the laboratory."[23] --Iantresman 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not following this conversation, so I will just say this: The article gives undue wait to a minority point of view. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the conventional interpretation of redshifts for this article to meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I will now step out of the conversation. Dr. Submillimeter 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite with you. Do you mean the entire article is a minority point of view, or which specific points? --Iantresman 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Since Dr. Submm has stepped out of the conversation, allow me to step in. The specific points that are from a minority POV are the points in the article about quasars. --ScienceApologist 22:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That quasars might not be at cosmological distances? --Iantresman 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Or that quasars have intrinsic redshift components. --ScienceApologist 22:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Round we go again. Circular arguments, guys. So, go back to good old-fashioned treeware. It sounds to me as if this was briefly discussed in the sources when it was first mooted? If so we can cite the treeware. It's rare, in my experience, for the world of science to dismiss something which is espoused by a prominent adherent, with no discussion whatsoever. Remember Eric Laithwaite and his silly idea about gyroscopes? Discussed, dismissed, but I'm sure some references were generated along the way. You have, I believe, access to university libraries? Or JSTOR? Let's be creative here. Just because it was done and dusted ages ago does not mean we can't verify somehow what went on back then, surely? Guy (Help!) 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This particular effect was not precisely discussed and neither were "intrinsic redshifts" in the normal sense. Arp proposed "intrinsic redshifts" as a tandem to tired light, so perhaps we can use the tired light rebuttals in this article (even though the Wolf Effect is manifestly not tired light). No one paid attention to the points raised. If you do a citation search on the Wolf/James/Roy articles you find no reference to the points considered regarding quasars and the Wolf Effect. These proposals bascially came too late for anyone to take notice except the fringe champions.
What we can find reference to is the consensus opinion regarding quasars. It is absolutely true that if the models scientists currently use to model quasars are correct, the Wolf Effect is not a major component in quasars spectra.
--ScienceApologist 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence (Treeware)

  • Wolf's original paper (treeware), "Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines" (1987) Nature 326: 363—365." implicitly discussed the possibility of the Wolf effect being a non-cosmological (as per the title of the paper), and he specifically mentions that "It seems plausible that the mechanism discussed in this article may be responsible for some of the so far unexplained features of quasar spectra,"
  • No one paid attention? The Smithsonian/NASA ADS Astronomy Abstract Service bibliographic record for Wolf's paper [24] shows 102 citations (treeware). My maths isn't brilliant, but rounding down 102 to zero, is not a statistical trick I'm familiar with.
  • Leaving aside textbooks on optics, we find astronomy textbooks (treeware) that mention the Wolf effect in 2002 [25], in 2000 [26], and in 2002 [27].
  • The last book by Jayant Narlikar's "An Introduction to Cosmology" includes the Wolf effect on page 507, and is a text book used at:
  • University of Wisconsin,[28]
  • Berkeley University, [29]
  • MTU's course on Galactic Astrophysics [30]
  • Columbia University's course on Physical Cosmology, [31]
  • Rice University's course on Astrophysics [32]
  • The Institute for Astronomy at the University of Hawaii, course on Cosmology [33]
  • University of Virginia Department of Astronomy, course on Extragalactic Astronomy [34]
  • University of California's Physics Booklist: Recommendations, [35]
  • Duke University's course, Introduction to Astrophysics, [36]
  • Plus many more.
  • So the evidence seems to show that Wolf's original peer reviewed paper on the Wolf effect and non-cosmological and quasar association, was cited over 100 times, and the Wolf effect is mentioned in astronomy text books, and suggested for use in current University courses. --Iantresman 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Solutions

  • To ensure there is balance, we can begin any contentious information with, for example:
  • In additional to the generally accepted cause of redshift, the Wolf effect is consider a new mechanism...
  • Contrary to the generally accepted model of quasars, the Wolf effect has been proposed as...
  • This provides (a) balance (b) makes it clear what the consensus view is, (c) Is factually accurate. (d) Allows the reader to find out more about the consensus in as much detail as is described elsewhere.
  • And likewise in the articles on redshift and quasars, we can say that "The Wolf effect has been considered a new mechanism by physics researchers working in optics, describing it as a "non-cosmological redshift", with possible application to quasars spectra". --Iantresman 09:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Disagree with nearly every piece of evidence Ian has put forth. I'll note that Ian's major problem is that he is a bean-counter, not a researcher. "102 references!" he declares, but doesn't read a single one. Perhaps Ian has forgotten that in order to serve as a reference, the work cited needs to actually deal with the subject at hand.
