Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-19 Talk at Redshift

Mediation: 2006-03-19 Talk at Redshift

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Flying Jazz 19:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Redshift

Who's involved?

User:Iantresman, User:ScienceApologist, Me (User:Flying Jazz).

What's going on?

One user, Iantresman, engages in five types of behavior in the talk pages that are disruptive and prevent others from engaging in reasonable debate.

1) Iantresman misrepresents what others have said on Wikipedia. This damages the community and the talk space becomes a comedy of misunderstandings rather than maintaining focus on the article.

2) Iantresman misrepresents what others have said off Wikipedia. This is damaging to the article because the misrepresentations are believed and sway opinions in content disputes. This happens most often when Ian says "There are 40 (or 100 or 200) articles that support my point" when in actuality, a brief look at a sample of those articles shows that they only use the same keywords that are contained in his point, and often the articles disagree with him.

3) Iantresman replies at length in the talk space to posts that are not addressed to him or to his opinions. This prevents consensus and true conversation from taking place among multiple editors.

4) Iantresman repeats the same arguments and fills the talk page with lengthy lists even after the argument has been concluded and consensus reached. This prevents other editors from focusing on specific issues under discussion about the article. In particular, the arguments he made during a request for comments continue to be made months after the RfC ended.

5) Iantresman and ScienceApologist repeatedly engage in very long and repetitive debate on this talk page that is full of baiting and tangential information. Editors who hope to achieve a compromise or have a point must slog through their debate in order to reach occasional tidbits that focus on the article itself. In recent weeks, ScienceApologist has improved in this regard. Iantresman has gotten worse.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like one or more neutral opinions, not about the content itself or the content dispute, but about the behavior of both editors and Iantresman in particular. Hopefully, when this opinion is expressed, their actions on the talk page will improve and grow more article-focused, and more good editors will actually come and contribute to the disputes taking place there. I would like this talk page to stop being the Iantresman-and-ScienceApologist-show.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I prefer openness.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do

what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.

Yes

Evidence

Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

The evidence for the behaviors is on the talk page in question and on its archives.

1) Misrepresentation of opinions on Wikiepdia: Ian's request for comments brought me to the redshift talk page. Many people contributed to the RfC in complex ways, leading to big improvements in the article, including incorporation of part a of Ian's proposal. 10 days later, Ian posted this table summarizing his impression of people's position followed by the statement "Apologies if I have misrepresented anyone, it is not intentional." Changes to the table indicate what happened next. People can (and did) edit a table like this if their opinions have been misrepresented, but it's a waste of time, diverting attention away from the article. Later, the following comments were directed to Ian:

...Is there any editor other than Ian who thinks that the current discussion of scattering is inadequate, specifically that a list of scattering mechansims would be an improvement? --Art Carlson 09:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not me, for one.--Serjeant 11:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Both of these editors were initially represented in the table as agreeing with Ian's proposals. There is also this comment directed at Ian about a comment made during a Featured Article candidate nomination:

...you have been systematically misinterpreting my comments to favor your position, to such an extent that I find it difficult to maintain good faith and blame it upon miscommunication. Anville 10:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

After a lengthy exchange last month beginning here and ending here, a number of editors including myself convinced ScienceApologist that the Wolf Effect should be mentioned in this article (Ian's position). That was done by discussing the Wolf effect itself. After that exchange, another editor added a section on another effect--CREIL--to the article, and I removed it because that effect *is* scattering. After that removal, Ian and I had this exchange where all of Ian's previous positions, most of which had been rejected by consensus months before, were brought up yet again, and I was told: "Scattering effects, redshifts in a vacuum, and changes of reference, ALL CHARACTERISES redshifts, THEY ARE NOT ARBITRARY GROUND FOR THEIR INCLUSION OR SUPRESSION." and "NO weight or a single mention by phrase is derisory." It is a mischaracterization of the intent of other editors to describe the removal of content as supression or derision.

Agreement with Ian leads to statements from him like "thank you for your support" as if other editors are helping him with a campaign and disagreement leads to long lists of wikipedia policies and accusations of suppression. This leads me to believe that Iantresman misrepresents the opinions of other editors in order to always place them in the black-and-white categories of "agrees with me" or "disagrees with me." If an editor is in the former category on one issue, their opinions are misrepresented by him as if they agreed with him on other issues. If an editor disagrees on one issue, their opinions are misrepresented by him as if they are looking to suppress information. I agree with Anville's previous statement. It is difficult to maintain good faith and blame problems on miscommunication with this editor. I don't know whether the behavior is intentional, but I hope it is controllable and I hope it stops. Flying Jazz 07:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Comments by others

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Although Flying Jazz doesn't want to talk about the content, I think considerable understanding of the arcane content is often required to understand which adversary is being unreasonable at the moment. The underlying disagreement is that Ian Tresman advocates nonstandard cosmology, and ScienceApologist advocates standard cosmology, and they and others have fought at least since September. Their arguments devote thousands of words to what seems to be relatively trivial questions such as whether the words "Wolf effect" should be mentioned in the article. Sometimes it seems like they each consider the other to be so awful that they must oppose each other right or wrong. Art LaPella 05:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Intial comment from Ian Tresman

I am quite happy for mediation to go ahead. But I would appreciate a couple of specific example of each point using History Diffs, so that I can try and answer them, which I'd like to try and do in one block of text, rather a little here, a little there.

