Talk:Eric Lerner

NPOV

The ideas which Lerner espouses are generally regarded as so outlandish by mainstream physicists that he is essentially ignored in that community.

Prove it.

-- Deleted it, it's completely unncessary in a discussion of his credentials (as the article now stands).

No actually its a perfectly necessary and relevant little tidbit when talking about (Personal attack removed) Lerner.--Deglr6328 21:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

gee, I thought there was some rule on wiki about personal attacks, but I gues thsi does not qualify , huh?Elerner 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I used Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. Art LaPella 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. While it is true that in the previous (now removed) comment by me I did in fact refer to Eric Lerner, the subject of this page as "a fucking nutter", my comment expressed my opinion about this page's subject and NOT another editor on wikipedia. In fact Eric Lerner's first edit to wikipedia under the name Elerner would not occur until 4 days after I made the comment and therefore my comment did not in fact constitute a personal attack on another editor since he was not even present or editing Wikipedia at the time. I am fully aware of the personal attack rule on wiki and would not have made the comment if he had been present at the time of my post. --Deglr6328 01:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you think it would be ok to say on a talk page of an article about a living person that they are suspected of being involved in JFK's assasination? The talkpages are published and one should be careful with accusations, libel, and generally poisoning the atmosphere. Not to mention the idea that the subject of a biography can be expected to show up sooner or later. Civility is not about talking behind people's back then saying "sorry I didn't know you were listening". WAS 4.250 01:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I do think it would be perfectly ok since talk pages are for expressing uncensored thoughts concerning the subject at hand and are not meant to be part of the actual article for precisely that reason. It also seems worth mentioning that the edit in question above was also made a month before the policy regarding "biographies of living persons" was instituted (apparently by yourself) which advocates removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons" from both the actual article AND the talk page (that last part being an absurdly draconian and unenforceable policy in my view). Anyway, I'll thank you for not putting words in my mouth, who said I was sorry? The only reason I would not have used the terms I did on the 5th of Nov. '05 if I knew Lerner were present would be to NOT violate the no personal attack rule. Whatever, in any case I have no plans of continuing to edit this page anymore, there are plenty of other people watching it now who will prevent the usual whitewashing by Lerner et al. --Deglr6328 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No actually its a unnecessary and irrelevant little tidbit ... except to express a stance of hostility and intolerance ... and your comments "total f***ing nutter" exposes your POV (something that I hope you don't edit into articles). Sincerely, JDR 19:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think Lerner doesn't do himself any favors in the way he goes about things but I don't think he's a total nutter. His fusion technology is unproven, I know nothing about plasma so I'm not going to jump to conclusions (and that would be nonNPOV) so let's see what happens with that. Anyway you're probably calling him a nutter because of his BigBang views. I've noticed some people get very heated when the BigBang is questioned. I personally know cosmologists and they are quite open to discuss alternative models, so why Wikipedians and Slashdotters get so worked up is a mystery to me. Trious 00:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Most scientists are quite open ... it's the "fundementalist" that you have to worry about. Sincerely, JDR

Well, the hydrogen+boron combination is certainly a genuine fusion reaction, so in that respect Lerner is not a "total ****ing nutter". Neither is the 1 billion+ degree temperature achieved using DPF a mirage. As for his ideas about field confinement, well we will have to leave that to the plasma physicists to sort out. Suffice to say I am not about to condemn a bloke who is trying to bring about cheap, plentiful and environmentally-friendly energy for all.User: Anonym

http://photoman.bizland.com/lpp/eric_j_lerner.htm

President, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics,Inc. advanced technology research, consulting and communications firm.

Scientific research in plasma physics and desalination

Development of fusion energy and x-ray sources based on the dense plasma focus Originated plasma-based theories of quasars, large-scale structure and other phenomena of the Universe Author of "The Big Bang Never Happened" Development of Atomizing Desalination Process Writing and editing on high technology

Over 600 articles published

RESEARCH

1995-Present

Designed experiment to test hypothesis that Dense Plasma Focus could achieve temperatures needed for proton-boron fusion. Developed theoretical model, designed electrodes, designed diagnostic equipment, including x-ray detector and filters, Rogowski coil. Actively participated in experiment including selection of experimental parameters, construction of heating apparatus for decaborane functioning. Analyzed resulting data. Demonstrated achievement of 200keV energies. Developed theory of magnetic effects that show feasibility of proton-boron fusion. Work to develop intense x-ray source for infrastructure inspection. Continued development of plasma cosmology theories.

1992-1995

Designed experiment to test theory of heating in DPF. Designed electrodes, experimental plan, participated in carrying out experiment, analyzed data.

1986- 1991

Developed an original theory of quasars based on extrapolation from laboratory-scale plasma instabilities in the dense plasma focus. Developed detailed theory of function of DPF. Proposed a theory of the origin of the large scale structure of the universe, also from plasma instability theory and the role of force free fila­ments. This theory led to the prediction of supercluster complexes, shortly before their discovery by R. Brent Tully. Developed an original theory of the microwave background and the origin of light elements, accounting for both without need for a Big Bang. The microwave theory led to the prediction that there is absorp­tion of RF radia­tion by the intergalactic medium, a prediction confirmed by observation in 1990.

BOOK

The Big Bang Never Happened, Random House/Times Books, 1991.

ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

Two World Systems Revisited: A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang(to be published in IEEE Trans. On Plasma Sci.)

Prospects for p11B fusion with the Dense Plasma Focus : New Results (To be published in the Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Current Trends in International Fusion Research), 2002

Lerner, E.J., Peratt, A.L., Final Report, Jet Propulsion Laboratory contract 959962, 1995 (1995). "Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.227, May, 1995, p.61-81 "On the Problem of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.227, May, 1995 p.145-149 "The Case Against the Big Bang" in Progress in New Cosmologies, Halton C. Arp et al, eds., Plenum Press (New York), 1993

"Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 207,1993 p.17-26.

"Force-Free Magnetic Filaments and the Cosmic Background Radiation", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol.20, no. 6, Dec. 1992, pp. 935-938.

"Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium," The Astro­physical Journal, Vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, pp. 63-68.

"Prediction of the Submillimeter Spectrum of the Cosmic Back­ground Radiation by a Plasma Model," IEEE Trans­actions on Plasma Science, Vol. 18, No. 1, Feb. 1990, pp. 43-48.

"Galactic Model of Element Formation," IEEE Transac­tions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, April 1989, pp. 259-263.

"Plasma Model of the Microwave Background," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 6, (1988), pp. 456-469.

"Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Invariants and the Fundamental Constants," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690-702.

"Magnetic Self-Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, (1986), pp. 193-222.

PATENT

Atomizing Desalination Process (US. Pat 5,207,928)

AWARDS

Aviation Space Writers Association 1993 Award of Excellence in Journalism: Trade Magazines/Space for "GOES NEXT Goes Astray" Aerospace America, May 1992.

Society for Technical Communication 1992 Award of Distinction: "Technology is Teaming", Bellcore Insight, Summer, 1991.

Aviation Space Writers Association 1990 Award of Excellence in Journalism: Special Interest/Trade Magazine Category for "Lessons of Flight 665," Aero­space America, April, 1989.

Aviation Space Writers Association 1990 Journalism Award, North East Region: Special Interest/Space Magazine Category for "Galileo's Tortuous Journey to Jupiter," Aerospace America, August, 1989.

Aviation Space Writers Association 1988 National Journalism Award: Special Interest/Space Magazine Category for "FAA: An Agency Besieged", Aerospace America, February-April, 1987.

Aviation Space Writers Association 1985 Journalism Award, North East Region: Special Interest/Space Magazine Category for "SDI Series", Aerospace America, August-November, 1985.

Aviation Space Writers Association 1984 Journalism Award Northeast Region: Special Interest/Space Magazine Category for "Mushrooming Vulnerability to EMP", Aerospace America, August 1984.

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

IEEE, the American Physical Society and American Astronomical Society.

Basic biographical information

What academic degree does Lerner hold? From what university? In what subject? At what universities or national labs has he held full-time academic employment? Where is he currently employed? --Art Carlson 20:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What academic degree does Lerner hold? From what university? In what subject? At what universities or national labs has he held full-time academic employment? ... Appeal to academia, tsk tsk .... to wit, I ask ... what academic degree before does Heaviside hold (before 1890s that is ...)? From what university? In what subject? At what universities or national labs had Heaviside held full-time academic employment? ... this is plainly an attempt to take a snipe at Lerner.

Where is he currently employed? Read the bio link ... appearantly you didn't ....

Sincerely, JDR 22:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that he doesn't have any academic degree, from any university, and has never worked for any university? You seem to think that that is a point in his favor. Shouldn't we report that then? --Art Carlson 22:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you miss the point ... not only those individuals who have engaged in scholarship are deemed to have anything worthwhile to say, or do.

He may have an academic degree, from a university, and may have worked for a university ... but IF he didn't, that doesn't mean his research is any less valuable.

Get a reference Art and then report it.

Sincerely, JDR 15:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Reddi added that he didn't get a degree, not having done the course work. That was completely unsourced, and its really not clear how it could be sourced (pers comm?). Please indicate source if you want it re-entered. Its not in his biog, that I can see. I added some stuff from his biog.

As for "leading" critic of the big bang... I doubt this. Certainly not supported by his publication record, which is slight. William M. Connolley 18:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

How much of this is real?

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics
and
Focus Fusion Society
11 Calvin Terrace
West Orange, NJ 07052

is located in a residential district on the border of West Orange and Montclair, at the foot of Eagle Rock Reservation. Ten years ago, I walked all around that area. The adress is probably someone's residence. At best, an office. Do these companies exixt only on paper? With no actual current funding aren't they just venture-funding-bait? Shouldn't this article be deleted? Or at least remove what can't be verified as more than just what people are saying about themselves? The more I look into this , the more the whole thing looks fishy. WAS 4.250 19:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sterling D. Allan appears to be promoting him. Google and see what I mean. Maybe this does deserve to be an article ... but a quite different one. WAS 4.250 19:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As near as I can tell everything personal we have is what he, his "companies", and Allan say about him and his "companies". How much is verifyable? Are these considered useable sources? If so why? WAS 4.250 20:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My, I do seem to get some people upset. Art Carslon, in particular, seems to have nothing better to do with his time than follow me from Wiki page to Wiki page--see "aneutronic fusion" and "plasma cosmology" and I am sure there must be others. I seem to be an obsession of his. Hate to toot my own horn, but I do need to correct those who say no one takes my work seriously. Generally, invitations to present your work at prestigious institutions, getting it reported in the scientific press, etc. is considered evidence that the work is taken seriously. (not of course that it is correct.)Elerner 03:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop editing your own page using IP sock puppets.--Deglr6328 05:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What an ego! I'm a professional plasma physicist who worked for many years in fusion and now works in cosmology. Where should I feel more at home than editing these articles, as I have been doing long before Eric Lerner showed up? Who's following whom around? --Art Carlson 08:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to continue with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elerner. Include the new problems and make the page active on the list of current User-RfCs. --ScienceApologist 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Deglr6328,

• Changing Eric's status from "plasma physicist" and "plasma cosmologist" to "associated with plasma physics and plasma cosmology", is somewhat insulting. As a peer-reviewed author of nearly 50 articles, on subjects from cosmology to plasma phsysics, it is pretty clear, and verifiable that he is more than "associated" with the subjects. Alfvén trained as an engineer, but won the Nobel Prize for (plasma) physics... I guess he was just associated with plasma physic too?
• And as for designating his theories as "pseudoscience", I'm sure you'll have no problems finding a verifiable peer-reviewed citation... that's one of the factors that distinguishes science from pseudoscience --Iantresman 20:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not terribly concerned with how "insulting" it may seem not to refer to him directly as a physicist. The terms physicist and scientist are used most aptly (and frequently) by people to describe themselves when they actually have a PhD. i don't quite know what you're rambling on about with regard to pseudoscience and citations either. Lerner's plasma cosmology/anti-big bang/focus fusion theories are widely regarded as pseudoscientific. end of story. there is no real debate among scientists regarding those subjects.--Deglr6328 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Since when is a Ph.D a requirement for scientist status? This is elitist garbage. The Wiki article on "Scientist" doesn't mention Ph.D. once.
• If there is no debate regarding Lerner's work as pseudoscience, then you'll have no problems finding a verifiable peer-reviewed citation. Otherwise it is hearsay. --Iantresman 23:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not wasting my time with you debating whether or not plasma cosmology and wacky big bang denialism constitute pseudoscience.--Deglr6328 05:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not asking you to debate it, as I am sure neither one of us cares what the other one has to say. I'm asking you to substantiate YOUR statement that Lerner's material is pseudoscience, which should be easy to provide a verifiable citation if you are right.
• Deglr6328, there is no doubt that Lerner's theories are not accepted by the vast majority of scientists. I doubt whether the vast majority of scientists have even read it. Of those scientists that have read it, very few (if any) have submitted their criticisms to peer-review. None of this implies that Lerner's work is pseudoscience. Just like the Big Bang, Lerner's work may turn out to be wrong. Again, this means that the scientific method has done its job, but it does not imply pseudoscience. --Iantresman 09:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How difficult is this for you to understand? incredibly, apparently. The sentance "Lerner's theories are mostly regarded as pseudoscience by the mainstream physics community." does NOT state "lerner's theories are pseudoscience" it DOES state that the vast majority of scientists think this is the case however. There is a difference and the completely factual note will stay. --Deglr6328 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to sign in, sorry--I made the last edit to the page.