The solutions Ian outlines are wholly unacceptable. The Wolf Effect is not considered a new mechanism by those who model quasars. The Wolf Effect has not been "proposed" in a formal sense for quasar modeling. And I'm just about ready to remove the Wolf Effect mentioned in the redshift article due to undue weight. --ScienceApologist 13:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "bean-counter, not a researcher" -- Yet another ad hominem, and against the findings of the Arbitration case.[37]
  • What you're basically saying is that those who model quasars have the ultimate authority over what is significant, and no-one else's view counts... including other professors, and physics researchers in optics, and no amount of verifiable reliable sources matter. (NPOV: "All significant views published in reliable sources")
  • I note that you still haven't provided ONE source to support your position. --Iantresman 14:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Those who model quasars have the ultimate authority over what is significant --> yep. That's right. I'm not budging from that position either. --ScienceApologist 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not followed the above discussion, but this sounds so obviously like a mistake to me that I nevertheless take the liberty to comment on this as well as on another suggestion above.
Advocating of opinions should not be confused with neutral judgment of significance, a claim that no journal article can pretend to fulfill. And neither would, if I understand it well, "the Wolf effect is considered a new mechanism..." be accurate, as that would suggest that it is being considered by a large group of people. Harald88 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the inactivity this week, I have sung in three concerts in eight days (a lot of preparation involved). I will come back to this later today. Ian, I have had a quick read through the above, but I have to note that you appear to be slipstreaming the verifiability of the Wolf effect (not in doubt) with the verifiability of its being described as a redshift (which seems to be a pet theory of a very small number of people). It woudl help if you could list all the significant exponents of the theory that it is a redshift. Also the diagram is highly problematic, for reasons previously stated; it positions the supposed shift arbitrarily. We need to discuss what to do about that.
My first impression here is that redshift should not be in the main body of the article, but there could perhaps be a small additional paragraph or maybe section stating that those who oppose the mainstream big Bang theory have used Wolf effect as a means of explaining the observed redshift of distant objects. Context is all here. I do not know how SA would react to a para stating up front that it is Big Bang holdouts who propose this view, I think that Big Bang (and its degree of mainstream acceptance) is well enough understood by the lay audience for this to ensure nobody is misled into thinking it has wider support than it does. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)`

Verifiable sources describing the Wolf effect as a redshift

Papers

  • "Non-cosmological redshifts of spectral lines" (1987) (102 citations). ".. we demonstrate that under certain circumstances the modification of the normalized spectrum of the emitted light caused by the correlations between the source fluctuations within the source region can produce redshifts of spectral lines in the emitted light."
  • "Observation of frequency shifts of spectral lines due to source correlations" (1987) (39 citations. Bocko, Mark F. et al. "Wolf (1986) has recently shown that the spectrum of radiation from an extended source changes on propagation unless a certain scaling condition is obeyed by the degree of spectral coherence across the source. For a large class of source-coherence functions, the change may be such as to produce red shifts or blue shifts of spectral lines"
  • "Doppler-like Frequency Shifts Generated By Dynamic Scattering" (1990) (28 citations) (Full text) Daniel F.V. James A and Emil Wolf. ".. it was predicted theoretically that suitable source correlations can cause redshifts or blueshifts of spectral lines [..] they are frequency independent and they can generate redshifts or blueshifts of any magnitude.
  • "The Wolf effect and the redshift of quasars" (1998) Prof. Daniel F V James (Full text). See the section "Spectral shifts and cosmology". "In this section we will give a brief and non-exhaustive description of different physical phenomena which can give rise to shifts in the central frequency of a spectral line [..] Possibly the most famous physical phenomenon which can produce spectral shifts is the Doppler effect. [..] Another important type of spectral shift is the gravitational shift discovered by Einstein [..] To these possibilities, we now add the Wolf effect [..] In the following section we discuss a model of a quasar which displays a redshift of its spectral lines due to this effect.
  • "Shift Of Spectral Lines Due To Dynamic Multiple Scattering And Screening Effect: Implications For Discordant Redshifts" (1999) (Full text), Roy, Sisir et al. "The Wolf effect on the other hand deals with correlation induced spectral changes and explains both the broadening and shift of the spectral lines. In this framework a sufficient condition for redshift has been derived and when applicable the shift is shown to be larger than broadening."