I would not be happy for Flying Jazz to mediate this particular case. While I respect his opinion, I think there would be a conflict of interest. --Iantresman 20:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my complaint #1 is supported by this initial comment. I think you misrepresent what people write because you simply don't pay attention to what they write. I will now state this explicitly. I'm not asking to be a mediator between you and ScienceApologist. I am seeking a neutral outside mediator between myself on one side representing a reasonable talk page and mostly you but also ScienceApologist (just to make this perfectly clear: together, on the other side, on the same side as each other, the opposite side from me), representing what I find to be an unreasonable talk page. I'll add specific evidence to the evidence section, if needed, once a mediator is found. Flying Jazz 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The question "Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself" is misinterpretable. Art LaPella 04:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Initial comment from ScienceApologist

I am receptive to mediation regarding talkpage reasonability. --ScienceApologist 02:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Well I have been assigned as your mediator. Let's start by trying to find places where we can agree. I would propose that:

• we agree to have civil discourse on this page
• we agree to avoid arguments about semantics
• we agree to be responsive to each other
• we agree that the purpose of the talk page is to work together to improve the article
• we agree that the purpose of the article is to represent factually the state of science in this field
• we agree that this is not the place to determine the correct theory
• we agree that our personal viewpoint is irrelevant
• we agree that not all theories are equally accepted
• we agree that each theory should be represented proportionally to its prevalence and acceptance within the scientific community
• we agree that any single citation is not definitive
• we agree that there are some theories that are not sufficiently prevalent to warrant inclusion
• we agree that there is room to present alternative theories of sufficeint merit (as alternative theories)

Let me see if we can agree on these principles before we proceed. I would very much appreciate your cooperation. I would hope that we would all end up satisfied with the eventual results. Let's start a new era of consensus building.

Are we all agreed on these principles??--Nick Y. 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

---

SA? Yes on talk page

IT? Agreeable but not definitive yes, yet. --Iantresman 08:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

FJ? Thank you for replying to my request. I agree with your bulleted points with one exception. The exception is "we agree to avoid arguments about semantics" because an encyclopedia at its heart is often about the meaning of words and how words are used. These are inherently semantic issues, so arguments about semantics will and should occur, and they can lead to improvements in articles. If you meant to avoid arguments about semantics here on the mediation page then I agree with all your bulleted points. Flying Jazz 01:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I would also like to ask that as mediator you allow me to lead the mediation. This is for the benefit of all. From your conversations I think the biggest thing you need is to keep the conversation focused. So, for example at this point I am asking for a yes answer from all. If you have a no answer concisely tell me what you disagree with and why? Do not address each other at this point. That comes later, when it can be productive.--Nick Y. 23:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, my understanding from my observations is that the two of you spend way too much time arguing about subjects that are really tangential to the article. I would like to ask each of you to summarize as concisely as possible (and yes this is an excercise in being concise as well) what the problem is with the article. Do not even refer to each other. Only the article. It seems to me that there may be a few very minor issues with the article. Be very specific AND concise. We will get to eachother's behavior etc. soon, but ignore that for now at all costs. Again do not repsond to each other or address eachother in this exercise. Also don't be afaid of overlooking some minor detail, this isn't binding.--Nick Y. 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Right now, there are no problems with the article in terms of the earlier disputes. --ScienceApologist 22:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The article focuses on redshift as applied to astronomy and cosmology, while marginalising redshift in other disciplines, and completely ignoring redshift as theorised in other areas.

For example, we learn in "Redshift mechanism" that there are only three distinct "phonton in a vacuum" mechanisms, but why do we exclude other proposed types of redshift mechanisms?

For example, the Wolf effect is described as a Doppler-like redshift (not a reddening). Not only is this peer-reviewed, it is apparently demonstrated in the laboratory, and there are reportedly over 100 papers on the subject. This is not trivial. And there are many other examples. How about theoretical (Here, Ian means "hypothetical".--ScienceApologist 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)) redshifts, such as Intrinsic redshift, or "Redshift quantization"? Again, all peer-reviewed with more than one article and more than one researcher.

Jimbo Wales himself said that "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it."[1].( Ian fails to include the next part of the quote becuase it contradicts the very next thing he writes. After this "Jimbo Wales himself" wrote: "Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether."--ScienceApologist 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)) But in some cases, we have NO view, and in other cases minority views are represented inaccurately, or reduced to a link. --Iantresman 23:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

SA - Although I think your intentions were good. Responding within Ian's statement might offend him. Also I asked you not to repsond to him, yet. With that said I would like your repsonse now. Again about the article not about Ian. Things you should address are proportion, minority views etc. Do not directly respond to Ian but address how much of these particular things should be included and why or why not. Ian be patient with me while I get SA's viewpoint.--Nick Y. 22:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)~

Redshift is a heavily-used term in physics/astronomy meant to describe a sepcific wavelength independent phenomenon associated with frame of reference transformations. There are other phenomena which may mimic superficially redshifts, but are not associated with reference frame transformations. Such phenomena are mentioned in the article as a means to help avoid confusion. Thus, radiative transfer and physical optics effects (read Wolf effect) are relegated to a section which explains that the frequency shifts of these phenomena are not generally considered redshifts by those who study the subjects.