Deglr, whoever you are, it is purely your personal, unsourced, opinion that "Lerner's theories are mostly regarded as pseudoscience by the mainstream physics community." It is that opinion of your that keeps getting deleted, as do the phrases and words that imply that various criticisms are fact. Just curious, but if what you said was true, how do you think I would get my stuff published in peer-reviewed journals, get invited to give presentations at various conferences and research instituions and get funded by various governments?Elerner 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentance refers to your preoccupation with theories such as plasma coslmology and anti-big bang fringe theories. It is not my opinion alone that these theories are pseudoscientific. That is a widely held belief among scientists and it is a statement which needs to be in the article. --Deglr6328 07:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". So in talking about what should be in the article we should focus on what we can verify through reliable sources. But that aside, I honestly don't believe you. I agree that the mainstream community, largely, rejects Lerner's theory, and that some have criticized points in it. Generally speaking, scientists have not built on his work. However, the term "pseudoscience" is a lot more critical of the work than this. A real example of pseudoscience is creation science: that is, pretending that creationism is based on science rather than religion. For instance, I don't think Edward Wright thinks Lerner's work is pseudoscience (that is, that it's a disingenuous attempt at science), rather, he just thinks it's wrong. From Wright's tone, I get the feeling he thinks Lerner isn't a very good scientist and that his theories aren't good science, but "pseudoscience" goes a lot farther than that. And in any case, he's just one guy. Mangojuice^talk 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I should probably steer clear of this subject, but .... I tend to agree with Mango. I think it is important to characterize the degree of Lerner's acceptance in the scientific community, but that is very hard to do in an objective way. I also think the term "pseudoscience" is so vague as to be practically useless and also practically impossible to define objectively. I'm not sure there is a clear difference between bad science and pseudoscience, but if forced to choose, I would call Lerner's work simply bad science. Can't we quote a few judgements from prominent (mainstream) scientists and leave it at that? --Art Carlson 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• As I suggested before, however we characterise Lerner's work, (a) it should be verifiable (b) attributable (c) should not infer this is the voice of "the scientific community".
• I can find published and peer reviewed criticism of, for example, the Big Bang without any problems.[1] So if "the scientific community" are equally critical of Lerner's work, it shouldn't be too difficult to find peer reviewed criticism. --Iantresman 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Unsubstantiated/controversial comments require citations. If you can find reliable citable/notable sources that have been published saying "We think Lerner's work is pseudoscience, and we represent the whole or most of the science community" that is perfectly fine for inclusion. But an unsubstantiated claim that "XXYY believes LErner is engaging in pseudoscience" is hearsay sicne it's NOT backed up by anything but someone's opinion. I suggest that someone tag the statement, if it's recurrent, with the 'Fact' tag. If citatations aren't provided, revert it out, or otherwise remove it. Problem solved, yeah? This is how Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to operate. To some degree, controversial statements are subject to the "verify or die" clause. If it's NOT notable and it IS controversial, it shouldn't be included. As I've been foirced to improve my works lately, so should anyone else making unverified claims. Best way to do that is with 'fact' tags or some other way of marking it up and then either adding notable sources to back it or deleting it. See, "I learns gud!" (/end self-deprecating humor) Mgmirkin 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the template at the top of this page to "Biographies of living persons" which is a Wikipedia policy page, which reminds us that "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; .. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question" --Iantresman 17:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I've never seen such bias in my life, your edits disgust me, and you have sunk to a new low. How can you remove verifiable quotes to publications such as the Chicago Tribune, while retaining criticism such as Wright's that has never appeared any publication whatsoever, and then have the audacity to remove the link to Lerner's own rebuttal. DIGUSTING. --Iantresman 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune? What gives the Chicago tribune any weight in evaluating what anyone says about cosmology? Ned Wright is a respected astronomer whose website stands along with Gene Smith's as one of the most trusted and oldest web-based sources of cosmology information available. Just because something appears in print doesn't make it better. Evaulating sources themselves is important. Ned Wright is a notable figure in astronomy and cosmology. The Chicago Tribune is not. Rebuttals don't belong in a criticism section. If Lerner can stand up for himself, then report on it in the section that describes Lerner's work. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

HYPOCRITIC. That's rich coming from someone using a creationist Web sites as source.[2] And when will you learn the definition of POV pushing. Presenting points of view neutrally is not POV pushing. --Iantresman 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For that matter what give YOU any authority in evaluting (a) anything on cosmologu (b) anything that the Chicago Tribune has to say. YOU are unverifiable. The Chicago Tribune stands on its reputation, and is verifiable. --Iantresman 18:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Careful, Ian. You're bordering on personal attacks. Take a breather. We're all editors here trying our best to make editorial decisions. --ScienceApologist 18:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Then learn the definition of POV pushing; removing ALL the positive criticism while leaving just the negative criticism is POV pushing, not providing a BALANCE of VERIFIABLE views. --Iantresman 19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have restored ScienceApologist's HYPOCRTICAL removal of the link to Lerner's reply to Wright. If Wright's Web page is a good enough source (despite it not being peer reviewed) then so is Lerner's reply, and your one-sided editing still DISGUSTS me. --Iantresman 19:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider what you are doing to be POV pushing which "refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent and undermine Wikipedia's neutrality policy". --ScienceApologist 19:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lerner's response is included with the Wright criticism. --ScienceApologist 19:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypocritic! Demoting Lerner's repsonse to the small print in a footnote is not EQUALITY. Your bias is unbelievable. --Iantresman 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the Chicago Tribune quote, they're more notable and veriable than ScienceApologist. --Iantresman 19:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Lerner's status a plasma cosmologist, not "an advocate of plasma cosmology". You might as well have made him "an advocate of plasma physics". --Iantresman 19:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We've had this argument before Ian. Plasma cosmologist is a neologism. Period. --ScienceApologist 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I restored the comment on Stenger's critism to put it into context. It is all verifiable, and you can provide any example to show that it is incorrect. But to give the impression that Stenger's critism's are conclusive is BIAS in the extreme --Iantresman 19:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can understand Lerner not wanting his theories to be labeled as pseudoscience (obviously) and the concern Mango and Art voice about the word pseudoscience perhaps being too harsh is valid. However, its alternatives, which are equally true, that is that his theories are simply bad/wrong/crazy are even more intrinsically biased and thus I did not use those. I feel what is hampering progress here is Ian's insistance on using peer-reviewed statements to corroborate the statement here that Lerner's theories are considered wrong/bad/pseudoscience. This is an absurd and disingenuous requirement because Ian knows damn well that no one will ever find such peer reviewed statements. Is this because scientists have no disagreement with Lerner's theories as Ian apparently presupposes must be the case? No. In fact it is the exact opposite which is true. Lerner's theories are considered so nutty and out of the mainstream that no legit scientist will waste his time refuting such blatantly obvious nonsense and submitting it for a peer-review. One quick look at his citation record shows that his papers are barely ever cited by others and when they are the majority of the time they are SELF-citations! The fact that mainstream scientists overwhlemingly believe Lerner's theories to be utterly worthless is not going to be found in any peer reviewed paper but can be found in several (some of which are already noted here) other non-peer reviewed verifiable statements. The reader of this article NEEDS to know how far out and disreputable Lerner's theories really are (widely) considered to be. --Deglr6328 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, and people need to be able to VERIFY what you suggest. From what I recall, one of the criticisms of pseudoscience is that results are not submitted to peer review. Lerner's done that, showing it is of sufficient standard to publish.
• I also recall that HUNDREDS of scientists and engineers are critical of the Big Bang,[3] (that's VERIFIABLE in a reputable publication), so presumably you'd insist that readers should know?
• I also checked your statement that "no legit scientist will waste his time refuting such blatantly obvious nonsense" which just goes to show that either you are wrong or Ned Wright is not legit? --Iantresman 20:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice try but I'm not getting dragged into that side debate with you. I know, I know, I need to EXPLICITLY spell things out for you lest you take and twist them around to some NEW absurdity; so the sentance should read, "what scientist would want to waste his time refuting such nonsense and taking the time and effort to submit it for peer review". The fact that you even think peer review would ever be used in such a way seems to betray a deep misunderstanding of how the process actually works. Most of the time, obviously wrong papers rife with bad science written by nobodies in a disreputable field are simply ignored. As such they probably should be.--Deglr6328 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you don't submit to peer review, it's pseudoscience. If you do, and it gets in, we won't bother to reply. And that's the scientific method? --Iantresman 20:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I see that ScienceApologist has now resorted to providing critical quotes from personal Blogs.[4] Is that better than quoting from book reviews on Creationist Web sites?
• I am surprised that Lerner manages to get ANY work at all, and gets past so many peers with his articles. --Iantresman 20:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That blog is written by an accredited physicist. That his ideas are expressed in blog venue is irrelevant.--Deglr6328 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist remove one of my citations just two days ago [5] because it was not peer reviewed despite being written by accredited scientists, and has reminded me that as far as he is concerned, "Peer review != notability"[6]. But blogs are fine! Looks liked there is one standard for you guys, and another standard for the rest of us. --Iantresman 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lerner doesn't get much academic work. He spends a lot of his time self-aggrandizing and trying to drum up private donations. His anti-establishment message does gain some traction with a certain set of idealogues, but you won't find him doing controversial things where it will get him into trouble. He won't, for example, present his plasma cosmology ideas at AAS nor does he try to drum up support for his fusion flights-of-fancy at IEEE meetings. That's just sort of his way, you see. --ScienceApologist 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? [7] [8] --Iantresman 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1991 and 1992? Really au courant of you, Ian. --ScienceApologist 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Joshua--you're back from vacation! Or is this just another assignment from your graduate advisor? You evidently don't read the page you are editing, which contains my conferences in the past five years: the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, 2002: the American Physical Society, 2003 and the XI Latin American Workshop on Plasma Physics, 2005. Lerner was an invited speaker at both the Fifth (2003) and Sixth (2005) Symposia on Current Trends in International Fusion Research, which is sponsored by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And of course there are my seminars on plasma cosmology during that same period at University of Pavia, Goddard Space Flight Center and European Southern Observatory. Also, I notice you are diligently gathering critiques of my book from scientists in the field. But on the plasma cosmology page, you insist that my work is ignored by scientists in the field. Which is it? Or does the truth not matter that much?Elerner 23:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've put in a request for Page Protection. And would suggest no further editing until we talk through our differences. --Iantresman 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• And I will be away until Monday. --Iantresman 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mangojuice mediation?

Mangojuice, I wonder whether you'd help us mediate this article. Unfortunately I'm away until Monday, but I'm sure Eric can hold his own until then. I would like to see some kind advice on what is considered a suitable source, peer reivew, newspapers, magazines, blogs? And advice on how to word certain phrases neutrally. --Iantresman 00:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, Joshua (science apologist) sees fit to remove nearly all the favorable comments on my book, even those from James van Allen, who might perhaps be considered an expert. Very neutral!Elerner 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Joshua is still reverting without justification. He is also is eliminating the fact that I was a visiting astronomer at ESO--this really seems to need censoring, huh, Joshua? Do you really think I would have been there without getting invited by the invitation committee? Why don't you do some actual work rather than trying to cover up mine? Oh right, I forgot, this is your class assignment.Elerner 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm back from my short trip away, and would like to resolve the following issues:

1. Lerner's status as a plasma physicist and plasma cosmologist
2. Lerner was a "visiting astronomer", or was just "invited" to the European Southern Observatory in Chile
3. Selection of critical reviews: what sources are suitable? Chicago Tribune?[9] Personal blogs?
4. Selection of critical quotes: positive and negative?
5. Comments on critical quotes? [10]
6. The view on Lerner's work? Pseudoscience? Wholly rejected? By whom? Verifiability?
7. Removal of Lerner's awards and article contributions,[11]
8. Use of general critical statements, [12]
9. Moving of Lerner's reply to Wright,[13] to footnotes.

--Iantresman 10:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, I think something that might help here is if we could get away from the current style of presenting quotes on BBNH. It's not informative, and it will never present the reception of the book in an appropriate light. On the quotes themselves, I think we can draw the conclusion that there was significant criticism of the book and its theories. I think we can draw the conclusion that the book was well-received by the lay community (cf the Chicago Tribune and the Sapp quote). I believe it's fair to state that Lerner has attempted to respond to any detailed criticism. Beyond that, I don't think there's much we can say. Mangojuice^talk 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(I numbered the points for ease of reference.) One approach is to identify quotes from sources that are considered useable as sources at wikipedia for the issues you just raised. Once it is agreed what the basis for the article is, the rest falls into place so much easier. Perhaps we could take point number one above, and work on it as a test case. Whatever works well for point number one can then be repeated for the following points. WAS 4.250 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The only reliable source is a verifiable, reliable citation. I've already noted that:

• Lerner is described as a "plasma physicist" by Amazon Editorial Reviews, twice,[14]
• He is described as a "plasma cosmologist" (A) by H. Ratcliffe, in "The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference"PDF, (B) In a Randall Meyers film,[15] (C) In a book by Rem B. Edwards, "What Caused the Big Bang?"[16]

But I think this boils down to, what constiutes a verifiable, reliable source? --Iantresman 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I just point out that those two don't contradict each other? Surely, a "plasma cosmologist" is a subtype of "plasma physicist". Mangojuice^talk 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, though "cosmologist" also denotes something to do with astronomy which "physicist" does not necessarily? --Iantresman 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to write this main article for average readers and put all the hair-splitting details in footnotes. For example, if I could edit the article, the first footnote would now read:

Lerner is described as a "plasma physicist" by Amazon Editorial Reviews, twice,[17] He is described as a "plasma cosmologist" by H. Ratcliffe, in "The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference"PDF, in a Randall Meyers film,[18] and in a book by Rem B. Edwards, "What Caused the Big Bang?"[19]

And other editors could add sourced meaningful hair splitting to the footnote. Sources descibing him as a poor physicist or his theories as psuedoscience need to be in the article and not just footnotes, but being a poor fisherman or whatever doesn't mean you are not one. WAS 4.250 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't this how the article is written now? It begins "Eric J. Lerner is a plasma physicist" and there is a footnote with more information.
• Are there any sources describing Lerner as a "poor physicist", and if so, do we base this on the sole judgement of an author?
• Are there any source describing any of Lerner's work as psuedoscience? --Iantresman 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

IBM says "Eric Lerner is a freelance science writer based in Lawrenceville, New Jersey."[20] WAS 4.250 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he does appear to have many strings to his bow.