  • "The field surrounding NGC 7603: cosmological or non-cosmological redshifts?" (2004) (9 citations) (Full text) M. López-Corredoira1 and C. M. Gutiérrez. "Dynamic multiple scattering has been also proposed to explain these systems. Results in statistical optics (Wolf 1986; Datta, Roy & Moles 1998a, b) show that a shift in the frequency of spectral lines is produced with redshift independent of the frequency when the light passes through a turbulent (or inhomogeneous) medium, because of multiple scattering effects (Roy et al. 2000)."

Textbooks (Tertiary sources)

  • The Universe: Visions and Perspectives (Kluwer, 2000) Prashanta Kumar Das, "The spectral coherence effect (Wolf 1986, 1987), which can give rise to both blueshifts and redshifts..."[38]
  • Gravitation and Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale (Kluwer, 2002) Roy and Datta, ".. this new mechanism for redshift .. proposed by E. Wolf in the mid-eighties [Wolf 1987] that has no connection with relative motion and gravitation" [39]
  • Physics Before and After Einstein (2005) edited by M. Mamone Capria, ""A New Optical Redshift Mechanism .. An important discovery made in 1986 that its finder calls correlation-induced spectral changes .. by Emil Wolf, professor of optical physics at the University of Rochester, and generally appears to have been ignored or incorrectly explained. .. According to Wolf's theory, in some well-defined circumstances, one may generate "shifts of spectral lines which are indistinguishable from those that would be produced by the Doppler effect" .. those theoretical predictions were subsequently verified by experiments conducted by two of Wolf's colleagues G.M. Morris and D.Falkis",[40]


  • The very first paper by Emil Wolf described the effect as a "redshift" and has been cited over 100 times. The confirmation of the effect in the laboratory by Mark Bocko also describes the effect as a redshift, and has been cited 39 times.
  • When Prof. Dan James (an expert in the field, Associate Professor of Theoretical Optical Physics and Quantum Information) visited the article on Redshift, he also confirmed that the Wolf effect is a redshift,[41]
  • The person who predicted the Wolf effect, the person who confirmed the Wolf effect in the laboratory, experts in the field, peer reviewed papers, and tertiary sources, and recent textbooks, all describe the Wolf effect as a redshift.
  • I am not aware of any papers disputing the description of the Wolf effect as a redshift, or a "new redshift mechanism". The only suggestion that the Wolf effect is not a redshift, is from ScienceApologist himself... there is no verifiable evidence whatsoever, suggesting otherwise. None. --Iantresman 14:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ian, pointedly marking every instance of redshift or red shift in bold and red is stepping very close to the boundaries of disruption. This is not the place for hysterical advocacy, as you should by now have realised. As you are also well aware, there is a massive difference between stating that the Wolf effect is a shift towards red (or blue, depending on observer position), and asserting that it is an explanation for the observed redshift of distant objects. That it is a shift mechanism is not disputed; that it will shift towards red for objects viewed head-on is also not in dispute. The article mentions both these facts. That it is the mechanism for redshift, or a generic mechanism by which the observed cosmological resifts may be explained away without recourse to expanding universe, is a view held by very, very few people as far as I can tell. If you want the article to say that it is proposed as an anything other than an explanation for some discordant redshifts (which is the conclusion generally drawn from the papers you cite, as far as I can tell) then you need to identify those who make this claim, and the papers in which they make it. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought that by highlighting the word "redshift" in red would make it easier to locate the relevant part of the quote. I have now removed them. I'm sorry if you felt that this was "hysterical advocacy", but you had written that I "appear to be slipstreaming the verifiability of the Wolf effect (not in doubt) with the verifiability of its being described as a redshift", so I felt it necessary to include some verifiable quotes.
  • I think there is a massive misunderstanding. No where have I mentioned or suggested, nor do any of the quotes support, that the Wolf effect is:
  • ".. the [only] observed redshift of distant objects."
  • .. "the mechanism for redshift".
  • ".. a generic mechanism by which the observed cosmological redshifts may be explained away".
  • No one is disputing the Cosmological redshift, nor has anyone disputed an expanding universe. This is why Wolf and others have described the Wolf effect as "Doppler like", and in this sense it is described as a redshift, just as the optical Doppler effect is described as redshift.