Intrinsic redshifts, redshift quantization, and other suggestions from nonstandard cosmologies are also linked in the article through a link to nonstandard cosmologies. These viewpoints are very fringe and we risk violating undue weight to include detail explanations of them. We do have articles on the individual subjects Ian believes are not represented (which I have encouraged Ian to expand) that are linked from the nonstandard cosmologies page. A curious reader can find them there, but explanations of these out-of-the-way subjects which have an admittedly small but loyal and vocal-on-the-internet following do not belong on a page which is devoted to explaining a concept that is defined and used (for example) in almost every introductory astronomy and introductory physics class without mention of these assertions made by people who are, for whatever reason, upset with the mainstream interpretation of redshift.

--ScienceApologist 12:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediator Response

It seems that most of the problems on the talk page come primarily from Ian's insistence on including relatively non-standard uses of the word, or relatively obscure phenomenon that don't fit SA's definition of the word. In my experience SA's definition is technically correct with less common usage in a technically incorrect way not completely uncommon. It is usually clear what is ment by "redshifted" even if it is due to a frequency dependent phenomenon. I think that it is worth mentioning this usage. I think it would be most appropriate to have a small section that defines this alternative, though technically incorrect, usage and gives links to phenomenon where it has been or could be used. This should not be excessively disparaging of such use but simply point out that it is considered technically incorrect for the most part. I do not think that full inclusion of every possible explanation of redshift is helpful to the reader. Many of these issues and the issues you have been debating should be debated in the scientific literature NOT HERE. I think there is room for relatively non-mainstream ideas on redshift but they should not be included in full in the main article. Many of the issues being argued don't even represent minority viewpoints but more possibilities. I think that including a link to things such as the wolf effect in a section labeled "other possible explanations/contributions" and explaining how it might contribute in the wolf effect page should be a very full complete explanation of how the topics are linked. Remember you are editing for a reader not for yourself. Ian you should not be discouraged by this but realize that you have a great opportunity to contribute and inform people about these alternative explanations and frequency dependednt phenomenon without becoming embroiled in an argument with SA. I can guarantee you that most people that hit this page are interested in the main explanations listed. Those that are interested in alternative explanations want complete explanations not a couple sentences wedged into the main article. By separating into multiple articles I think it is more clear and useful to both readers. By trying to include everything in one article it becomes confusing. We should place priority on the reader. So there should be links galore to alternative explanations that are identified appropriately as alternatives. Again th e reader interested in these alternative can easily find what they are looking for. SA you should be generous about this. I do think that it would be best as a separate section rather than links everywhere in the main body giving an alternative to everything. The two of you should work together on accurate representation and realize that separating out the alternatives and non-standard uses are not bad but good for such non-standard uses and alternatives but most importantly GOOD FOR THE READER. I would like for your discussions to consider the impact on the reader even before accuracy. Sometimes a simple but technically incorrect explanation (followed by a correction) is better than a fully accurate explanation in one fell swoop. Your arguments should start with "I think it would be more clear if..." or "I think it would be easier for the reader to find what they are looking for if..." If the Wolf effect could be in some limited circustances frequency independent is pretty much irrelevant to the reader of this article. It might be relevant to the reader of the wolf effect article. Again please work together to find appropriate labels for the link sections for situations of this sort.

Now let us address eachother's behavior. I think the issue of content is solved. If you would like to repsond to me you may do so, but please separate it into two sections. Please be generous with eachother but state what behavoir you object to. This specifically excludes content. This is about how eachother argue not about which side of what you take. Again adress me not each other

Thanks for your consideration, it appears that you have spent quite some time going over everything. I shouldn't argue as I am pleased with the outcome. But I'd like to clariify a point; I hope this is not an "arguments about semantics".

Reponse to the mediator

Since we already do all that the mediator suggests to do in the article including the disambiguation to alternative uses, linking to alternative mechanisms through nonstandard cosmology, and explaining misconceptions, I'm convinced that abiding by your decision would mean the article stays as is. Correct? --ScienceApologist 17:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian's repsonse

I agree that the astronomical use of redshift is the most common and most accepted; but I would suggest that this does not make it "technically correct", but a "more strict" use of the term. Otherwise it implies that other uses of the term are incorrect, when that is how they use the term. I think this is important because Wiki policy examples notes that no "one group 'owns' a word and has sole authority to define it" [2]. And it does seem that the less strict use of the term is quite commmon [3] (recall that Wikipedia has not "adopted a 'scientific point of view'[4]). Here's how I see it:

Usage	Frequency Independent redshift (Strict definition)	Frequency-dependent redshift (Less strict definition)	(Non-) "redshifts" (ie. "reddending")
Most common	Doppler redshift Cosmological redshift Gravitational redshift	Brillouin scattering (Produces triplets) Raman scattering (Produces multiplets)	Rayleigh scattering
Less common (Sometimes called Non-Doppler, or non-Cosmological redshifts)	Intrinsic redshift [5] * Redshift quantization [6] * Wolf effect (radiative) (tiny shift) Other theories [7]	Wolf effect (scattering)	Bathochromic shift

• = theoretical

--Iantresman 17:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Response by Flying Jazz

Thank you for reminding us to emphasize what is best for the reader. The current article categorizes observed redshifts into broad classes--frame-shifts, bathochromic shifts, coherence effects (including Wolf effect) and scattering--so that, as far as I know every known redshift mechanism falls into one or more of these functional classes. Why is bathochromic shift separated by a disambiguation? Because, unlike everything else in the article, a bathochromic shift is about materials. Material A is changed to material B, and the result is a bathochromic shift. In other words, this one "redshift" is about chemistry that utilizes light, not about the physics of what light can do. The reader is well-served by this disambiguation.