--Iantresman 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Let us be positive about the "many strings to his bow". The reader can draw their own conclusions when faced with his actual contributions and the response (or lack there-of). It is Wikipedia policy that we do not "spoon-feed" the reader. WAS 4.250 22:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that we do, or do not describe Lerner as a (a) plasma physicist (b) plasma cosmologist (c) science writer, and what do you base your answer on? --Iantresman 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest only that we present the evidence and let the reader decide. My preference is to give the readers quotes and sources but most wikipedians feel we must summarize the quotes. Screw the majority. WAS 4.250 01:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Amazon Editorial Reviews are necessarily the authorities on who is or is not a plasma physicist. I note that most American plasma physicists are members of the Division of Plasma Physics of the American Physical Society, whereas Eric Lerner is not even a member of the APS. Should we conclude that "physicist" is not an accurate description? I don't know, but you are going to have difficulties solving this one in a verifiable way. --Art Carlson 11:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This whole dispute seems really silly to me. If this were Albert Einstein, we could argue about whether to call Einstein a "scientist" or a "physicist", and we'd be able to pull up sources supporting either one, but in the end, both choices are perfectly okay. I say we stick with the first sentence we have. WP:NPOV does say "Let the facts speak for themselves" but this can't apply to the label we put on Lerner. Mangojuice^talk 13:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that the dispute is actually quite juvenile. I don't think there is any "official" confirmation of whether someone is a physicist or not, and formal education does not necessarily confer scientific status. What we do know, is that Lerner is President of a company that does research into plasma physics, and he has also published papers on plasma cosmology in the peer reviewed journal Transactions on Plasma Science.
• I don't know any other person on Wikipedia whose status is questioned in this way. But as far as I'm converned, if he's a in a job that pays him to do physics, then he's a physicist, and if he's published in peer reviewed journals on plasma cosmologist, then he's a plasma cosmologist. His qualifications are a separate issue. --Iantresman 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, can you point me to the policy page regarding not "spoon feeding" the reader, it sounds like a useful guides that I've missed. --Iantresman 17:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked for that too. What I found was Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves... but that really doesn't mean what WAS said it means. On the contrary, WP:1SP advocates "summary style" or "newspaper style" both of which sum up details for the reader's convenience. Mangojuice^talk 18:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See User:Kizzle/Spoon Feeding for what spoon feeding is and [[21]] for what happened to that version and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves for the policy concerning it. When I said "It is Wikipedia policy that we do not "spoon-feed" the reader." I was refering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves. It is standard to (as you say) use "summary style" or "newspaper style" both of which sum up details for the reader's convenience. But sometimes what is a proper summary is disputed. In those cases sometimes it helps to just present the evidence and let the reader make their own conclusion. Where there is no dispute, summarizing is good. WAS 4.250 18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. What you're saying is quite appropriate for the whole "pseudoscience" discussion, but really quite impossible for the label (plasma physicist vs. plasma cosmologist) issue. In the lead, you simply have to sum things up; you need to give the context quickly and simply first before getting into it. BTW, Lerner is a member of the APS according to his resume [22]. Mangojuice^talk 18:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why I suggested puting "all the hair-splitting details in footnotes". Someone reads he is a plasma physicist and if they think "says who" they can go to the footnote where all the sources and details that are relevant to making that judgement call are. It's not clear to me that I'm disagreeing with anyone. WAS 4.250 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think that is what we have now. There is more than enough evidence to support that he is a plasma physicst, with footnotes perhaps to APS membership, works in plasma physics, publishes in plasma physics journals.
• Whether he is an "advocate of plasma cosmology" or a "plasma cosmologist", I can see no difference. --Iantresman 19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving on

I suggest we move on to the real meat of the disagreement, which is how to cover the response to Lerner's work. I for one am very much against quoting many different sources as the article does now; it makes it unreadable, and we could go on forever finding more and more quotes and it would be very hard to ever agree we'd reached a fair representation of the spectrum of opinions. We should try to find some statements we agree are supported by the criticisms. Thoughts? Mangojuice^talk 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the quotes. Do we just says that "Lerner's book has received a number of mixed criticism [footnotes]", on the grounds that this is a biography, not a criticism of his theories? Certainly half a dozen critics does not reprsent the entire "mainstream community", nor do any of them suggest pseudoscience, and nor do they criticise ALL of his work --Iantresman 19:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can read into it a little more carefully than that. The positive reviews tend to be from laypeople, or at best laud the attempt to consider alternate theories. The negative reviews have a lot of specific scientific criticisms; most expert reviews are of this form. Mangojuice^talk 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Negative	Positive
Detailed
Ned Wright (UCLA astrophysicist) [23]	Rebuttal from Lerner [24]
Alec MacAndrew (Ph.D Physics) [25]	???
General
Arno A. Penzias (Nobel Prize Physics)[26]	James Van Allen (Space scientist)
Victor J. Stenger (Prof.Physics and Astronomy)[27]	Gregg Sapp (Science Library Head)[28]
???	Chicago Tribune [29]
Peer reviewed citations (Negative/Neutral)
???	Paul Marmet (Ph.D Physics)[30]
???	Thomas R. Love (Ph.D. Maths)[31]
???	Prof. Whitney, C. K.[32]

• I don't know the credentials of Gregg Sapp (Science Library Head), nor the author of the Chicago Tribune's piece. The citations to The Big Bang Never Happened are neutral, in that they are not critical.
• So I don't think it is as clear-cut as suggested. I would guess that if you ask most mainstream astrophysicists about Lerner's book, they will not be too positive; I would also guess that most of them haven't read it. I would guess that if ask many of the plasma physicists, they will not be negative about the book, and again, I suspect that many of them haven't read it.
• The point of all this, is what can we say about Lerner's book that is also verifiable? I am sure that Lerner will also acknowledge that the book has received criticisms. Many scientists also share Lerner's cynicism of the Big Bang,[33] and I would guess are not negative of his book. --Iantresman 22:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• A scientific critique of the book itself is not important anyway. It is for lay people and is thus going to be incorrect, just as QED (Richard Feynman) is inaccurate. I wouldn't even expect to see a critique of the writing style of a book in an encyclopaedic article on the book's author, let alone a critique of the models and theories that it explains - a statement of the writing style should also be relegated to an article on the book itself. There seems to be far too much of a religious influence on the editting and discussion of this article with all sides being desperate (to the point of ridicule - from the PoV of an onlooker) to convince all readers that their personal belief is the one true way - Tristan Wibberley 20:13, 6 August 2006

Pretty much what I suggest on 26 July 2006, above. This is a biogaphy, not a critique of Lerner's theories, which are discussed elsewhere. --Iantresman 19:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Science Library Head" implies the man is a librarian, not a physicist, and there's no reason to think the Chicago Tribune piece is written by an expert; it's a popular book, and that's a book review. The three "positives" you have under peer-reviewed publications don't seem to be papers about Lerner's book, but rather simply other papers about plasma cosmology. The Whitney one (the only one I could actually read the text of) barely makes mention of Lerner's book; the context is "The big bang theory is not without doubts (Lerner, 1992);" hardly a "reaction", but in any case as was in the article at one point, lack of peer-reviewed _criticism_ is more likely due to the book never having been taken seriously outside of the plasma physics community. I think a reasonably fair treatment, and one backed up by the reviews we have, is "Lerner's book, while well-received by the general public, has received little attention from scientists outside of the plasma physics community." We could go on to mention Van Allen's opinion (it's a notable exception). We can mention that there has been non-reviewed informal criticism, and responses from Lerner. In terms of whether the lack of peer-reviewed criticism implies a positive or negative reception, I think we should let the facts speak for themselves. Do we know of any peer reviewed papers outside of plasma cosmology/plasma physics that even cite Lerner's book? Mangojuice^talk 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Lerner's articles have appeared in peer-reviewed non-plasma physics journals such as : Astrophysical Journal [34] Astrophysics and Space Science [35] [36] [37]
• Lerner's articles have been cited by peer-reviewed non-plasma physics journals such as: Physical Review A [38], Nature [39] , Astronomy and Astrophysics [40], Astrophysics and Space Science [41]

Again, this seems very far from the "pseudoscience" allegation. --Iantresman 10:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles, sure, I would expect that. What about his book? (BTW, I'm strongly against the "pseudoscience" term, I couldn't find any real substantiation for that.) Mangojuice^talk 13:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, only the ones in the plasma science citations provided above. --Iantresman 14:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to respond to "I for one am very much against quoting many different sources". I am very much against removing any source either pro or con (that is a subject of this debate) and would like to propose that any such source be moved to a footnote rather than deleted. WAS 4.250 23:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources, sure. But there's no need to keep the full quotes; even in references that's unnecessary. - unsigned Mangojuice^talk

It is important whenever a source is provided to give the reader data on what is at the source that is relevant to the aricle. WAS 4.250 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Check out any featured article's references and you'll find very few where the reference is explained any more than simply providing the details of the source. Today's featured article, Mosque, includes quotes in (I think) 3 of 81 references, and of those, none are actually needed. Mangojuice^talk 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sole reliable supporter of Eric's book

There is really only one legitimate supporter of Eric's work mentioned above. Not unsurprisingly, Van Allen, who Eric managed to get to favorably review his very dated book for his dust jacket, isn't exactly trumpeting the fortunes of Eric today. Why did this luminary favorably review Eric's work? It happens that Van Allen is one of the few remaining of a literally dying breed of old-school astrophysicists who were philosophical fans of the steady state model, and never quite got comfortable with what CMB observations were saying about the universe. When Eric's ideas first gained traction in the 1990s, some cosmologists were concerned that the CMB might have no anisotropies at all (which would have meant a terrible problem for the Big Bang model). So while the handwringing began, a lot of these old-time believers came out of the woodwork hoping to salve their wounds from being on the losing side in the great Hoyle v. Gammow bouts back in the 40s, 50s, and into the 60s. For some thirty years, few had been pursuing new leads in cosmological models. Hoyle was still around, but his ideas had grown archaic and weird. Then out of the small corner of people who studied Alfven, Eric emerged to champion a new hope with of all things electricity. Their hope unfortunately proved to be misplaced. First of all, Eric was pretty roundly panned in the astronmical community when he appeared at a few conferences in the early 90s to taunts and jeers. It was soon realized by even the more placating cosmologists nervous about the smoothness of the CMB that Eric's command of physics and astronomy belied that of a student couldn't pass qualifiers in graduate school. Eric had a rather embarassing encounter (sometimes termed a "debate") at Princeton University with David Spergel who put him to shame for his lack of rigor. When COBE discovered the anisotropies, the community breathed a collective sigh of relief and Eric attained official "flash in the pan" status.

What is left of Eric's brush with his great hope of Einstein-like greatness is a dead idea (from a research perpsective) that in no way keeps pace with current understandings of cosmology. Comparing Eric's work to that of Seljak or Hu is like comparing a nursery rhyme to James Joyce. Eric now publishes his work in second-rate astronomy journals from time-to-time claiming with shoddy techniques and innuendo that there are problems with the standard paradigm, but his pleas have fallen mainly on deaf ears. In the last 10 years, the only laudatory comments are from those not directly involved with cosmological research, a state of marginalization admitted to by Eric in his puff-piece "open letter" submitted to New Scientist magazine. The way to describe Eric's work is of brief fringe interest some 15 years ago and now completely dismissed for being no good alternative to the Big Bang.

--71.57.90.3 05:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• New Scientist published a letter indicating a couple of dozen scientists who might disagree with your summary,[42]. Since then, several HUNDRED other scientists, engineers, and other researchers have added their names. Since then, there has also been an academic conference on "Alternative Cosmologies".[43]
• Lerner's theories, based on the Alfvén's "Plasma Universe" continues to be investigated, see for example the "IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science" (IEEE TPS) (2003 Vol 31 No 6), a peer-reviewed publication of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society which has some 30,000 members; the American Astronomy Society has but 6500 members,[44]. Another special issue of the IEEE TPS on the Plasma Universe is due in 2007. --Iantresman 10:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Gary F Moring's book, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Theories of the Universe" was published in 2002. It includes a section on Plasma Cosmology, and doesn't seem to be as dismissive; I would suggest the description is exemplary in writing neutrally about controversial subjects. --Iantresman 10:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

1) By design, there is no way to judge the status of the "dozens of scientists" who were signors of the Open Letter. More than a few have no familiarity with physics. Some don't even have bachelors degrees in scientific disciplines. 2) Eric publishes in out-of-the-way and second-rate journals, yes. That does not make his ideas "investigated" by anyone but his own clique. Yes, he was one of the people at the "alternatice cosmology conference" which had no scientific society affiliation and suffers from the same status problems as the Open Letter. 3) Using an "Idiot's Guide" as a reference is idiotic. Don't do it. I know Moring personally. He is a teacher for University of Phoenix, an online for-profit university of questionable "diploma-mill" repute, and he is basically a science writer, like Lerner, who couldn't cut it in the field. The page linked has no fewer than six distinct errors I caught. The author is not qualified to write the book, it seems. Accuracy is important.