  • As Wolf and James clarify: ".. we note the possibility that correlation-induced spectral shifts may contribute to the shifts observed in the spectra of some astronomical objects such as quasars."[42] (My emphasis)
  • This views is both verifiable, and shared by many physics researchers in optics, as demonstrated by my wide range of sources. --Iantresman 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
What "physics researcher in optics" other than Wolf, James, and Roy's group claims that the Wolf Effect may contribute to the shifts observed in the spectra of some astronomical objects such as quasars? --ScienceApologist 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ian, as you must know, the problem here is with those who seek to use Wolf as a way of talking around expanding universe. The cited papers do not, to me, look as if they propose it as an explanation of anything other than a few puzzling exceptions to the generally accepted and consistent evidence of expanding universe. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The Wolf effect has NOTHING to do with whether the Universe is expanding or not. The article has contained NOTHING which mentions an expanding universe, nor implied any connection with an expanding universe.
  • I have not misrepresented any aspect of the Wolf effect in the article, and have correctly sourced EVERY most statement, and given correct attribution where appropriate.
  • The verifiable fact remains, that that Wolf effect is described as a redshift, (also a Doppler-like redshift, and non-cosmological redshift). This does not imply anything to do with Cosmology.
  • Some physics researchers in optics have suggested an association with quasars, and all statements to this effect have been correctly attributed. --Iantresman 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for jumping in (I really have no time to read all this), but I noticed in the past that ScienceApologist has a tendency to interpret everything in terms of Big Bang Cosmology debates about which he has a very marked POV. The Wolf effect however seems to be foremost an established effect of physics, so that for sure it does not depend on cosmology. Harald88 18:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
What is the disputed sentence? A copy of it would be useful, thanks. Harald88 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

  • "The Wolf effect .. has been described as a new redshift mechanism"
  • For references, specifically to "redshift mechanism" see the section above, "A new redshift mechanism"[43])
  • For references to the Wolf effect being described as a "redshift", see the section above, "Verifiable sources describing the Wolf effect as a redshift"[44] --Iantresman 18:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The question is, does such a characterization (as a new "redshift mechanism") give undue weight to the interpretation associated with most "redshifts"? The second question is, why can't we simply call it a "frequency shift"? --ScienceApologist 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The Wolf effect is described as a redshift by numerous sources, including textbooks. This exceeds Undue weight with ease.
  • While all redshifts are "frequency shifts", not all "frequency shifts" are redshifts. Calling it simply a "frequency shift" is inaccurate and hence misleading.
  • Describing the Wolf effect as a redshift is verifiable, supported by numerous sources, and is accurate. --Iantresman 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Ian, I would say that all frequency shifts are redshifts as long as they shift to lower frequencies. Do you disagree? I would say that characterizing the Wolf Effect as an "alternative redshift mechanism" will lead some readers into thinking that it is an alternative explanation for the redshift of astrophysical objects. Do you disagree? --ScienceApologist 20:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • All frequency shifts to lower frequency, tell us that individual spectral lines are redshifted, but it does not necessarily imply a redshift. In other words, it does not tell us whether the frequency shifts are frequency independent.
  • Undoubtedly some readers will incorrectly think that the Wolf effect is an alternative explanation of some astronomical objects. But as editors, we can explain this misconception; that is our job. Omitting this information does not resolve the dilemma.
  • But if we exclude this information, by the same logic, readers may incorrectly think that Wolf effect is not an alternative redshift mechanism.
  • As for whether the Wolf effect explains the redshift of astronomical objects (a different issue), sources confirm that some researchers in optics have suggested that the Wolf effect as possibly contributing some proportion of redshift to some objects (verifiable). Most astronomers consider other causes for the redshift of astronomical objects which are described elsewhere. --Iantresman 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Hmm... I don't see a proposal to call it "alternative, and this disagreement is not as clear-cut as I first thought. OK here my suggestion. The references for that sentence are conference proceedings and so on; and I now found that it was part of the very first sentence of the article [45].
The article in the Astrophysical journal shows that it is fair to include that assertion in the lead section - but that is apparently not what the disagreement is about.
Thus to me the first question would be, what phrase would best summarize the topic, assuming that the article gives a good sketch of the topic in view of peer reviewed articles. From the Astrophysical journal article it appears that an important feature is that it is a newly discovered mechanism for astronomical redshifts.