I agree with ScienceApologist that the mediator's suggestion of a section dealing with other possible explanations/alternatives is already in the current article in the section called "Effects due to physical optics and radiative transfer." Should we divide up these usages based on perceptions of what is "common", "classical", "strict", "Doppler-like" or some other similar artificial categories, or should we divide up these usages based on the differences in the phenomena themselves? Some redshifts are due to scattering, some are due to changes in reference frame, and some are due to partial coherence effects. The second set seem to be more encyclopedic divisions that serve the reader much better than any impression about what is strict or common.

The mediator wrote "there should be links galore to alternative explanations that are identified appropriately as alternatives" and "Those that are interested in alternative explanations want complete explanations," but I don't understand how this can be done better than what we have now. If a section is titled "other possible explanations/contributions" then it begs the question "Alternative explanations for/contributions to what?"

If an experimentalist produces a redshift in the lab, there doesn't need to be an alternative explanation because the experiment was designed to produce a redshift due to a particular explanation. If the mediator meant alternative explanations for observed astrophysical redshift then my impression, even though I'm not in the astrophysics field, is that providing complete alternative explanations of observed astrophysical redshifts is not possible because, as noted in the non-standard cosmology article, no complete alternative explanations exist.

If the mediator meant alternative hypothetical explanations for astrophysical redshift then which untested, untestable, or historical hypotheses should be selected for inclusion in an article about an observable that already has a successful associated theory? I think the reader would best be served by having no unaccepted theories presented in an article about an observable that is well-explained by accepted theory. However, I would support including a link to the non-standard cosmology article so readers who are interested in alternative explanations involving cosmology can find them there.

Ian's table above concerns me and I see it as an example of behavior #4 in my list about what goes on in the talk page. Please see my post here. Flying Jazz 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response to response to mediator (ha ha)

I don't see any particular objection to your point Ian that it is simply less formal or strict. I do not think that that changes anything in terms of proportionality. I think that we can accurately characterize the "less strict usage" without giving as strong of a label as I did. I still think that although not uncommon especially in certain fields the term is used in a loose way which does not intend to overturn the strict definition but is simply used for brevity. There is nothing "wrong" with such usage however it should be clear that it is less strict and an informal usage of the term. You should not necessarily pass judgement but rather make it clear to the reader the difference. I imagine a short paragraph say something like "The term redshift is used in many fields suchs as.... in a less formal and strict sense indicating simply a decrease in frequency due to a physical phenomenon regardless of cause or frequency dependence. Examples of this usage can be found in the following articles: Link1, Link2 , Link3...." Maybe the title of the section could be "Less formal uses of the term redshift". Again this would be information useful to the reader while not being incorrect. It would point the optics reader to the the right places and educate him/her to the fact that the optics use sometimes does not conform completely to the most formal definition. Again I think that most readers that hit redshift will be looking for the astronomical usage. I think giving the less strict defintion is helpful too. SA may want to choose language which is somewhere between my "technically correct" and Ian's "less strict" to be happy. Again I do not think the article needs a lot of examples of this alternative usage explained in detail. Just a definition, examples of fields in which it is used and links to articles that use this less strict definition. A little more on it could be helpful? but not a whole lot. By the way is your graphic incorrect? I though cosmological redshift was frequency independent and Raman scattering was frequency dependent? I'm no expert? Just curious. A graphic like this might be useful in explaining what are less formal uses and what are incorrect uses.

Yes, the table headings are backwards. Art LaPella 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Now fixed. --Iantresman 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

SA- Your conclusion that the article is good as is is essentially correct. The one point that maybe you are missing is that the article is somewhat lacking in clearly presenting (and I don't mean with particularly greater proportion) the other uses. The two uses should be clearly distinguished in simple language which is both clear to the novice and correct to the expert. Yes, I do not think there needs to be much more than links for the most part to other explanations/contributions that do not fit the strict definition but more clarity could be achieved. Again the readers that do come here for the other definition should be both educated as to the difference and easily find additional information. I think they can also be well served.

I think the two of you could really make this a very good article if you focus on the reader. I think we are really close to reaching a working consensus and a path forward that is reader focused.

--Nick Y. 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another round of responses & free discussion that does not revert to the bad discussions before

As far as I know the "other uses" for "redshift" are summarized in the disambiguation at the top of the page and the final section. How is that not clear? --ScienceApologist 18:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the disambiguation page (and the "Non-standard cosmologies" page) are not "the article". In other words, the information is omitted from the article. As Jimbo Wales himself wrote: "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether" [8] And we're not talk about "singular views" as I can provide citations to multiple authors. --Iantresman 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, shouldn't have replied)

I think "free discussion" means the end of "address me not each other". Art LaPella 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you may address each other but start every paragraph with "I think it would help the reader if..." or "It would be more clear if..." AND KEEP THAT TONE. IN other word arguments about the wikipedia rules and technical details are out. (btw I just changed the title).