--71.57.90.3 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And by the same reasoning:

• there is no way to judge that "There is really only one legitimate supporter of Eric's work mentioned above." Are you psychic?
• Surely you're not suggesting that The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sciences is a second-rate, out-of-the-way journal? There are probably many astronomy journals that I haven't heard of, but I wouldn't dream of calling them second-rate.
• What do you mean that Moring is "basically a science writer"? Is your only form of criticism to denigrate other scientists? I don't know Moring, but it seems that he has an M.A. from John F. Kennedy University, a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin, and a Ph.D. Candidate at the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco, majoring in Cosmology.[45] And it seems that he has time to write as well... and your assumption is that he "couldn't cut it in the field". I bow down to your superiour intellect and wisdom, and will make sure that all book publishers check with you first. --Iantresman 10:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The reference is to the only legitimate supporter verifiably mentioned. IEEE transactions is neither an astrophysics nor a physical cosmology journal (making it out-of-the-way). Eric has a habit of submitting his papers to every journal he can think of because his papers on plasma cosmology tend to be rejected more often than not because of his incompetence. He found modest success with IEEE only because their editors are not familiar with astronomy and one of them is a sincere fan of Alfvèn. California Institute of Integral Studies is not generally considered a reputable institution for astronomical study. Moring is a New Age guru who likes to believe that the "universe" can talk to him in a very esoteric/quasi religious fashion. He would fit right in at the cosmology article, but he is no scientist. --ScienceApologist 20:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

IEEE Transactions may well be out-of-the-way for astronomers; It's not for plasma physicists. The implication that "astronomers must no best" is an arrogant conceit. --Iantresman 20:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The assumption is that when someone writes about astronomy, astronomical journals are usually where one does it. --ScienceApologist 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

When someone writes about plasma, it seems equally valid to publish in a journal where people also know about the subject. As Alfvén himself recounted:

".. it gives me a possibility to approach the phenomena from another point than most astrophysicists do, and it is always fruitful to look at any phenomenon under two different points of view. On the other hand it has given me a serious disadvantage. When I describe the phenomena according to this formalism most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. With the referee system which rules US science today, this means that my papers rarely are accepted by the leading US journals. Europe, including the Soviet Union, and Japan are more tolerant of dissidents." Memoirs of a Dissident Scientist, American Scientist, May - June 1988

Which is not to say that papers aren't published in astronomy journals too,[46]; it's a shame you weren't there to advise them of their folley. --Iantresman 20:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

None of this speaks to the main point of this section. It's clear now that Eric is marginalized, derided, and not accepted by the astronomical community. The article should not pussyfoot around this fact. --ScienceApologist 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Certain people may deride Lerner's work, but they don't speak for anyone else but themselves. I'll agree that there is no acceptance by the astronomical community; but demonstrably, Lerner's work and extended theories are nevertheless STILL discussed in IEEE journals and elsewhere. --Iantresman 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If Jonathan continues to vandalize this page, I will request that it again be protected in the version that it was last protected.Elerner 03:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines what vandalism is. My edits do not fall in line with that definition. I suggest you respond to the actual content of the edits themselves. Page protection is not meant to endorse any specific version of the article. You'll have to work with me to get to a consensus or use dispute resolution to get to the bottom of your issues. --ScienceApologist 04:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed the article history, accusations of vandalism are clearly false, and a breach of WP:Civility. SA's contributions appear highly useful, and in many cases clearly backed up by Wikipedia policy. Jefffire 12:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see there is a conflict of interest from Elerner. I generaly regard it to be a bad idea for Wikipedians to edit there own articles. Jefffire 12:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I object to ScienceApologist's removal of Lerner's status as an "astronomer" or "scientist", which is verifiable material:

• This Goddard Space Flight Center page says that Lerner "... was recently a visiting astronomer at the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile"[47], as does "The Space Show" page [48]. The ESO descibes Lerner as a "Visiting Scientist" [49]
• That Riccardo Scarpa invited Lerner, is irrelevent in a biography on Lerner, and Scarpa's position on the Big Bang and MOND are also nothing to do with Lerner. --Iantresman 13:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Lerner's major research activity is his own independent work into fusion which is only obliquely related to his plasma cosmology anymore. There is a good argument to be made that his advocacy of plasma cosmology is done to boost his reputation and get funding for his lab. Lerner's credentials are also sorely lacking. --ScienceApologist 14:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to make arguments are debate. It describes verifiable information, and it is verifiable that he was considered a visiting astronomer. --Iantresman 15:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the question is: What makes someone a scientist or an astronomer? Jefffire 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Being invited by a friend to visit an observatory doesn't make someone necessarily an astronomer. Unless Ian has a source for such a claim. --ScienceApologist 15:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." [50]. It is verifiable that Lerner was invited as a visiting astronomer and/or visiting scientist. --Iantresman 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

But is it verifiable that he is one? It's our own little demarkation problem. Jefffire 15:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not for us to decide. That he was visiting astronomer is verifiable, whether he is one or not --Iantresman 16:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because you are invited to visit an observatory doesn't mean that you are a professional astronomer. --ScienceApologist 16:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The sources don't say he was an invited professional astronomer. The sources say he was invited an "vistiting astronomer"; Lerner could be Santa Claus for all I care, but the sources say he was an invited astronomer. That is verifiable and meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --Iantresman 18:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also verifiable that he was invited to visit an observatory by a fellow signatory of the Open Letter. Why should we include that he was supposedly an invited "astronomer"? Seems arbitrary to me. --ScienceApologist 19:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the verifiable sources say that he's an invited astronomer. --Iantresman 19:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is verifiable does not mean that we must include it -- especially if its misleading and there are other points that are verifiable about the same subject as well. --ScienceApologist 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How is it misleading? --Iantresman 19:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying that I was invited by Riccardo Scarpa to visit ESO is very different than saying that ESO invited me to be a Visiting Astronomer. The latter is the truth. A five-person committee, of which Riccardo Scarpa is not a member, decided who is to be a Visiting Astronomer for a month, based on proposals from “inviting scientists” –in my case, Scarpa. On the basis of the invitation from ESO’s committee, the Visiting Astronomer is given an ESO stipend to cover their stay and is invited to give a seminar at ESO. All of these are organizational decisions by ESO. I was invited by ESO's committee, given the stipend and I presented the seminar.

To continually revert this information is to introduce false information on a biographical entry, which is not allowed. Also, reverting to eliminate that false information is not covered by the three-revert rule, but introducing it is. I have requested protection for this page, as the willful introduction of false information is not allowed by Wikipedia standards.Elerner 00:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Now Eric, that's not exactly what happens at ESO and you should know it considering you were invited there. The committee in question acts more of a rubber stamp as long as the astronomer requesting the visit hasn't been over-burdening the observatory with requested visitors. If Scarpa hadn't invited you, there is no way you would have been offered a visit. Can you point to a case where the committee turned down a prospective visitor due to a poor proposal? --ScienceApologist 13:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How in the world would you know Joshua? Have you been invited there as a visiting astronomer?Of course you are 100% wrong. Since the invitations come with money attached and there is a finite pool of money, of course the committee has to decide who to invite and not act as a rubber stamp. The fact is it was ESO that invited me. Your behavior is completely unprofessional. Elerner 20:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The better question is, how in the world do we know whether you know, Eric? How can we nkow that you have seen the inner workings of this particular ESO committee? I happen to know personally because I have friends who were invited to ESO to work just like you. Of course, neither of our claims about the way this process happens are verifiable so therefore they cannot be used as evidence for this article. The fact is that you were invited to ESO by a Scarpa. This is all arguments based on hearsay (from both ends) and so all we have to go on is the evidence. The evidence clearly shows that you were invited to ESO by Scarpa. I have no problem reporting this. Why do you? --ScienceApologist 12:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We know because it is verifiable, as provided by the TWO sources I gave earlier. The sources say that Lerner was a "visting astronomer", whether Lerner was actually a visiting astronomer, whether he really turned up, really is an astronomer, or anything else, is conjecture. --Iantresman 13:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be two issues here: 1) How to write about Eric Lerner being invited to ESO, 2) whether Lerner is an "astronomer" in the same sense that, for example, Martin Rees is an astronomer. The first issue involves whether or not to report that he was invited by Scarpa. Since this is verifiable fact, I see no reason why we should exclude it and it provides a good context for his invite (he was invited as a proponent of non-standard cosmologies). The second is a more tricky categorical controversy and doesn't lend itself to simple sourcing or verification. In theory, ESO can invite anybody they want, but simply inviting someone to an observatory with a stipend doesn't make that person an astronomer. However, we may not have a good criteria for what makes an astronomer. In any case, the two issues must be separated lest we confuse them. --ScienceApologist 14:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the verifiable sources says "he was recently a visiting astronomer at the European Southern Observatory".[51] How he came to be invited is irrelevent. Is he an astronomer like Martin Rees, again is irrelevent. I have no doubt that there are probably different astronomers, those with telescopes, those without, those that have published papers, those that haven't, those with degrees, those without. One thing is for sure, it is not for you to decide, as ScienceApologist is not verifiable. --Iantresman 14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian, surely it is your opinion that these things you say are irrelevant are irrelevant. It is totally verifiable that Scarpa invited Lerner to ESO. It is also worth at least a discussion as to whether or not it is appropriate to describe Eric in the openning as an "astronomer" when he is the director of a terrestrial laboratory. --ScienceApologist 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• None of the previous discussions have concerned the relevence of this information. I don't know if Eric is an astronomer, nor whether terrestrial lab directors can be astronomers.
• I believe that Michael Faraday was a bookbinder, William Herschel a musician and composer, and Charles Darwin a clergyman, and I would guess that most people would call them scientists too.
• I also know of graduates that have done work with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, had their work published in Astronomy journals, but work in a terrestrial college doing one of the most challenging jobs on the planet (all verifiable). Are they an astronomer? researcher? chemist? physicist? teacher? I wouldn't take any of them away from you.
• But of Eric, I do know that NASA reports that "he was recently a visiting astronomer at the European Southern Observatory".[52] --Iantresman 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Ian, let's use the source you outline. The source is an abstract from a colloquim given by Eric on Aerogels. It describes Eric as a plasma physicist first off, not as an astronomer. That's what we do. It mentions he was a visiting astronomer at ESO. We also mention his visitation and add the clarification that he was invited by Scarpa. This is all verifiable, and it seems to work with your source. --ScienceApologist 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, and partly corroborated by the Space Show source [53]. I've never had any problems with the "Invited by Scarpa" bit, only that it replaced the "visiting astronomer" bit. --Iantresman 23:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hooray, we have consensus. Just in time for Eric Lerner to revert it! --ScienceApologist 23:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the consensus didn't make it into the current version which is on page protection. I thought the edit went through, but it apparently was eaten by the big bad database. The statement should read ...was invited to be a visitng astronomer by.... How's that for compromise? --ScienceApologist 01:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me. See my comment below. I'm going to take the liberty of including this since it is acceptable to you. This is a good faith attempt to remove some of the heat from the dispute, while the page is protected, so I hope that I won't get hammered by both sides. Metamagician3000 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian tries to railroad ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist, I have reported you for what amounts to personal attacks on Eric Lerner, by attempting to discredit him in contravention of Wikipedia's official policy on No personal attacks. --Iantresman 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

An administrator's comments to ScienceApologist can be found here --Iantresman 11:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is unforunate that Ian has continued in his old habits of supporting vexatious litigation against me. Fortunately, the evidence is all there that Ian's advocacy is based in his own personal vendetta and has no basis in fact. --ScienceApologist 12:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Shell, has continued the discussion on her personal Talk page, where she has given ScienceApologist a 24-hour ban. --Iantresman 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked SA, and am cautioning Iantresman on misusing WP processes to gain advantage in simple content disputes. Inflated claims, questionable evidence, all amount to bad faith wikilawyering. The community has very little tolrance for vexatious litigation, especially coming from someone with a history of disruption. Iantresman's gloating posts in this section trying to discredit a fellow editor are not in the spirit of dispute resolution, and a far greater infraction that anything found in his opponent's recent edit history. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Why is this article not appropriately tagged pseudoscience? JBKramer 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• (1) Because people are never categorised as pseudoscience (2) While Lerner's research may be considered minority research (despite him having about 50 peer reviewed papers to his name)[54], I have not found any reliable sources that even hint at it falling into this category. --Iantresman 20:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Eric Lerner himself is not "pseudoscience". However, plasma cosmology may be -- it all depends on how you demarcate it. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that plasma cosmology is pseudoscience, or even might be pseudoscience. Do you have a references? I might even accept a blog. --Iantresman 22:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is best left to the Talk:Plasma cosmology page. --ScienceApologist 22:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Now i do NOT favor the views of LERNER but calling all his works and the plasma universe pseudoscience is just as ignorant as it gets. Go look up in the dictionary PC, like personal computer. It ultimately moved us as a society forward to the status of conducting protoscientific studies which too are valuable and 100% scientific per se. Again i am nowhere near a proponent of those theories which Lerner is working on, but at the least one shouldn`t be as STUPID to call everything pseudoscience because one doesn`t like it. Of course if one is so blinded by his own emotions that he can`t think clear anymore that`s a whole different issue then.

I think Lerner is stupid and ignorant in that he believes that all big bangers are inflexible, blinded, follow an almost religious dogma, intentionally try to uphold an supposedly crumbling theory and whatnot, when in fact it is the best theory we got - and the majority knows that and thus USES the theory. Hardly anyone is in love, dogmatic or a blind follower and treats this theory like any other just on another level, given the problems with cosmology itself. That being said the study of the big bang itself is a protoscience. Slicky 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A little song, a little dance, a little revert down your pants

Quick recap:

For some time now, Eric has made his intention known that he will unilaterally revert articles when he feels like it. This is an unfortunate situation, but as Eric is far from a consistent Wikipedian and only edits articles related to himself, is a manageable if not regrettable inconvenience. However, I'm now put in an awkward position because:

1) Eric Lerner has reverted the article again. 2) Yesterday, Ian Tresman tried to get me banned from editting all science articles by claiming I was personally attacking Eric. 3) User:Shell Kinney decided to block me not for personal attacks but for edit warring. This despite my continued pleas here and elsewhere to actually discuss content with Eric rather than engaging in this childish back-and-forth.

I'm going to wait and see what other editors think about what has just happened. I'll note that above I was able to cobble out a consensus wording with User:Iantresman regarding Eric's visitor status at ESO. This has now been reverted. We also came to an agreement with User:Shell Kinney that the Sean Carroll reference is probably okay. This has been reverted. Eric has reintroduced an exhaustive list of accolades that smack of a conflict-of-interest described at WP:AUTO. It is my sincere opinion that this action was not only uncalled for, it was symptomatic of Eric's behavior and should be reversed.