A simple (and standard Wikipedia) way to discern what would be the most suitable characterization according to the sources, is to count the occurrences of the terms in the referenced peer reviewed articles; the descriptor that looses out could then appear as clarification in a following sentence. Harald88 21:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to this paper from Astrophysic Journal? From what I can gather, they discuss:
  • Several "new closely related processes have been discovered that can generate frequency shifts of spectral lines."
  • "this effect may contribute toward the redshifts observed in the spectra of some astronomical objects." --Iantresman 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the most common characteristics of the Wolf effect are that it (a) produces frequency shifts (b) it may mimic the Doppler effect (c) has been described as a redshift (d) has been described as a Doppler-like, or non-cosmological redshift (e) That it has been described as a new redshift mechanism (f) That some have suggested that it may possibly contribute some proportion of redshift to some astronomical objects such as quasars. --Iantresman 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Im meant the article that is in the references, it looks like that one yes. However, "new" is not appropropriate for Wikipedia, it should be either left out or be replaced by the date (year) that it was proposed, as Wikipedia articles are meant to last and 1990 or so isn't so new anymore.
Is there any disagreement over the current phrasing of the lead of the article? Harald88 11:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As one not overly familiar with the subject other than what I've read during these debates, I'd say the lead is just fine.
I have a problem with the disputed paragraph. Has been described is insufficiently specific. We need to distinguish between those who accept that it is a possible explanation for discordant redshift (which seems relatively uncontroversial) and those who propose something much wider. So if we are going to include text along those lines, it should be to the effect that (named) proponents of non-standard cosmologies have siezed on this as a way of explaining the observed redshift in distant bodies, but that this is not accepted outside of that closed group. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There is the additional problem that "discordant redshifts" may, in fact, not exist. --ScienceApologist 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There are two issues here:
  • (1) That the Wolf effect is described as a redshift. The number of verifiable reliable sources is overwhelming. Indeed, there is no doubt that it has been described as a redshift. And no sources have been provided disputing this.
  • (2) That the Wolf effect has been proposed to explain discordant redshifts, is proposed by some researchers in optics as a possible contribution to a proportion of the redshift of certain astronomical objects such as quasars. When this description has been included in the article, it has always been attributed.
  • Regarding: "discordant redshifts" may, in fact, not exist... There is an additional problem here that "discordant redshifts" may, in fact, really exist!!!! Both these statements are pure speculation, and does not require us to find out the unobtainable truth before we comment. It is verifiable that "discordant redshifts" have been reported, but to suggest that they don't exist requires a presumption that no one else in science is currently aware. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth,[46] nor whether you personally believe it, or accept it. --Iantresman 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the scientific community ignores and actively derides a lot of Arp, "discordant redshifts" are not a mainstream consideration. It cannot be stated as simple fact that they exist. Incredible caveats need to be made so that readers realize that the vast majority of astronomers do not believe there are discordant redshifts. --ScienceApologist 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • [Outdented] Let's not get side-tracked and mix-up two different statements. The Wolf effect is described as a redshift. For the umpteenth time, it is verifiable in numerous sources, and I am aware of no sources disputing it. We'll worry about the application of Wolf effect later.
  • The disputed sentence was "The Wolf effect .. has been described as a new redshift mechanism". This has NOTHING to do with quasars, discordant redshifts, or astronomy. It is unambiguous. --Iantresman 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I reject this parsing. The only reason that anyone described the Wolf Effect as a "new redshift mechanism" was in consort with it being associated with so-called "discordant" quasar redshifts. If you can find a reference that describes the Wolf Effect as a new redshift mechanism without invoking the quasar argument, I'll concede the point. Otherwise, I'll ask you to concede the point. --ScienceApologist 01:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Where do you get these ideas from? Why should we reject the verifiable description of the Wolf effect as a redshift, because some have also proposed it may be relevant to quasars, or an astronomical context?
  • Nowhere does Wolf suggest that they use of the term "redshift" was selected because of the association with quasars or discordant redshift. The Wolf effect is described as a redshift because it is a frequency independent spectral shift, like the Doppler redshift. Period. This is verifiable.
  • Read the article on Redshift... "..these mechanisms produces a Doppler-like redshift, meaning that z is independent of wavelength." That is why the Wolf effect is described as a redshift. It may even apply to a single photon in free space. This is all verifiable.
  • The relevance of the Wolf effect to quasars is completely independent of its description as a redshift.