Bravo Ian on catching yourself. Let's try some open constructive discussion though, trying to keep the tone constructive and non-combative. SA don't you think the last section that mentions all of the other effects does not clearly distinguish these effects from the formal redshift? Don't you think it might be excessively long? Couldn't it be improved to both make it more clear that theses are not what is ment by the term redshift in the strict sense. It seems like a mismash of concessions to Ian carefully worded to deal with Ian's objections. I would like again to suggest my language above or something like it to clarify that these uses are informal and very different. On the other hand Ian don't you think that the reader interested in such subjects might be better informed by going directly to other articles rather than having some sort of half-ass explanation here. I do think there there could be some limtied broad explanation such as a discussion. SA- I don't think that it is clear to every reader that they are interested in bathocromatic shift. A small section explaining that the term is used informally to mean a shift in frequency due to many other phenomena such as... might lead them to the right place. SA - I would like to also suggest that there could be a sentence to your liking in this section that would read something like this: "This informal usage is considered by many astronomers and cosmologists to be technically incorrect but is common in many fields." I think that would be a simple concise one sentence explanation of both of your points, AND it is a fact. This would be informative to the reader. They would then know they might look like an idiot and be chastised if they use it in that way with a cosmologist but maybe not so with a optics expert. By the way I am suggesting that the last section be shorter and sweeter. SA gets the shorter, Ian gets the sweeter and it will make more sense to the reader which is teh real goal anyways. --Nick Y. 20:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask ScienceApologist for his interpretion on how Wiki policy distinguishes a "singular view" (or a "tiny view") from a "minority view", and how we can objectively assess it for any particular view. --Iantresman 20:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind.

I would like to suggest that we include the table above, with a brief mention of what is meant by the strict, non-strict and "colloquial" definitions of redshift, and perhaps a comment on "Common" vs "Non-common" usage. That way we reduce the size of the last paragraph considerably, but still retain a comparitive view of the different kinds of redshift (without having to say anything about them!); and that should include the references as footnotes. Something along the lines of:

In astronomy "redshift" has a strict definition referring to a shift in frequency that is both independent of frequency (ie. the shift is constant across the entire spectrum), and distortion free (except for known thermal and kinetic source effects). The term "redshift" may also be used with a less strict definition in which the shift is not frequency independent, and an informal use of the term is also used (see table). Scientists often refer to a spectral line as having been "redshifted", irrespective of the type of redshift causing it.

By far the most common and accepted usage of the term redshift is that applied to three types of redshift used in astronomy. Other less common types of redshift have been considered over the years, but none have reached the acceptance of the astronomical redshifts. --Iantresman 20:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the table above is confusing to readers because it makes rather poor distinctions between phenomena which are related in a variety of ways. Currently the article does a better job of explaining redshifts in a clearer way. --ScienceApologist 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I should also point out that the table is misleading because, as Ian has currently made it, it is not exhaustive and seems to lean heavily towards those "redshift mechanisms" popular with people who share Ian's POV rather than being justifiably neutral. --ScienceApologist 21:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to inquiry about the final section

SA don't you think the last section that mentions all of the other effects does not clearly distinguish these effects from the formal redshift? Don't you think it might be excessively long? Couldn't it be improved to both make it more clear that theses are not what is ment by the term redshift in the strict sense. It seems like a mismash of concessions to Ian carefully worded to deal with Ian's objections.

I might be in favor of shortening this section, but I am a bit confused by your distinction between "formal" and "informal" redshifts. "Redshift" is not an honorific term and I don't know of any source that makes a distinction between "formal" and "informal" redshifts as your proposed prose does. When a chemist calls a bathochromic shift a "redshift" they may be speaking "informally", but to focus on this is misleading. Bathochromic shifts are redshifts like any other redshift, they just aren't typically considered to be redshifts as described in most texts which define the term. Our text makes the distinction clearly by refering to vacuum, frame-dependent, single-photon effects. This allows us to be clear in our definitions. I actually like the last section right now (except I think that the Wolf Effect may feature too prominently) because it mentions plenty of phenomena which are redshifts in the most crude sense and explains their mechanisms without making any claims as to their applicability to cosmology (which is the POV issue seen in the article).

--ScienceApologist 21:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

""Redshift" is not an honorific term" - That gave me quite a chuckle. I assume you know what I ment. "but to focus on this is misleading." - I agree, as I think Ian does too. I think it is however beneficial to THE READER to be given a brief layman's explanation of how this usage differs. I would characterize such usage to be informal, considered by many to be technically incorrect but acceptable in some fields with the general meaning being clear to most everyone even if frowned on. This is useful information to the reader. This does not mean this is the focus of the article. It should be very brief. I think we should agree that this paragraph is not helpful to the expert for whom it is a rather discombobulated list and not helpful to the novice who just will not get it.

--Nick Y. 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the distinction since I don't think that there actually is a distinction between "informal" and "formal" usage. The reason that we should avoid making the distinction is because it isn't verifiable and is not used. --ScienceApologist 17:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Two uses of redshift?

The two uses should be clearly distinguished in simple language which is both clear to the novice and correct to the expert.

I actually think that claiming that there are "two uses" for redshift is misleading. There isn't. Redshift means what the article describes it as. --ScienceApologist 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

When most of these 250+ articles use the phrase "intrinsic redshift", are you saying that's its use corresponds to one of the three main astronomical redshifts?