--ScienceApologist 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's what another editor thinks. I think your edit history generally amounts to "my way or the wrong way". You are frequently unable to separate people from their ideas and tend to behave irrationally when unable to cope with dissenting opinion. You are trying to be a rigid absolutist authoritarian rational materialist in an uncertain, complex-adaptive evolving and unpredictable universe. Get yourself a cat. Jon 12:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The page is fully protected due to the recent revert warring and problems with WP:AUTO. Discuss and resolve the dispute here. Vsmith 00:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to my page being protected in the form that SA has reverted it to, as opposed to the form in which it was last protected. It is now clearly libelous.

The issue here is that SA is accusing me of lying and using false information to do it. I was a Visiting Astronomer at ESO in February 2006. I have so stated in several places. Not a big deal, but a fact.

SA has repeatedly reverted this fact on my wiki entry to state that I was invited by a friend to visit ESO, a completely different thing. If that were true, which someone relying on Wikipedia would believe, then my claiming that I was a Visiting Astronomer is a lie. In science, faking credentials is a particularly bad thing to do. But that is what anyone using Wikipedia will conclude about me, if SA’s edits are allowed to stand. I urge that the page be protected in the same form that it was last protected in, without this libel.Elerner 01:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Libel is a serious charge. One that is subject to Wikipedia's policy on legal issues. I'll report your objections to the proper groups. --ScienceApologist 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer but having looked it over, nothing I see there could reasonably constitute libel. The article does not say that you lied or such as far as I can tell. Is there a specific sentence that you see as a possibly libelous? JoshuaZ 01:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Also, please keep in mind that articles are frequently protected when edit disputes are too extreme. Inevitably they will be protected in a way that makes someone unhappy. Please be patient and understanding. JoshuaZ 01:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have already reported them. Your repeated accusations on my page and on the talk page that I was lying about my credentials, specifically about being a Visting Astronomer at ESO is libelous.Elerner 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your credentials are perfectly clear. You have a bachelor's degree, dropped out of graduate school, and were invited by Scarpa to be a visitor at ESO. I wasn't aware that Scarpa was your friend, but if he is that's hardly a matter of record and quite irrelevant to the article. --ScienceApologist 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same Eric Lerner that has worked with the Lyndon LaRouche science publications?--Cberlet 01:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe so, but I think they had a falling out over a patent dispute. Is that right, Eric? --ScienceApologist 01:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I should add that the other edits of SA, which are now protected, make this article completley biased by removing ALL positive comments on my book, including by such authorities as James Van Allen.The version that was previously protected had exactly the same number of positive as negetive comments, and ,as far as possible, balanced even who was doing the commenting--Penzias vs Van Allen for example.Elerner 01:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Two questions for ScienceApologist: (1) what is the big deal about him being described as "Visiting Astronomer"? Surely he either was or he wasn't entitled to be referred to as such, and it is important to him to have it right. If there's no reason to disbelieve him on this and there are statements in the public domain, why not use the expression? (Actually: I see you are expressed willingness to incorporate the expression earlier on this talk page, so I guess it's just a matter of your confirming that.) (2) Is there a source for the very last point? It sounds very damaging, but as it stands it looks like original research. I suggest that the description of this debate either be attributed to some source which claims that that he performed so poorly in the debate described, or that this point be dropped.

For Elerner: I don't think you are the right person to be responding to criticisms, beyond correcting facts. If there are attributable and credible statements in your support, I suggest you present them here on the talk page where they can be debated.

To both of you: you may need to get dispute resolution on this article. The above suggestions are simply an attempt to suggest how the matter should normally proceed in the absence of any more formal steps to resolve the dispute. Metamagician3000 02:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, all the needed references to everything are in the Sept.4 version of this page, the one that was protected on July 20. Just look at that. I did not notice SA's little opinion of the debate at Princeton. It is obviously his own personal opnion, and is of a piece with the rest of his edits.Elerner 02:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the debate was in 1993 and SA would have been too young to witness it. So, since there were no published accounts of the debate, this is just hearsay from someone who did witness the debate, possibly Spergel himself. Hardly verifiable stuff.Elerner 03:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to get too involved in this. I'm just trying to see if there's anything I can do to take the heat out. I just inserted some wording that I see SA had already agreed to, which might make you a bit happier. Is there any reason why you can't put the material in your support on this page in dot form? If there is, fair enough. I'm just doing what little bit of informal mediation I can while I have a spare minute. Maybe it'll all be counterproductive. Admins intervene in content disputes at their peril. You guys really need some more concerted help through the dispute resolution processes.

Must go now. I'll check what happened in a few hours. Metamagician3000 02:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, metamagician, but I am a bit unclear on what I am supposed to do. On the one hand you ask me to put supporting material in summary form, on the other you say maybe I should butt out.

Anyway, I can provide information to clarify why I think the reference to Scarpa does not belong in the mention of my being a Visiting Astronomer at ESO. (Personally, I don't think it merits a mention in the lead paragraph. I would prefer it just be included in the paragraph SA deleted about where I lectured.)

Here’s the start of the email that I received from ESO on 10/25/05:

“From Dr. Felix Mirabel, ESO/Chile Head of Office for Science To Mr. Eric Lerner Dear Mr. Lerner, Following the recommendation of the Selection Committee for Visiting Scientists at ESO/Santiago, I have the pleasure of inviting you to spend a one-month period at ESO/Chile research facilities in Santiago.”

I think that is perfectly clear who did the inviting. Scarpa merely made a proposal to the Selection committee.Elerner 03:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In terms of what I would like changed, the first change that I would like is that the two paragraphs at the end of the "scientific activities" section, deleted by SA, to be re-instated. They are:

"He has presented this approach to fusion at several scientific conferences including (in the past five years) the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, 2002: the American Physical Society, 2003 and the XI Latin American Workshop on Plasma Physics, 2005. Lerner was an invited speaker at both the Fifth (2003) and Sixth (2005) Symposia on Current Trends in International Fusion Research, which is sponsored by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In the Sixth Symposium the paper was presented with Robert E. Terry, Naval Research Laboratory)(http://www.physicsessays.com/doc/s2005/Lerner_Transparencies.pdf)

His work challenging the Big Bang theory has been reported in popular science magazines, including a cover article of New Scientist (July 2, 2005) and in television and film documentaries [55]. His views on cosmology have been published in periodicals ranging from Sky and Telescope to The New York Times. He is co-editor of the Proceedings of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference (American Institute of Physics Proceeding Series.) In 2006, he was a Visiting Astronomer at the European Southern Observatory (ESO) in Santiago, Chile. He has been invited to present his theories at many leading institutions, including ESO, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Princeton University, the University of Pavia (Italy), The University of Buenos Aires, Argentina and the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden."

I don't see how SA can have any legitimate reason for knocking all this out.Elerner 03:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Second change is to change the one-sided and inaccurate subtitle"Criticism of Lerner's ideas" (a section that actually has both criticism and support of my book) to "Debate on Lerner's Book, The Big Bang Never Happened". All of it does relate to my 1991 book, not to my technical papers.

Third change is to reinstate the two supporting quotes that SA deleted :

"James Van Allen, discover of the Van Allen belts, wrote, on the back cover of The Big Bang Never Happened

"Eric J. Lerner gives both a provocative critique of the Big Bang and a stimulating account of the insightful and creative, although controversial, cosmology of Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven."

The Chicago Tribune reviewing The Big Bang Never Happened, noted that

"Lerner does a fine job poking holes in Big Bang thinking and provides a historical perspective as well, linking scientific theories to trends in philosophy, politics, religion and even economics...a most readable book."[9] "Elerner 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Last change is to delete the Caroll and Feuerbacher quotes. If there is going to be some semblance of NPOV, there should be some rough balance in the quotes. In my view, this is less important than the other changes.Elerner 04:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is much I can do right now. I thought it fair enough to put in the few words that I did since they cover one of the points you are upset about and SA had already agreed to them. I don't think anyone can criticise me for doing that much with the protected article, but I hesitate to do more at the moment while it's protected.

Isn't there any way you guys can sort out your differences re the points Elerner wants to put in, including what he says about the e-mail from Dr Mirabel and the currently unsourced criticism at the end? For all I know, his theory may be a significant breakthrough or it may be the worst kind of pseudoscience, or it may be something in between; I'm not qualified to judge that and would not want to do so anyway in my role as interfering/ineffectual-but-trying-to-be helpful-and-not-make-things-worse admin. :) I do have some opinions but they may well be wrong and I have no intention of doing anything to try to force them on you. For example, I'm not impressed by a reference to "The Chicago Tribune" as if the newspaper itself supported something. If this reference goes in at all (which I am neutral about) surely it should name the actual reviewer or whatever, and unless the reviewer is someone eminent that doesn't seem to get us anywhere. More generally, I don't see any need for things to be "balanced" in number of supporting/opposing quotes if the weight of scientific opinion is currently against Elerner's work. OTOH, if there are reputable individuals who have supported, they can be quoted, as long as it's sourced, IMO. I also think the very last bit (the damning report of the debate) needs to be either sourced or removed (Edit: I see it has been removed for now by someone else).

But those are just things for both of you to think about. I have no particular authority here. The bottom line is you are both obviously highly intelligent people. How do you both think you could fairly resolve the dispute, bearing in mind what we now have here on the talk page (the things Elerner would like to include and the things he'd like to remove, plus anything else found above from either of you and others who've commented)? I'd like to be able to unprotect the page, but not if it just leads to more reversions or in Elerner directly making controversial edits about himself. If there's any sort of procedure you could agree to, or any set of changes you could agree upon pro tem, I'd be happy to unlock the page for you. Is mediation a possibility at all, for example? Metamagician3000 08:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanations/suggestions

1) The two paragraphs Lerner would like to see included are not appropriate from either a verifiable or biographical standpoint. The popular science magazines a person has been published in and the conferences one has attended are not relevant to a thoughtful biography and are subject issues regarding notability in my estimation. I see much of this as an appeal to self-aggrandizement rather than a neutral description of a person's credentials.

2) The debate at Princeton was reported in the Princeton Weekly Bulliten and was covered by the campus press. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the archives of this at this time. I would be curious to know whether Eric learned what error bars meant in the meantime (he tends to leave them out of his papers). That is, however, peripheral to the article at hand.

3) Van Allen's book jacket quote might be better included in the section than mentions Eric wrote the book since it is not a criticism. Unfortunately, since Van Allen is dead, we cannot get his opinion on what he thinks of the book now that COBE, WMAP, etc. have come out.

4) I don't think Eric should edit the article itself anymore and I'm not convinced that if protection is removed he won't just go ahead and begin his old process of reverting without discussion. There's too many implications of a conflict of interest.

--ScienceApologist 11:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the information is appropriate from a biographical point of view for a couple of reasons:

• It has already been suggested by yourself that (a) criticisms from "a public debate" (at Princeton) (b) from someone's blog, are suitable for the biography. In which case, the attendance of a recognised scientific meeting would seem to be at least as notable.
• Since Lerner's credibility has been questioned on more than one occassion, both in these discussion pages, and in the article, then the attendance, invitation and presenteation at scientific meetings becomes relevant.
• I also note that others have suggested than Lerner is a pseudoscientist (or worse)[56], and you yourself have suggested that his field of work may be considered pseudoscientific. And since one of the criticisms of pseudoscientists is that they do not present their work to the scientific community, again, this becomes relevent, and demonstrates that Lerner is at least attempting to engage with the scientific community.

As for verification, that is a secondary issue which I'm sure we can meet.

--Iantresman 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the Scarpa business? It does seem technically inaccurate to say that the invitation came "from" Scarpa or whatever form of words is used. On the other hand, it doesn't seem controversial that Scarpa was involved in some way - perhaps even tee'd it up - and I don't currently understand why anyone would try to hide this. I assume that Mr Lerner considers Scarpa to be a reputable colleague. While the page is protected, and you're working through larger issues, is there a more accurate form of words on that point which both "sides" would be happy with? We may as well clear up anything like that that we can.

By the way, just to be clear if I was ambiguous earlier, one reason why I am not willing to unprotect the page at this point is that I don't think the subject of the page should be editing it himself in the circumstances except to correct clear errors. I've normally got nothing against notable wikipedians doing a bit of uncontroversial expansion of their bios, but obviously that is not what is at stake here. I think the proper way is for Mr Lerner to use the talk page to make suggestions. With Iantresman here, there's at least someone who will tend to be sympathetic ... so it's not a huge disadvantage in the debate. But there's no agreement at the moment for it to happen that way. Metamagician3000 14:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sources say that he was a "visting astronomer"[57] [58]. Sources also say he was invited by Riccardo Scarpa [59], but it is unlikely that this would have been unilaterially, and as Lerner himself indicates, it would have gone through a selection board who I guess would have approved the recommendation.
• As for the relevance of Scarpa's interest in MOdified Newtonian Dynamics,[60] and being a critic of the Big Bang, I can see why ScienceApologist wants to include it, but (a) it is not relevant to Lerner (b) it is suggesting that it MIGHT be relevant. I have no doubt that colleagues invite one another to do talks because there is a professional association, because one's work supports another, or for whatever reason. But I don't know of any other scientist biography where motives are suggested or implied.
• Personally, I think all mention of Scarpa should be relegated to footnote as I don't think it is significant enough to include an introductory paragraphy about someone else.
• I would he happy for Metamagician3000 to decide what is important, and then we can word it accordingly.

--Iantresman 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

1) I’m fine with other people than me doing the editing. But I strongly object to SA’s continuous attacks on me. I still think he should be blocked from editing my page given his obvious hostility to me.

2) The only point that has enough importance to include in a bio is that I WAS a Visiting Astronomer at ESO in February 2006. Who made the proposal to the selection committee is a level of detail that it wholly inappropriate. SA’s only motivation for mentioning Scarpa, as is clear from the discussion page, is to say that this was a case of somebody inviting me on a personal visit. We’ve already clarified that this is not what happened. So Scarpa is far too much of a detail to include. The current formulation is totally inadequate, since it puts the emphasis on who is inviting, as if that were the important point in the lead paragraph, not that I was a Visiting Astronomer. In addition, the whole thing is not important enough to go in the lead paragraph.