  • The following verifiable sources described the Wolf effect as a redshift, and make no mention of quasars:

Whoa! Shitty research ahoy! But in all seriousness, Ian, your first two references are not about the Wolf Effect but rather about scattering and the last resource mentions the Wolf Effect as being explicitly independent of the "red shift" associated with the expansion of the universe and only applicable in scattering media. So try again. --ScienceApologist 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I am not "trying" again. I have produced the verifiable sources describing the Wolf effect as a redshift.
  • First you said the Wolf effect was not a redshift, and both verifiable sources [47] and experts [48] in the field contradicted you.
  • Then you claimed undue weight, except that the number of sources, both peer reviewed and tertiary sources, contradicted you again.
  • Then you suggest that describing the Wolf effect as a redshift "will lead some readers into thinking that it is an alternative explanation for the redshift of astrophysical objects".[49]
  • And now you personally require disassociation of one description of the Wolf effect, from another issue.
  • You are the only editor on Wikipedia who disputes that the Wolf effect is a redshift, and you are not prepared or are unable to produce any kinds of source, reliable or otherwise, to back up your personal opinion. As far as I can tell, you are the only person on the planet making this stand.
  • This makes your view "original research" (you have no sources of any kind), and your are the smallest, tiniest, add most extreme minority (ie. one individual) there is for a viewpoint.--Iantresman 11:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So you can't find a source that disambiguates the new redshift mechanism from quasar discussions and now I'm the one doing "original research"? I guess that's what passes for cogent analysis in your catastrophic society. However, that's not going to cut it in the process of writing an encyclopedia. I await your response to my point that the arguments in favor of characterizing the Wolf Effect as a "new redshift mechanism" are being done independent of quasar controversies of the 1970s. --ScienceApologist 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Again, your association of the Wolf effect and the "quasar controversies of the 1970" is a personal opinion, as is your description of it in the article, as you have provided no sources.
  • I had provided a verifiable source describing this from Wolf and James,[50], but you removed it, and substituted your own unverifiable view.
  • Wolf's original paper, "Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines" (1987) Nature 326: 363—365, mentions quasars once in the introductory paragraph, and twice the penultimate paragraph. The rest of the paper mentions redshifts several times, with no prerequisite, nor requirement, nor association with quasars.
  • You can't take away the description of the Wolf effect as a redshift, just because it is subsequently suggested that there MIGHT be a connection. --Iantresman 12:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's okay that Wolf was wrong about quasars. We can describe the Wolf Effect without focusing so much on these points. Calling it a frequency shift and explaining that some researchrers thought it might explain what they thought were discordant redshifts works well. --ScienceApologist 13:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, we don't know if Wolf if wrong about quasars. We do know that most astronomers consider the redshift of quasars to be due to other factors; that is not the same thing. Consensus does not decide theory. And I am not aware of any papers which have falsified, or even disputed Wolf effect in association with quasars.
  • That the Wolf effect is a redshift is one of it primary characteristics.
  • I agree that the suggested implication for quasars is secondary, and a minority view, and should be described as such. --Iantresman 14:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is redshift is not a primary characteristic? As far as I can tell it would appear that it could shift in either direction depending on the relative positions of observer and sources. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the Wolf effect may characteristically produce a Doppler-like frequency-independent shift, and this may be either a redshift or blueshift (though sometimes it produces a redshift-only shift.). This is what distinguishes the Wolf effect from other frequency shifting mechanisms (ie. many types of scattering), which are not frequency independent. --Iantresman 14:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This paper mentions the Wolf effect, that it produces redshifts, and makes no mention of quasars or astronomical objects: "Generation of a class of partially coherent sources with controlled correlation" (1991) Faklis et al.:

[Wolf] ".. proved that an appropriately correlated source can give rise to red shifts and blue shifts of the emitted light with respect to an uncorrelated source. [..] Knox and Knox [4] performed experiments based on Wolf's model in the optical region and also showed excellent agreement with the theory."

--Iantresman 23:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As I discussed with User:Flying Jazz before, such a description of "red shift" is closer to the bathochromic idealization rather than the astrophysical idealization. --ScienceApologist 15:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of NO sources suggesting that the Wolf effect is more like a bathochromic shift. You and User:Flying Jazz are not verifiable sources. All the sources I have provided say that it is a Doppler-like redshift. --Iantresman 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the article is fine by defining it as a frequency shift (because it is) in the first line. Later on in the paragraph, it is linked to redshift possibilities in quasars. I think it is accurate as is. ABlake 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As has been pointed out above, suggesting the Wolf effect as a possible contributing redshift in quasars is a notable minority view, that is not widely accepted by most cosmologists.