When James and Wolf write: "We see that just in the case when the shift is due to the Doppler effect, the relative frequency shift z induced by this mechanism is independent of frequency and can take on any value in the range -1<z<[infinity], even though the source, the medium, and the observor are at rest with respect to one another." [9]. Again, does this use of redshift correspond to one of the three main astronomical redshifts? --Iantresman 22:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the article: "In physics and astronomy, redshift is an observed increase in the wavelength and decrease in the frequency of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector compared to that emitted by the source." --ScienceApologist 22:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So frequency independence is not part of the formal definition, it just one way to characterise redshift? And so redshift due to Brillouin scattering, as mentioned in the title of these two papers [10] is also consistent? --Iantresman 22:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Redshift is crudely defined as quoted in the article. There are many ways to get frequency shifts. The most commonly cited are included in the article. The less common ones are included via discussions in appropriate sections. --ScienceApologist 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

SA- I think you could agree to that some people and even some fields use redshift in an incorrect fashion?? Maybe you could agree that those people/fields that use it (incorrectly) do not see that it is incorrect? Our job is to characterize the state of what is. Not what should be. The only questions are: How common is this usage? What fields is it used in? What do they mean when they use it in this way? How disdainful are astronomers and cosmologists to this usage? I think this usage is worth mentioning but should be kept small. Be aware that by including this you are not only informing people about this uncommon (perhaps mistaken) usage but you are also educating people about what the proper use and definition is. (My language is harsh here and will need to be less judgemental, but the meaning in your eyes can remain the same.)

--Nick Y. 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that I've seen an instance where people have used "redshift" "incorrectly". Rather, I've seen people insist that redshifts can be explained by some novel phenomena which can produce frequency shifts, but are generally not referred to as redshifts in the contexts where redshift is used. This may seem to be semantic nitpicking, but I think it is important because I don't see there being "correct" and "incorrect" redshifts. --ScienceApologist 17:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bathochromic shifts

I don't think that it is clear to every reader that they are interested in bathocromatic shift. A small section explaining that the term is used informally to mean a shift in frequency due to many other phenomena such as... might lead them to the right place.

I think if someone comes to this page looking for bathochromic shift they are likely to recognize this at the start. The only references to bathochromic shifts being called "redshifts" are buried deep in chemistry literature. It is my opinion that including a section on the subject will cause more confusion than the way we currently handle the subject. --ScienceApologist 21:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What about people coming to the page looking for "redshift" that is used in areas other than the the three main astronomical redshifts, AND want to know how it is different from them? --Iantresman 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Give an example. --ScienceApologist 00:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Issues of interpersonal behavior

This impasse is a good sample of the last several months of debate over several cosmology articles. I've never been able to determine what the real uncompromisable issue is. Here, for instance, is it:
A: There is a major difference in how well the reader can understand different uses of the word "redshift" between the two versions, that is, between Ian's paragraph and table versus redshift#Effects due to physical optics and radiative transfer? Each version mentions the dread Wolf effect, for instance. Or is it
B: A is a ruse to cover for a POV issue, in this case the choice of entries in Ian's table? Or is it
C: A and B are ruses to cover for each editor's determination to teach the other a lesson by opposing his edits come hell or high water? Art LaPella 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, we all have our own points of view about what should, and should not be included. Ultimately, the reader should be left to decide, not the editors; and that means being inclusive. Including an item is not POV since any competent editor can do so in a NPOV style. And none of the views are "singular", unless ScienceApologist can tell us how we can differentiate between a "singlular view" and a "minority view" in an objective manner? --Iantresman 00:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Inclusiveness is SA's cue to recite his favorite Wikipedia policy about "undue weight". In this particular issue, what specifically isn't already included in redshift#Effects due to physical optics and radiative transfer? Is it a list of specific phenomena? I thought the Wolf effect was the main issue, and it's already there. Art LaPella 00:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have two problems with the last section (1) I think it is inaccurate in places, and doesn't provide any comparison between the three astronomical redshifts, and "other" uses of redshifts (2) Yes, I feel that some "types" of redshift are omitted despite being a significant minority, including "Intrinsic redshift", "Redshift quantisation", "Non-cosmological redshift", "Non-Doppler redshift", "Wolf effect"

The final optics section is inaccurate (or misleading) in several ways (a) It gives the impression that ALL these optical effects are only a form of "reddening", when Brillouin and Raman scattering, and the Wolf effect all produce frequency-dependent redshifts, and there is no hint the the Wolf effect will produce a small frequency-independent Doppler-like redshift.

As Nick Y suggests, the last paragraph would be better if it were shorter but sweeter; for example, the last two paragraphs in the last section provides detail about reddening and scattering... but not in the context of redshifts, so they can go. And yet we can't mention the word "Intrinsic redshift", let alone describe it. Likewise, the last paragraph in Extragalactic_observations is all about the Big Bang, and nothing to do with redshift, and yet we can't mention the phrase "Non-cosmological redshift", let alone define and describe it.

It is quite clear what ScienceApologist thinks of phrases like "Intrinsic redshift" [11], and non-mainstream ideas [12]; and while he may consider "significant minority views" to be "fringe" or "pathological skepticism" [13], he can not impose those views on Wiki readers.