3) SA is totally inconsistent in saying that where I lectured is too detailed, but who suggested my name to a selection committee is relevant. Since I hold “heretical” views and am not affiliated with a university, the short paragraphs on where I have presented my work and where it has been reported give the reader some idea of the extent to which my ideas are discussed, and why, indeed there should be a wiki entry on me in the first place.

4) I agree with the point about the Chicago Tribune. I will look up who wrote the review and it should be cited to him.Elerner 15:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll await SA's response. Some of those points (e.g. re the Chicago Tribune) sound reasonable on their face but let's see what SA says. Presumably everyone agrees that Mr Lerner is, in fact, not supported by mainstream science and that the article needs to continue to make that completely clear. I don't think any changes which blur that point would be acceptable.

I think we do that in the very first sentence, the Lerner is "the most prominent advocates of the non-mainstream plasma cosmology". --Iantresman 22:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, folks, I'm not prepared to make any changes while the page is protected unless they are readily and clearly agreed. I should also make clear that I don't have the time or patience to play the role of mediator much longer, insofar as that is what I'm doing, but my suggestion is still that you all try mediation. There are some good mediators around, and the material being produced here at the moment would be useful for that process. That would also be better than running straight to ArbCom, at least in my opinion. As far as personal attacks go, it would be good if all parties could avoid any insults or sarcastic comments. I have no idea what has been said in the past, though I've noticed a sarcastic comment or two here on the talk page. I'm not eager to hand out blocks except for the most egregious behaviour, so I'm not here as a policeman or something, especially without knowing all the past rights and wrongs. Just everyone try to be polite and respectful, okay? It'll look better if you end up in ArbCom soon. Metamagician3000 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This battle is part of one of the oldest wars on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist, Elerner and Iantresman are all veterans of every form of dispute resolution Wikipedia offers. I'm not criticizing mediation, just offering Metamagician3000 a seemingly missing point of information. Art LaPella 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You'e right that I have no real knowledge of the history, only that there is one. OTOH, ArbCom should be a last resort and is supposed to deal only with conduct, not content. SA says he is amenable to mediation. I still think it's worth a try, at least for this article. Metamagician3000 05:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am amendable to mediation.

Arrogant, dismissive, and emotion-ridden

It is clear to me that what Eric is trying to do on this page is "legitimize" himself inasmuch as he is marginalized in the scientific community and his ideas are considered poorly considered/fringe/out-and-out bad science. So Eric (and Ian) advocate for this page to conform to a perspective that heaps accolades in the form of "Eric lectured here, Eric talked at this conference" to lend him a level of legitimacy that is meant to confuse readers into thinking he isn't as poorly considered/fringe/out-and-out bad scientist as the general consensus in the community seems to paint him.

In terms of the "Scarpa" controversy: It was Eric who included the "honorific" that he was a "visiting astronomer". I think that this need not be mentioned in the article as it is merely an attempt by Eric to gain more legitimacy. "Oh look, I was invited to be a visiting astronomer at ESO." It is true that Eric was invited to be a visiting astronomer at ESO, but so are dozens of other astronomers. If we started reported where each astronomer was invited on their pages, we would end up with laundry lists everywhere. This kind of advocacy is called appeal to authority and it casts a pall on Eric's attempts to gain legitimacy through self-aggradizing Wikipedia articles. This is why it is interesting that Eric and Ian don't want to see the connection to Scarpa listed on the page. It's okay to say that Eric was invited to ESO but it's not okay to say that he was invited at the request of a fellow Big Bang critic. This is because it again marginalizes Eric in the community, but Eric is verifiably marginalized in the community so their desire not to see this in the article stems from their desire to legitimize Eric.

Interestingly, none of the other visitors to ESO at the same time as Eric was there have written Wikipedia articles about themselves. Of course, they may not be as notable as Eric Lerner, but we have to ask ourselves: "Why is Eric notable?" He is notable because he positions himself in the unique position as being against the scientific consensus on the Big Bang. That means that his notability is derived from his marginalization. Trying to position him otherwise is definitely a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. This is why autobiography issues come into play and it is also why we need to be very careful what we include in the article. Much of what Eric wants to see here are ways for him to legitimize himself and perhaps drum-up support for his plasma physics endeavors. This is what I think is problematic about the edits.

It would be good if we found who wrote the review for the Chicago tribune if we could list whether said reviewer is in the scientific community, does astrophysical research, or has anything more than a passing familiarity with the subject of Eric's book. Please let us know when you find out who wrote the review.

--ScienceApologist 23:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• ScienceApologist, if the article was about anyone else other than Eric Lerner, it's contents probably wouldn't get a second look. But because Eric's work is not mainstream, you (and others) automatically assume that EVERYTHING he researches, MUST be bordering on pseudoscience, and rather than consider he is trying to follow the scientific method, you PRESUME he is trying to "legitimize" himself and "appeal to authority" for all the wrong reasons. This is PURE unsubstantiated speculation.
• One day ScienceApologist, I hope you are able to present your work to scientific conferences, and you get invited to observatories too... presumably to legitimize your work, and appeal to the acceptance of authority (your peers) too. Of course you'll claim it's entirely based on merit, whereas Eric wins writing awards (which you removed) for his work because... ?
• This is double standards. On the one hand criticising certain people for not following the scientific method, and when someone does because they just might have a theory worthy of consideration... you knock them for having the audacity of "associating with 'proper' scientists".
• I feel this bias against non-mainstream people subjects, affects your editing judgement. This is demonstrated by your consideration of Eric's work as pseudoscience, labelling Plasma cosmology as pseudoscience, and Arp's work as "Pathological", incredibly with no evidence, and no sources.
• It's unfortunately that HUNDREDS of other scientists and engineers appear to disagree with you,[61], but you'd never know this from your account. --Iantresman 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I did not spend much time here until I was asked to come and check up on the article. What I found was Eric filling the article with positive accolades and statements that praised his work while the criticisms amounted to little more than off-handed comments. This is neither a neutral nor a verifiable description of his position vis-a-vis the scientific community. It was Eric who wanted to include his position as a "visiting astronomer". It was Eric who wrote prose that listed all the different lectures he gave and conferences he attended. It was Eric who wrote down the sum of positive reviews received for his book listed by the publisher. This was all done in attempt to paint him as something he isn't: an accepted, legitimate, and respected researcher in the field of cosmology. I am merely trying to make sure that Eric's verified marginalization in the community is given the appropriate treatment so that readers are not confused into thinking that he has more legitimacy than he actually has. All of my contributions have been verifiable and straightforward. I have been trying to remove the bias Eric and you keep inserting which is to insinuate that he is more accepted than he actually is.

You are absolutely right that the scientific community has a double standard. The scientific community is a closed-shop, arrogant, dismissive, and emotion-ridden group of mostly white men who marginalize, criticize, deride, and spitefully ignore those who don't live up to very arbitrary standards for inclusion. But that's not for Wikipedia to fix. Wikipedia just reports what exists, it is not out to change the scientific community or anything else except, possibly, where people go to get information on the internet.

--ScienceApologist 00:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

IMO, this sentence does not belong in the introduction. "He was invited by fellow Big Bang critic and MOND enthusiast Riccardo Scarpa to be a visiting astronomer at the European Southern Observatory in Chile." The sentence should be farther down in the article. Does not have the level of importance that makes it worthy of place in intro. FloNight 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We could consider omitting it entirely. It may not belong in the article at all. --ScienceApologist 01:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I proposed that the mention of ESO not be in the first paragraph. It should be a simple sentence. “He was a Visiting Astronomer at the European Southern Observatory in 2006.”It could either be at the end of the first paragraph on Scientific Activities or it could go into the paragraph I proposed above and repeat here:

“His work challenging the Big Bang theory has been reported in popular science magazines, including a cover article of New Scientist (July 2, 2005) and in television and film documentaries [62]. His views on cosmology have been published in periodicals ranging from Sky and Telescope to The New York Times. He is co-editor of the Proceedings of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference (American Institute of Physics Proceeding Series.) In 2006, he was a Visiting Astronomer at the European Southern Observatory (ESO) in Santiago, Chile. He has been invited to present his theories at many leading institutions, including ESO, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Princeton University, the University of Pavia (Italy), The University of Buenos Aires, Argentina and the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.”

Who invited me to ESO is a fine detail. As the letter I posted above shows, the invitation actually came from Felix Mirabel, ESO/Chile Head of Office for Science.

While my views clearly are supported by a minority in the community, it would be absurd for ESO to spend money to have me down there to do research for a month and give a seminar if they did not feel my views were worth listening to. So my being a Visiting Astronomer does contradict SA’s hysterical view of me.

SA’s description of the July 20 version of this article, which I advocate, that in it “ the criticisms amounted to little more than off-handed comments”, is wildly inaccurate. That version contains four critical comments, all much longer than the three positive ones.

I urge the various administrators to actually look at that version.

At the moment, I can’t find the Chicago Tribune review. Until I do, (next time I go to the library) I think it should not be included.

By the way, SA’s statement that I wrote the article about myself is obviously wrong. I did edit it. But it was written, and edited, by quite a few others for eight months before I looked at it, let alone changed it. Check the history.Elerner 03:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've written the "visiting astronomer sentence" in a way that seems more accurate and put it in what strikes me as the logical place. I'm not prepared to remove the reference to Campa while SA insists it's important. I can't make the judgment that he is wrong about that - and indeed it does seem to be of at least some importance to me as a layperson that this appointment involved a bit of academic networking (not that there's anything wrong with that - it happens all the time). It certainly doesn't look like irrelevant information. I guess no one will be entirely happy with what I've done, but it does actually seem to me to be an improvement in being more accurate and better placed. If it can be improved further in a way that you can agree on, let me know. When I get a chance, and while you're all considering the mediation/arbitration issue, I'll look at some of the other points that have been made and see if there's anything I can suggest. Metamagician3000 05:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good rewrite and the new placement makes sense. Agree with keeping this wording that includes who invited him to the observatory. FloNight 10:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, FloNight. More generally, there was some debate at AN/I about the propriety of using the Preposterous Universe blog as a source. As far as I can see, this is one of those occasions when it is appropriate to use a blog, since it is by someone suitable reputable in the field. I think it carries more weight than stray reviews that any science journalist might get the gig to write (even I have done some gigs like that, but my views would count for nothing). At the same time, reading the current version cold, I think the "Criticisms" section looks like overkill. We want to make the point that can't really be contested that mainstream scientists find grave problems with Mr Lerner's work, and it is very much on (if not beyond) the fringes of current science. It is believed to challenge a dominant paradigm that is not considered to be in any way in crisis, whatever Lerner argues. Any other impression would be misleading and surely there is a source for what I just said. But I don't think we need this litany of quotes to prove the point. Even if we use all of the sources, surely we could paraphrase some of them concisely so it looks less as if Wikipedia is out to bury the guy. At the same time, if he does have some mainstream support, or at least some mainstream respect for something he has done, I believe it is fine to point that out. I don't see anything wrong with making the point that this is generally considered fringe stuff but then saying, "Nonetheless he has some support and has had some success in getting high-profile treatment in popular science publications such as New Scientist." Then say whatever the facts are about this. None of that would detract from the fact that he is seen as a fringe figure by the mainstream scientific community (which should be clear). But it would round out the picture.

I don't have precise suggestions about how to word any of this; I'm just reporting how the balance of this version looks to someone a bit detached from the debate who is not at all a fan of fringe science. I am by no means suggesting we go back to anything like the 20 July version, which seems much too sugarcoated about his position within the scientific community. Metamagician3000 11:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That sounds very fair and balanced. --Iantresman 12:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Metamagician3000 is getting closer to the ideas I have about the direction the article should take. Summarizing, in my mind, is always better than baldly quoting. Let's, however, make a few things clear:

• the current criticisms of Lerner take two varieities: one of his book and another of his over-all work. We shouldn't conflate the two. I notice Eric does above.
• The criticism of Eric have been made in a number of ways. It might be useful to the reader to know the kind of criticisms Eric has received, not just that he has received criticisms.
• The praise Eric has received has been from either historical supporters of non-standard cosmologies (i.e. Van Allen) or people who are outside of the field (i.e. a science librarian). There are no positive reviews from people who are part of the scientific consensus. This is important because there are positive reviews out there of other non-standard astrophysicists. Jayant Narlikar and Halton Arp come quickly to mind. However, these two astronomers have academic appointments and are much more in-touch with the standard community for whatever reasons.
• I was reminded above that Eric was once a member of LaRouche's party who has in its platform Big Bang denial. I don't know whether this is relevant to the article or not.

--ScienceApologist 12:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

View from the peanut gallery

As an observer who is trying to stay out of the line of fire but can't resist poking his head up now and then, I have this to say:

As a reader, I want to know where to place Lerner in the God-to-kook spectrum. That is why it is important for me to learn that he didn't finish graduate school and does not have an appointment at an academic institution or government research lab. At the same time, there are plenty of kooks that are a lot worse than he is, so I am interested in knowing that he tries to and succeeds at publishing his work in refereed journals and at least got officially invited to a respectable place like ESO (Chile). Those are things I would naturally assume about a mainstream scientist so they don't need to be reported there, but they are not usually true of Big-Bang-deniers so they have a place here. On the other hand, I don't need a lot of detail on these things, and I don't need quotations from six reviews of his book.

Finally, for anyone who hasn't figured it out yet, I am not fond of Eric, either as a scientist or as an editor. But there are also lots of worse scientists and worse editors out there, so let's keep calm about this. For the rest, this discussion is too wordy. To the extent that there is still disagreement (which is not clear to me), it would help to have, for each of the two or three controversial passages, two or three alternate versions to focus the discussion.