  • On the other hand, the Wolf effect's description as a general redshift, is widely accepted, and is more descriptive than just a "frequency shift" which is common to many other scattering mechanisms that are criticized for not being able to produce a Doppler-like redshift.
  • Many papers discussing the Wolf effect describe it has a redshift. That the article does not reflect this is misleading of the general world view, just as it would be if we described the Doppler redshift as only a Doppler shift. --Iantresman 22:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You assert that its description as a general redshift is widely accepted. I don't see any evidence of that. The word general is highly questionable in that assertion; I only see a very small number of people (mainly expanding universe holdouts) who hold that it is a general redshift in the sense that anybody reading the article is likely to understand it. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Misleading statement

While most astronomers consider other mechanisms being responsible for the redshift of astronomical objects, the similarity to the Doppler effect has led the Wolf effect being described as a "redshift".

ScienceApologist, you described this as "misleading", and I wonder if you would explain? --Iantresman 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Because it's only described as such by one person? ;-) Guy (Help!) 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The Wolf effect being described as a redshift is verifiable to many sources, see the section above, "Verifiable sources describing the Wolf effect as a redshift". I gave six verifiable reliable sources and three tertiary sources. It's also been verifiable in the laboratory.
  • Additionally there is no verifiable reliable source disputing that the Wolf effect is a redshift.
  • So where is the "misleading" --Iantresman 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's in the way you try to portray it. The article already says that it is seen by some as a possible explanation for certain discordant redshifts, and it also already says that it is a frequency shift, as well as explaining that from our perspective as observers it will shift to red. To move from that to the assertion that it is sometimes described as a redshift appears to be designed to support an agenda, which agenda we all, I think, know about. So, please accept that your preferred wording is not acceptable for the reasons stated, and explore instead a different form of words which addresses the legitimate concerns raised. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether it is designed to support an agenda, or not, the fact remains (supported by numerous verifiable reliable sources), that the Wolf effect is called a "redshift". I can find no sources that hint of a agenda, and even if it did, that is no reason to exclude it. --Iantresman 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all the sources are misleading in portraying the Wolf effect as a redshift? --Iantresman 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm going to say (again) that the article already covers that view. It says that it is seen as a possible explanation of discordant redshifts, and that it's a frequency shift which we will observe as being towards red. That is neutral and fine by me. Perhaps, instead of repeatedly asking for a form of words which others find problematic, you could state why you consider the current wording problematic in this respect? Guy (Help!) 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As has been pointed out above, suggesting the Wolf effect as a possible contributing redshift in quasars is a notable minority view, that is not widely accepted by most cosmologists.
  • On the other hand, the Wolf effect's description as a general redshift, is widely accepted, and is more descriptive than just a "frequency shift" which is common to many other scattering mechanisms that are criticized for not being able to produce a Doppler-like redshift.
  • Many papers discussing the Wolf effect describe it has a redshift. That the article does not reflect this is misleading of the general world view, just as it would be if we described the Doppler redshift as only a Doppler shift. --Iantresman 00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You call it a "notable minority view", so if we discuss it as such it should be in precisely those terms, ideally attributing it to named individuals. But that is an aside. What precisely is your problem with the way the article is now worded? It describes it as a frequency shift, notes that from our perspective as observers it will appear to be towards read, and comments that it is advanced as a possible explanation for discordant redshifts. What is wrong with that, exactly? Guy (Help!) 08:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My criticism with current wording is that:
  • (a) the Wolf effect is more than just a frequency shift. This distinguishes it from, for example, Brillouin scattering and Raman scattering, both for which will also produce frequency shifts, but they are not simple, producing a triplet in the case of Brillouin scattering, multiplets in the case of Raman scattering.[51]
  • (b) The literature describes the Wolf effect as a redshift, from Wolf's original paper,[52], to Bocko, et al, who demonstrated the Wolf effect in the laboratory,[53], to the other sources I provided above,[54]
  • If the experts in the field describe the Wolf effect as a redshift, primary sources describe the Wolf effect as a redshift, textbooks describe the Wolf effect as a redshift, then it seems to me that the world views is that the Wolf effect is redshift, and should be described as such.
  • Since there is only one person on the planet trying to describe the Wolf effect as anything but a redshift, has produced no reliable sources indicating why we should use his description, has produced no sources indicating there is any kind of controversy, issue, dispute or refutations, this view is clearly subjective, and bordering on original research as defined by Wikipedia.