--Iantresman 01:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I began this mediation case because of interpersonal behavior issues. I have placed evidence for behavior #1 in the evidence section. Evidence for #2 to #5 will follow. Flying Jazz 07:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There do indeed appear to be interpersonal behavior issues, though I feel it is because ScienceApologist is being unreasonable. I have edited dozens of other articles, and the only ones in which there are problems involve ScienceApologist. I edit some articles that Art Carlson is also involved with; we often disagree, but I don't think we've ever had discussions that are anything but cordial.

I feel that this all boils down to ScienceApologist's view that the article is only about "astronomical redshift", and his use of "Undue weight" to utterly CRUSH all mention of non-mainstream ideas (even minority views) [14].

This brings in your other criticism of my behaviour regarding my citing of articles; do they stand up to scrutiny? I recently mentioned that there appear to be 250+ articles that mention "intrinsic redshift". Scanning through the list, I notice some quotes that are indeed inaccurate. A quick scan down the first page of 100 results, I note about 15 are not using the phrase "intrinsic redshift" appropriately. Are my citations 100% accurate? No. Is 85% a significant figure? I think so. I don't think that my citations worthless because 15% are inaccurate?

Recall that I give the citations to counter ScienceApologist's arguments against "intrinsic redshift". I think he's implied "undue weight", I think that 85% of 250+ articles that mention it demonstrates otherwise. He's suggested that the phrase is "neologism", yet the first page of citations go back to 1970, demonstrating otherwise.

As a comparison, the Redshift article mentions that well known phenomenon of the "transverse redshift" [15], total number of citations, thirty-six, yet we mention it, describe it, and put it in context. Do I have any problems with that? None. Total lineage, one line. Are "transverse redshift" and "intrinsic redshift" getting "fair" coverage, bearing in mind that one has 5 times the numher of citations? No, "intrinsic redshift" is mentioned zero times throughout the entire article, and even the addition of a "See also" link was crushed [16].

--Iantresman 11:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The "number of articles" argument does not help build a better encyclopedia entry. As pointed out in December on Archive #5 by another editor in another dispute where the number was 500:

The list of "500 peer-reviewed articles" is suspect as it was not collated carefully. I skimmed through the list and a few dozen abstracts and found:

1. "peer-reviewed articles" that are conference abstracts and so neither articles nor peer-reviewed.

2. articles, especially in the compton scattering list, which happen to mention redshift in the abstract, but do not connect scattering and redshift.

Even if most of the 500 are articles that use redshift in a non-doppler sense -- which it isn't clear to me is true -- that is a small fraction of the scientific literature. I did my own search in Web of Science for red shift, and it found 13657 articles {out of 24171224 indexed}.

You misrepresent these articles as expressing an opinion about what constitutes a significant minority view. Some authors write articles for the purpose of dispelling poor ideas and bad models by using scientific evidence. These authors often mention the phrase in their abstract for the purpose of identification of the concept that they wish to address and dispel. Then you come along with your abstract keyword search and see that they used the phrase in their abstract and used it properly, and you use this fact as evidence that the author supports your position that the phrase should be included in an encyclopedia article on redshift. It is an abuse of the scientific literature to do this, and it is an abuse of particular authors and their efforts. It is Wikipedia putting its worst face forward. In the past when this has been pointed out to you, you have responded in the following way:

(to ScienceApologist) "The only person who rubbishes 500-peer reviewed references to other uses of redshift (except in respect to Raman scatting) is yourself."

(to me after I rubbished them) "I accept that the 500 peer-reviewed references are not to a very high standard." and "The 500 references were acquuired rather quickly, and their quality was not as good as they could be."

The problem is not with the references themselves. Their quality is probably fine and they are probably at a very high standard. The problem is with your misrepresentation of them as agreeing with a point that you wish to make. Since that time, you've done the exact same thing again and again, now including here on the mediation page. Every time you mention a number of articles based on an abstract search, you are filling up the talk page with garbage, and when someone points this out to you, you come up with another nonsense percentage of the articles (this time 85%) of the articles that are "accurate". Please find ONE article that we can read that divides up the USAGE of the term redshift in a way that you like and in a way that you think the Wikipedia article should divide them. I thought you did this with the Reboul article here but when I asked you whether this was the case here you wrote "I agree that we should not use Reboul's terms. As he writes in the article, "we arbitrary define as trivial..", and I can find perhaps only one or two other articles that use the terms "trivial redshift" and "non-trivial redshift"." Reboul used trivial/non-trivial. Your most recent table above uses common/less common. In the course of the debate on the talk page, you have suggested and retracted dozens of other qualifiers. These misrepresentations are not a result of ScienceApologist being unreasonable. Sometimes he is unreasonable. That is not an excuse for you to pretend that hundreds of authors agree with you when they do not. Flying Jazz 12:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I see where you're coming from. Are we differentiating between (1) Citations to articles that support "intrinsic redshift" (2) Citation to articles merely using the term "intrinsic redshift".

I don't think I've tried to claim that mere mention of a term is support for a theory. Where I claimed 500 references for non-standard redshifts, I did states that they were provided to show "use of the term" [17], and not support. Doesn't there mere use of a term demonstrate a familiarity with it, regardless of whether the theory is right or wrong.