--Art Carlson 08:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I also tend to feel that six quotes are excessive, as they are all highly selective. Perhaps we should just say that Lerner has received a number of criticisms, some positive, some negative, and list them (without quoting) in the footnotes.
• I also think you're saying that although Lerner is marginalised, that you still want to know whether he has published in peer-reviwed journals. --Iantresman 09:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Art Carlson. WAS 4.250 10:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a useful contribution. I'll be interested to see SA's reponse to it. Metamagician3000 10:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric's relationship with peer-reviewed journals is a bit more complicated than "he tries and succeeds at publishing his work in refereed journals". Lately, he has mostly avoided the traditional astrophysics and cosmology journals in favor of some "out-of-the-way" journals that have a bit more lenient standards or don't normally publish work regarding cosmology (such as IEEE transactions). I also don't think it is neutral just to say that Lerner has received "positive and negative" criticisms because the preponderance of the evidence seems to be that most active cosmologists either dismiss or ignore him. Why else would he sign the Open Letter? --ScienceApologist 12:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a big divide between publications that are refereed and those that are not. It gets fuzzy because there are better and worse venues of both types, and there are more and less stringent standards of review, and, as you point out, the journal may be more or less relevant to the subject of the paper, which has a bearing on the quality of the review. But still, the first question I would ask of somebody with a new idea in science is whether he publishes in refereed journals. So in any case we want to report that Lerner publishes in refereed journals. We might or might not want to include more details about exactly where he publishes. Do you want to propose a particular formulation? --Art Carlson 13:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The article could point out, for example, that lately Eric's cosmology work hasn't been seen in ApJ, AJ, or MNRAS and instead is relegated to ApSS and IEEE Plasma Transactions. That is neutral and verifiable, in my opinion. --ScienceApologist 13:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If your list of the leading journals in cosmology is generally acceptable, ideally by Eric himself, then it is neutral and relevant, but I feel it is too much detail for the main text anyway. How would you feel about putting it in a footnote? What does Eric think about it? --Art Carlson 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm amenable to this. I just would like to see in the text somewhere a statement to the effect that Eric doesn't publish in the leading astrophysics/cosmology journals. --ScienceApologist 14:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To the second question, I agree we need to consider not just "agree" and "disagree", but also "ignore". But "ignore" by its nature is hard to verify. It would be good if there were a publication that reviewed almost all books on cosmology. If Lerner's book had been passed over, then we could verifiably state that he had been ignored. We could also take a poll of cosmologists and ask them if they have looked into Lerner's ideas. But we would have to do the same for many other authors to have a basis for comparison, and that would be original research anyway. I suspect it is true that he is largely ignored, and I agree it would be an important fact, but how do we get a grip on it? Is it sufficient to say that he himself feels ignored, as described in the Open Letter? If we editors, and in particular you and Eric as the extremes, can agree on the nature of his relationship to the scientific community (and it is by no means clear to me whether you already do or ever can), then we can discuss how best to formulate that relationship in a clear and NPOV way. Are there alternative formulations of this point in the record? (Sorry, I'm getting a bit lost.) --Art Carlson 13:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this part is the most tricky. That's the problem when writing about the fringe or pseudoscience, the community tends to ignore or dismiss ideas outright. To illustrate, I was in a tea-discussion last year that went through astro-ph papers. Eric's last paper on the Tolman test was briefly discussed as a peculiarity and was criticized for poor methodology, but no one in the discussion cared to discuss his plasma cosmology connections. Everyone but me found it too "living in the past" for comment. --ScienceApologist 13:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• You're suggesting that IEEE journals have more lenient standards... presumably because they publish Eric's articles?
• "the preponderance of the evidence seems to be that most active cosmologists either dismiss or ignore him". Do you mean that there seems to be a preponderance of evidence (but isn't much really), or in your opinion there is a preponderance of the evidence, or the lack of evidence should be read as ignoring Eric's work, which should be read as dismissal? --Iantresman 13:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• And we know why Eric signed the "Open Letter", the letter says so. Or are you suggesting an insidious motive? --Iantresman 13:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• And "IEEE Journals Continue to Lead the Field in Citations"[63]... so they're not that "out-of-the-way"? --Iantresman 13:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Careful with your unintended conflations. I'm not suggesting anything about the rigor of IEEE which is a journal about plasma physics transactions rather than cosmology or astrophysics (which means that it is somewhat out-of-the-way for cosmologists). I'm suggesting that the journal Astrophysics and Space Science has more lenient standards than, for example, Astrophysical Journal, Astronomical Journal, or Monthly Notices and is also a more obscure and out-of-the-way journal. Also, remember that many IEEE conference proceedings are not peer reviewed. --ScienceApologist 13:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• "There is a big divide between publications that are refereed and those that are not." is false. (I am saying this without comment as to which side of the line EL's refereed publications fall on.) Some "refereed" publications only investigate whether the thesis of the article agrees with their bias. Normally, I would expect IEEE publications to be on the good side, but I wouldn't expect a plasma physicist to be up on discredited cosmological observations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely the issue. --ScienceApologist 12:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The bloody arrogance! Cosmologists know best, so the IEEE must be publishing material that's been discredited elsewhere, so we KNOW the material is biased. Of course the exact opposite applies to cosmology articles authored by real astronomers, where the standards are much much higher, who approach each subject with complete neutrality. Peer reviewed refutations and discrediting evidence? Don't be silly, only fringe science has to follow the scientific method. --Iantresman 19:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration?

• I feel that we should go to Arbitration. ScienceApologist's comments in the section above Arrogant, dismissive, and emotion-ridden tells us that we can't list Eric Lerner's "positive accolades and statements" because it is "to paint him as something he isn't". In other words, ScienceApologist and others believe Eric Lerner is a pseudoscientist, and Lerner's accolaides and achievements misleads this perecption.
• This approach seems to be legitmized in the name of science, when ScienceApologist writes: "The scientific community is a closed-shop, arrogant, dismissive, and emotion-ridden group of mostly white men who marginalize, criticize, deride, and spitefully ignore those who don't live up to very arbitrary standards for inclusion."
• Fortunately, Wikipedia does not agree that we "should adopt a 'scientific point of view'"[64]
• To delete Lerner's achievements because they might give the impression that he derseved them, is biased, [Wikipedia:POV_pushing|POV_pushing]], and discrediting.
• I feel that a ruling is required, as it affects the editing all scientist articles, and any non-mainatream content.
• I wonder whether any other administrators feel this approach is justified?

--Iantresman 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction proposal

I suggest the following introduction, hopefully stating verifiable facts accurately and neutrally, and in a way that can be detailed later in the article if necessary. --Iantresman 13:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric J. Lerner (b. 31 May 1947, Brookline, MA.) is a plasma physicist and a prominent advocate and researcher of plasma cosmology, a controversial and non-mainstream alternative cosmology. He is the President of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. a New Jersey-based technology research, consulting and communications firm. He has presented his hypotheses at public and academic meetings, and his papers have appeared in peer-reviwed journals. An award-winning science writer, he wrote the controversial book, The Big Bang Never Happened (1992), receiving critical comment from members of the scientific community [review Refs], and sympathetic consideration from others.[65]

This version doesn't seem to illustrate that Eric is marginalized in the scientific community not just for writing a popular book (that's not the purview of science anyway), but for the reasons I outlined above. --ScienceApologist

• We do say that plasma cosmology is non-mainstream in the first sentence.
• What verifiable source(s) of information are you using as a basis for him being "marginalized in the scientific community", and we'll find a way to describe it accurately and neutrally.
• A verifiable source, that was published in a well-known science journal, indicating that 200+ scientists and engineers may disagree with your perception [66] (and I acknowledge that the letter is not specifically about Lerner and his specific work). --Iantresman 14:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I share SA concerns. This part: "He has presented his hypotheses at public and academic meetings, and his papers have appeared in peer-reviwed journals. An award-winning science writer, he wrote the controversial book, The Big Bang Never Happened (1992), receiving critical comment from members of the scientific community [review Refs], and sympathetic consideration from others.[http://www.cosmologystatement.org" does not belong in the intro. Sounds like it is written by a PR agent. FloNight 13:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since science is about peer review, and Lerner is most notable for his book, I'll remove some of the extra material. Here's a new draft:

Eric J. Lerner (b. 31 May 1947, Brookline, MA.) is a plasma physicist and a prominent advocate and researcher of plasma cosmology, a controversial and non-mainstream alternative cosmology. He is the President of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. a New Jersey-based technology research, consulting and communications firm. His controversial hypotheses have appeared in peer-reviewed journals, and the book, The Big Bang Never Happened (1991), receiving critical comment from members of the scientific community [review Refs], and sympathetic consideration from others.[67]

Also, the Open Letter is not a sympathetic consideration of Eric's book per se. --ScienceApologist 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yup, I think I said that above somewhere. And the ignoring of his work does not also imply dismissal. --Iantresman 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• So how would you describe Lerner, and the scientists involvement together in the "Open Letter". There is clearly some kind of common interest?

OK, changing the wording regarding the Open Letter:

Eric J. Lerner (b. 31 May 1947, Brookline, MA.) is a plasma physicist and a prominent advocate and researcher of plasma cosmology, a controversial and non-mainstream alternative cosmology. He is the President of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. a New Jersey-based technology research, consulting and communications firm. His controversial hypotheses have appeared in peer-reviewed journals, and the book, The Big Bang Never Happened (1991), receiving critical comment from members of the scientific community [review Refs]; Criticism of the Big Bang by Lerner and others was reproduced in New Scientist [68]

How about:

Eric J. Lerner (b. 31 May 1947, Brookline, MA.) is a plasma physicist and a prominent advocate and researcher of plasma cosmology, a controversial and non-mainstream alternative cosmology. He is the president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. a New Jersey-based technology research, consulting and communications firm. In 1991, Lerner authored the popular-level book, The Big Bang Never Happened (1991), which criticised the then-current research and theories regarding the Big Bang model.

No need to mention critics/supporters in the first paragraph. --ScienceApologist 17:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "popular science" to "popular level", and I note that "peer review" seems to have disappeared, a description which Art Carlson suggested help distinguishes gods from kooks.

Eric J. Lerner (b. 31 May 1947, Brookline, MA.) is a plasma physicist and a prominent advocate and researcher of plasma cosmology, a controversial and non-mainstream alternative cosmology. He is the president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. a New Jersey-based technology research, consulting and communications firm. Lerner has also authored the popular science book, The Big Bang Never Happened (1991), together with peer-reviewed articles, that criticised the then-current research and theories regarding the Big Bang model.

--Iantresman 21:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is closer. Can we say how many peer-reviewed articles Lerner has written on the subject? --ScienceApologist 00:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To specify how many peer reviewed articles has has written on a specific subject, misleads on how many peer reviewed articles he has in total. I think this detail can always be clarified in the article proper. --Iantresman 09:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The last rewrite is much better and is acceptable to me. FloNight 10:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a version of it, but I haven't referred to peer reviewed articles on the subject because it is not at all clear to me what he has actually had published on this subject in peer-reviewed journals. I do not want to give the wrong impression, e.g. we don't want to give the impression that he's had a significant number of peer reviewed articles on plasma cosmology if (as it seems) that is not the case. If people want to debate this a bit further, though, that seems fine. Metamagician3000 10:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If the articles in peer-reviewed journals are not on plasma cosmology then it should not be mentioned in the lead. Sorry for the confusion. From Ian's comments below I thought that they were. I'm not familiar with these journals to know which are exclusively peer-reviewed and which contained a mixture of articles and such. --FloNight 10:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I think we need some help with this from our group of experts. No slight intended to you in leaving that part out, but it's just not very clear ... at least to me. Metamagician3000 11:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is verifiable that Lerner is the author of around 50 peer reviewed articles on various subjects [69]. Since one of the criteria for reliable sources is where an individual publishes, this adds to his general credibility. Certainly it is more credible than an individual with no peer reviewed paper, and just spouting ideas on a blog.
• I think that the following peer-reviewed articles by Lerner are related to plasma cosmology: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]
• So I think that mentioning "together with peer reviewed article" is an ample description. But perhaps we should take on board ScienceApologist's suggestion to give the number, and mention that Lerner has "over half a dozen peer reviewed article" --Iantresman 11:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Lerner has published criticisms of the Big Bang in reserach journals. However, most of these publications are from a time in the 1990s when there was something of a minor crisis in cosmology. Today, Lerner doesn't seem to publish in the astrophysics journals nearly as much and the number of cosmology articles in general has been increasing on an exponential curve. I think it would be fair to say that most of Eric's criticism was made in the early to mid nineties and since then he has been less successful in publishing in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. --ScienceApologist 12:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is another, editorial reason for excluding comments regarding peer review from the lead and that is the fact that Eric is not particularly known for his peer reviewed contributions. Eric is known for his popular science book. We can mention the fact that he has published peer reviewed articles later in the article, but as of right now we exclude critical comment (except to say his cosmology is non-mainstream and alternative) so we shouldn't unduly weight the accolades (such as trumpeting his dozen peer-reviewed publications about cosmology that have happened over the last twenty years). --ScienceApologist 12:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand undue weight. If I include in the introduction a whole paragraph to Lerner's 50-ish peer-reviwed papers, then you could rightly suggest that undue weight had been given to the fact. On the other hand, using FOUR WORDS to mention that he has peer reviewed articles, I think is quite restrained.
• And since people might not know Eric for having peer reviewed papers to his name, I would like to suggest something very bold: We pretend that we are an encyclopedia, and teach people something they may not have known.
• That you and other have considered Lerner's field of science to be pseudoscience, that others have considered much less of him, I think demonstrates the need to balance this inaccurate view, with the verifiable facts. --Iantresman 14:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying completely omit Eric's peer review papers from the article: I'm merely suggesting the lead may not be the best place for them. --ScienceApologist 17:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Under the circumstances (a) the misunderstanding that Lerner, or his field of study is pseudoscience (b) that he is mostly known for just a popular book, I think it is an informative and fair use of four words. --Iantresman 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that you are insisting on this in order to support your campaign to paint Eric's research as having a veneer of legitimacy that can only be evaluated as an opinion not fact. You are also suggesting that Eric is somehow known for his peer review papers when this does not seem to be the case. --ScienceApologist 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• You feel wrong. His peer reviewed papers suggest that he is not a pseudoscentists, nor just known for a popular book. A fair clarification to state. And accurate. And verifiable. And not unreasonable for someone with about 50 peer reviewed papers under his belt. --Iantresman 00:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The peer-review wording should not go in the lead since the journal articles are from the 80's and 90's. Later in the article, we can work out some wording that accurately reflects the importance of decade old articles that were published in peer-reviewed journals. --FloNight 01:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• So let's take our iniitiative from another scientists's biography, Carl Sagan. His introduction mentions that "Throughout his career he wrote more than 400 published scientific and popular articles".
• So let's replace the peer reviewed information, and substitute "throughout his career, Lerner has written more than 600 published scientific and popular article." [Refs: ] --Iantresman 09:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that Carl was noted for his variety of writtent publications. Eric is noted for his book criticizing the Big Bang. --ScienceApologist 12:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though the page on notability is a proposal, it mentions that "importance .. for practical purposes .. can be considered synonymous"; as described above, Lerner's writing credits are important... especially if you are a scientific writer, and misunderstood by some to be a pseudoscientist. --Iantresman 14:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The written work Lerner is most known for and therefore is most important is his book. --ScienceApologist 15:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