  • The question to ask is not "why should the Wolf effect be described as it is in the literature (ie. as a redshift)", but on what reliable sources does ScienceApologist base his view that the Wolf effect should be described differently from that in the literature. --Iantresman 10:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What is a redshift if not a frequency shift? We already say it is a redshift mechanism, in fact we say it's seen by some as an explanation for discordant redshifts, which is even more specific and thus more accurate. You are the one seeking to include content, therefore the onus is on you to justify that content. So far all you've done is to repeat the argument which was unpersuasive first time. You know perfectly well what the problem is here, and you are not addressing it. I would not object (and I suspect that SA would not either) to a form of woirds stating that certain named individuals have interpreted it more widely, but there is no credible evidence that this is accepted a sa generic explanation of redshift, only that it's accepted as an explanation for certain redshifts which are otherwise puzzling. The scientific method being what it is, a generally valid theory with minor exceptions tends over time to attract credible explanations for those minor exceptions, and that appears to be what has happened here. It's useless pretending that you are not trying to portray this as being more generally applicable than the mainstream view would endorse, and that's not going to happen, so you need to come up with a form of words that others can endorse. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have never said that those people who are familiar with redshift, generally accept the Wolf effect. I have some sources from some cosmologists and astronomers who comment on it, but none are negative, dismissive, or even critical. I suspect that the vast majority of cosmologists have never even heard of the Wolf effect, but that is speculation.
  • I have consistently said, that the Wolf effect is described as a redshift, and is generally accepted as such by those who express an opinion (ie. the sources). As a phenomenon in optics, experts in optics have consistently described the Wolf effect as a redshift.
  • I think I can explain the fallacy of the argument by analogy.
  • 55m British claim that cricket is a mainstream sport (lots of reliable sources)
  • 1000m Chinese would probably claim that it's not. (No sources)
  • Cricket is still mainstream, regardless of what the Chinese might have to say. And although cricket is generally not mentioned, let alone played in China, it doesn't mean that it's not.[55][56][57]
  • We could make the same analogy with baseball and the "World" series.
  • In Britain, cricket is a mainstream sport.
  • In radiation physics, the Wolf effect is described as a redshift. --Iantresman 12:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor analogy. A better analogy would be some Cricket club plays cricket with a rule variation that is not recognized by the ICC or other clubs where third man is called fine leg despite being on the off side. On the page devoted to this rule variation, an editor wants to describe it as such since all the sources who discuss this agree that third man functions similar to fine leg or even calls third man fine leg. Just because everyone else ignores the distinction and even though it may be an arbitrary one, it is not okay to simple state that it is fine leg. --ScienceApologist 15:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • And round we go again. So: Ian, the text you suggest is rejected by several editors as being likely to mislead and/or give undue weight to a minority position. That is a plausible contention. You are not going to get that text in the article, based on the opposition stated here, so it's time to think about how it could be represented - right now the non-standard cosmologists are pretty much completely out of the article, that presents no pressing problem for NPOV since their views are of no demonstrable wider relevance, but you want to talk about their view of the Wolf effect in this article and I for one am prepared to countenance talking about it provided you can find a form of words which is not going to be considered as giving undue weight to a tiny minority view. One way would be to start off by naming those who represent this as a widespread redshift mechanism. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The text describing the Wolf effect as a redshift does not mislead because it is verifiably accurate, and an accurate representation of those who describe the Wolf effect. This is generally accepted by those physicists who research optics. It is not a minority view. There is NO ONE who disputes this except ScienceApologist, and perhaps yourself.
  • If I was to describe the Wolf effect as an "alternative astronomical redshift", then you'd be spot on with your assessment, as I only have a small number of reliable sources supporting this view (and have attributed this view where appropriate).
  • While we're attributing views, why don't you or ScienceApologist provide ONE reliable source that suggests, hints, rumours, guesses, hypothesises, or even speculates, that ANY problem, with the Wolf effect. THAT is an extreme minority view. --Iantresman 17:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In other words you are absolutely insistent on your form of words, which has been rejected by other editors as likely to mislead, with credible grounds given. Absent some alternate form of words acceptable to you, what you will get, then, is no reference to the plasma crown in this article. Since that's a vanishingly small minority opinion, I have no problem with it, maybe you will. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolf_effect/Archive_1&oldid=791795991"