Even if all 250 articles mentioning "instrinsic redshift" are to criticise it, and to demonstrate it is false, the "concept" is nevertheless prominent in 250 articles, irrespective of wether it is true or false.

Undue weight also tells us that a significant minority view requires us to name "prominent adherents", and it seems reasonable to be able to verify this. This will of course be a much small number, compared to the total number of articles that use a term. But here is a specfic list of citations to articles that appear to be from authors that support (or consider) "intrinsic redshift":

• Arp, H., Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 183, pp. 411-440 (1973) [18] "the higher redshift of some of its members is due to an intrinsic redshift " (p.434)
• Bell, M. B., The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 566, Issue 2, pp. 705-711 (2002) [19] "Further Evidence for Large Intrinsic Redshifts" (Title)
• Burbidge, G., Astrophysical Journal, vol. 154, p.L41 (1968) [20] "it is concluded that large intrinsic-redshift components may often be present." (Abstract)
• Russell, David G., Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 298, Issue 4, pp.577-602 (2005) [21] "Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies" (Title)

--Iantresman 14:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I put this here and you guys interpreted it as being free discussion time. I ment for this to be more structured and brief future discussion. My intention is to reach an agreement on the outstanding issues and then address interpersonal behavior. Essentially decoupling the two. Not that there isn't a lesson as to how to work constructively together in the resolution of this issue. ;)

--Nick Y. 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

STOP STOP STOP STOP Refocus

Let's refocus. I think there is only one issue here. The endless debate about undue weight is not necessary. No matter how many articles cited I think we all agree that the usage that Ian is trying to have included is a minority view at best. I think Ian concurrs. Alright we are done with that. SA has already included them to a degree that is reasonable plus/minus. The only thing remaining is clearly and sufficiently explaining to the reader about this issue. There is no need to argue about these issues. I think the zinger you should use against each other is "remember our job is to inform the reader". There is a reason for the rules. Undue weight is there so that the reader is not misled etc.

Here is what I think we should agree on regarding the last paragraph:

• It should be (briefly, i.e. mostly links) inclusive (except fringe elements)
• It should disambiguate meaning (and report judgement from a third party perspective)
• It should be shorter
• It should be clear
• Most importantly it should be informative to the reader.

Can we all agree? This is your one task today. Once Ian and SA agree please offer suggestions as to how to achive these goals.

--Nick Y. 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I agree with this, but I have some reservations:

• I don't know what "inclusive" entails. I think the last section should be descriptive.
• I don't know who a "third party" represents in this discussion. I reject the assumed bifurcation between myself and Ian, for example. It's artificial and unnecessarily polarizing.
• I don't know what material is unneeded, though I'd support good edits that summarized information in a better manner.
• I think the section already is clear, so no problem here
• I think the section is already informative to the reader, so no problem here.

--ScienceApologist 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

SA- I don't think undue weight is risked by simple links most of the time. I'm asking for you to agree to links to other articles which clearly are described as informal usage (that are judged by some to be incorrect usage) in this section. By third party I mean mostly in the uninterested third person. Perhaps -- "Many scientists especially astronomers and cosmologists consider this less strict definition to be unacceptable, however in certain fields it used nonetheless." The exact language is to be determined. I do not mean that material should be dropped just more succinct and clear. ON your last two questions I think it could be improved for the layman. --Nick Y. 17:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Simple links" are not so "simple". I, first of all, reject the formal/informal distinction as being artificial and unclear, and I don't think just because some effect is discussed in relation to redshifts by some fringe group that it necessarily deserves a link on the redshift page. As the page is right now, we have the appropriate number and kind of links for subjects that are outside the mainstream. --ScienceApologist 20:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

I suggest the text/table I mentioned earlier. I accept ScienceApologist's view that some of the table labels are not "standard phrases", but they are descriptive. This also fulfils all the other requirements for less text, sweeter text, context, comparative information, and optional links for the reader. --Iantresman 19:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with this suggestion as I think it is confusing and lends an air of "equality" to Ian's promotion of "alternative redshift mechanisms" that smacks of POV-pushing and is therefore not helpful to the reader. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

hello

I've been watching this very annoying debate for a long time. I must say, this discussion is particularly harsh on Iantresman, however it seems he can take it. Now this is my two cents: if one is going to talk about red shift it is important to realize that many different sub fields use the same term.

In optics the wolf effect is most assuredly considered to be well proven and understood, having been both theorized and confirmed by experiment. Further it is considered a type of red shift. Dr. Wolf is one of the most famous names in optics today, so if Ian did contact him and didn’t fake those letters then those words should carry a lot of weight.

In cosmology, the wolf effect is not been well accepted as having anything to do with observations but several things have been purposed, but I would not give those much weight.

Optics is earth-bound and something that we can study in the lab. Analysis of astronomy observations are constrained by our cosmology models, and thus based finally in what we can observe about matter and space here at home. All this means is that the fields are very different in their methodologies, and ignoring the standards of either field is giving undue weight to the other.

Thus I suggest we stop bickering about a subtle point and put the wolf effect in the article and note that it is widely accepted in optics. We can also note that it has never reached wide acceptance as a part of any cosmological model. I would like to see wikipedia grow in quality and think that being as interdisciplinary as possible, and broad and all encompassing in our articles is completely necessary. --PhysicsDude 20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)