From the point of view of cosmologists, this may be the case. But from the point of view of people who read his articles they may be most notable, from scientist involved in fusion, Lerner may be most notable for his plasma focus device research. And from a writing point of view, his 600+ articles are important, and double so, to balance the misconception of pseudoscience. --Iantresman 16:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We can report that he is a science journalist in the opening if you'd like since we can verify that. We can also report that his Laboratory promotes a plasma focus device since that is verifiable. But "balancing" a "misconception" is not what WP:NPOV is about. Neturality does not mean "correcting" perceived slights. --ScienceApologist 16:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Correcting a misconception is a desirable secondary efffect, of stating Eric's writing achievements. The primary function is to state neutrally a verifiable fact, that Eric has indeed written over 600+ scientific and popular articles. It shows that Eric is not just an occassional writer with a couple of lucky breaks, nor just a one-hit wonder with a single book, nor just a science journalist, nor a writer not unfamiliar with peer-reviewed. --Iantresman 18:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, we aren't saying we can't mention Eric's publications, but we are saying that it doesn't belong in the intro. I'll remind you that this is a "misconception" in your opinion. It isn't a verifiable fact that this is a misconception. --ScienceApologist 18:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• User:JBKramer and yourself both questioned whether Eric's work or field of study, was pseudoscience [80]. You had previous tagged the article on Eric's field of study, Plasma cosmology as pseudoscience [81]. Unless you have a reliable source noting otherwise, I'd say that you both had a misconception. I note that the subject area is not listed in the article on pseudoscience.
• Eric is much more than a writer of just one popular science book, and his 600+ scientific and popular articles are important, notable and relevent. --Iantresman 19:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• I note that The Space Show has a short paragraph on Eric Lerner, and they consider it important enough to mention that he is the author of 600 articles,[82]

Neither my opinion, nor JBKramer's opinion, not your opinion, nor Eric's opinion about whether there is a "the misconception of pseudoscience" is verifiable nor is it a standard that should be used to determine how to edit the article since reasonable editors here disagree about the correctness of this assertion. I doubt that The Space Show's treatment of subjects is notable enough to influence our editting here at Wikipedia, though we can use it as a datapoint in our discussions. I disagree that Eric's papers and articles are notable and relevant. Perhaps you'd like to show a citation analysis of his work to show this? --ScienceApologist 22:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think it is quite clear that we have an impasse. Carl Sagan's "400 published scientific and popular articles" are notable enough to appear in his intro, but Eric Lerner's "600 published scientific and popular articles" are not. Carl Sagan's list of awards is notable, Lerner's awards are not.
• I presume that if Eric's scientific and popular papers, awards, and scientific activities are not notable enought to mention in the introduction, there's no problems describing them in the article proper? --Iantresman 00:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Describing them in the article is fine, as long as we avoid the laundry lists and cruft Eric had inserted to pad the article with attempts to legitimatize his work. --ScienceApologist 01:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Laundry lists like Carl Sagan's list of awards, and list of Related books and media? --Iantresman 09:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Cruft like Carl Sagan and UFOs? --Iantresman 09:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have issues with Carl Sagan's article, bring them up over there. This is the article about Eric Lerner. --ScienceApologist 15:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Where did I mention issues with Carl Sagan's article? I'm asking you whether lists such as the ones that appear in Carl Sagan's article are suitable in Eric's article? --Iantresman 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have issues with Carl Sagan's article being different than this article than stop making comparisons. I see the two articles as very different. Carl Sagan should be treated differently than Eric Lerner. --ScienceApologist 17:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Silly me, and there I was treating each subject with equal respect and application of the Wikipedia policy. --Iantresman 19:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty silly of you to assume that every subject should be treated precisely the same. If that was the goal of Wikipedia, we could write a program that would write all the articles. --ScienceApologist 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Only you could read what I actually said, and distort it. --Iantresman 13:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So here's a version without mention of peer review:

Eric J. Lerner (b. 31 May 1947, Brookline, MA.) is a plasma physicist and a prominent advocate and researcher of plasma cosmology, a controversial and non-mainstream alternative cosmology. He is the president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. a New Jersey-based technology research, consulting and communications firm. Lerner has also authored the popular science book, The Big Bang Never Happened (1991), together with scientific and popular articles, some of which have criticised the then-current research and theories regarding the Big Bang model.

--Iantresman 13:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How about

Eric J. Lerner (b. 31 May 1947, Brookline, MA.) is a plasma physicist and science writer. He is the president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. a New Jersey-based technology research, consulting and communications firm. Lerner is a prominent advocate and researcher of plasma cosmology, a controversial and non-mainstream alternative cosmology. He has also authored the popular science book, The Big Bang Never Happened (1991) which criticised the then-current research and theories regarding the Big Bang model.

--ScienceApologist 14:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks OK, well done. Only 100 more sentences to go. --Iantresman 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And we might want to change his date of birth to do just "1947" as I can't see any advantage of having the full date, and there is a potential privacy issue. --Iantresman 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Distictions between controversial and kooky

SA uses the term “marginalized” to blur together very different categories. In SA’s mind, as is clear from his edits and comments both on this page and on many others, “controversial” in science is the same as “discredited pseudoscience.” In his view, anyone with a viewpoint that is in the minority in a field is not only wrong, but not even a scientist.

I hope that I don’t have to convince the other editors that this is an attitude that is completely inimical to the scientific enterprise. While many minority viewpoints in science eventually die away, it is equally obvious that almost everything that science has eventually verified was once a minority viewpoint.

No one would doubt that my work in cosmology is controversial. But it would be entirely inaccurate to claim, as SA does, that it is either ignored in the astronomical community or treated as outside the realm of scientific debate.

SA’s edits of my page have systematically aimed to create the false impression that no one in the community takes my work seriously, that I should be grouped with someone like ,say, Velikovsky. For that reason he has eliminated references to my peer-reviewed publications, to leading academic institutions where I have been invited to present my work and to my stay at ESO as a Visiting Astronomer.

SA’s extreme bias is illustrated, among many other ways, by his repeated characterization of IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, a journal of the world’s largest technical society, as a “marginal publication”. That journal, by the way, regularly publishes special issues devoted to cosmology and astrophysics. I have also published in such well-known astrophysical periodicals as The Astrophysical Journal and Astrophysics and Space Science. All are peer-reviewed.

That is why it is entirely appropriate to put back in the paragraph about where I have published and spoken and the coverage of my work in leading popular since magazines like New Scientist and Sky and Telescope. As Art Carlson says, such information allows the reader to judge how my view are regarded and to make distinctions between “controversial” and “kooky”, distinctions that SA denies exist.

I do NOT agree with the Visiting Astronomer sentence as it is, although it is an improvement. It implies that there was something out-of-the-ordinary, and therefore worth noting, in the fact that Scarpa was the one who proposed that I be invited. The system at ESO is that you are invited to ESO to do joint research with a specific scientist there, the one who makes the proposal to the Selection Committee. I was invited to work with Scarpa, just as anyone else is invited to work with someone who is close to them in the field.

A factually correct sentence would be this: “In 2006, he was a Visiting Astronomer at the European Southern Observatory, carrying out research with Riccardo Scarpa and others on the surface brightness of galaxies, a key test of the Big Bang theory.”

I request that metamagician or some other admin change the sentence to read this way.Elerner

No, I think the current wording is fine. --FloNight 15:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that? By the way, instigation means to incite, goad or provoke, according to Webster, so is not a correct verb unless you want to imply my being a Visitng Astronomer was some sort of crime. " on the proposal of " would be correct. Also the sentence still does not actually say that I WAS a Visiting Astronomer, merely that I was invited to be. Invitations are not always accepted.Elerner 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"In 2006 he was invited, at the instigation of fellow Big Bang critic and MOND enthusiast Riccardo Scarpa, to be a Visiting Astronomer at the European Southern Observatory in Chile.[4]"

I agree, "instigation" is the wrong verb, and unsubstantiated. "To be" is the wrong tense, where as "he was" is accurate. And it would make sense to explain the reason he was invited, ie. the work Eric carried out there, which would be raison d'etre for the visit. --Iantresman 17:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"In 2006 he was invited, at the request of fellow Big Bang critic and MOND enthusiast Riccardo Scarpa, to be a visiting astronomer at the European Southern Observatory in Chile.[4]"

I think this is better. Also "Visiting Astronomer" probably shouldn't be capitalized. --ScienceApologist 17:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It still does not say that I was a visiting astronomer. What is the relevance of MOND anyway? Any "heresy" is bad? I've never actually written about MOND myself, so what's the connection? If SA is so fond of the phrase "fellow big bang critic" how about" In 2006, he was a Visiting Astronomer at the European Southern Observatory, carrying out research with fellow Big Bang critic Riccardo Scarpa and others on the surface brightness of galaxies, a key test of the Big Bang theory."?Elerner 17:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this is the page that describes the ESO Senior Visitors program. http://www.sc.eso.org/%7Echummel/svp/svp.html Elerner 18:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So, this corrects the tense, and removes the irrelevant MOND tag. Scarpa's home page also says he's interested in AGN synchrotron jets, but again it's not relevant, and has nothing to do with Eric:

"In 2006 he was a visiting astronomer at the European Southern Observatory in Chile.[4]", invited by fellow Big Bang critic Riccardo Scarpa".

--Iantresman 18:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: I think Joshua is reading too much into the fact that Scarpa submitted the proposal to invite Lerner. More interesting is what they worked on during that time, though it is not so important for the article. (If Joshua or anyone else is worried about giving Big-Bang-Bangers too much good press, it would be better to keep mum that one of the heretics has a position at the ESO.) --Art Carlson 19:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us closer to Eric's proposal:

In 2006, he was a visiting astronomer at the European Southern Observatory, invited by fellow Big Bang critic Riccardo Scarpa. With Scarpa and others, Lerner continued his research about the surface brightness of galaxies as a test of the Big Bang theory." --Iantresman 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording ever-so-slightly. Anyone mind? --ScienceApologist 00:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I capitalised "Visting Astronomer" because Eric (sorry about the informality, but it's getting too difficult any other way) did at one point and it sounded like it was a formal title used at the institution rather than just a two-word common noun. I don't really care, myself, about that. I'm also not in love with the word "instigation" but I don't think it has the dire connotations Eric suggests. If some other word ("initiative"? "recommendation"?) is better, well fine. The word "invited" does not seem to be correct, because the formal invitation came from someone else, as has been demonstated. However, I'm not going to take out the reference to Scarpa. I still think it is useful and not especially damaging. I don;t understand the problem with "to be". The tense is accurate - he was, indeed, invited to be a visiting astronomer: at the time of the invitation, it was in the future. We may need another sentence at some point to make clear that he is not still there, but I don't the article as a whole currently gives that impression. A visiting position is by definition something that happens for a fairly short time. I'm also not sure I understand Eric's point when he complains that it still doesn't say he was a visiting astronomer. I thought it was implicit that the invitation was accepted. Oh well, I guess I can modify it to make that explicit. I'm not going to do anything else while you're all talking about. So - keep talking, people. I can't quite work out how close you all are to agreement on this point. Metamagician3000 01:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer's defintion of instigation:

"In·sti·ga·tion n.

[L. instigatio: cf. F. instigation.] The act of instigating, or the state of being instigated; incitement; esp. to evil or wickedness.

   The baseness and villainy that . . . the instigation of the devil could bring the sons of men to."

Can we maybe have a response to the other points--that is SA's deletion of Van Allen's quote, the two paragraphs about my recent activites and SA's addition of two or three negetive quotes? Any comments, metamagician?Elerner 01:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We really need you guys to try to sort it out for yourselves as much as possible. It does seem, meanwhle, that "instigation" was not the best word - it does often have that connotation of something bad, like crime or trouble. My mistake, with that word choice. I'll make some sort of change. Metamagician3000 05:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I did think it was fair enough to put in the Van Allen back-cover blurb and to refactor some other phrasing to make it NPOV. However, I think it's necessary to say explicitly that the general view of the scientific community has been critical. Not sure about the rest. Maybe some other admins would like to comment. Or we could just get comments from others involved in the discussion. Metamagician3000 05:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is some issue of the late Van Allen not being active in the cosmological research community at the time he wrote the quote or really ever. While a respected space scientist, his skepticism of the Big Bang didn't seem to arise so much out of research but out of the general polarized climate of the 1950s with respect to cosmology. --ScienceApologist 12:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Scientific Community

• Is it accurate to assume the "general view of the 'scientific community'" based on half a dozen critical reports (half of which are blog enties). I think it is more accurate to describe "some members of the scientific community", and perhaps note that none of them are peer reviewed.
• I note that the "Open Letter" seems to show solidarity on Big Bang criticism and consideration of Plasma cosmology (Lerner's field of research), from 200+ named scientists and engineer, including Lerner. These people are also part of the "scientific community".

--Iantresman 07:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a safe bet that very few archaeologists, neurologists, or mycologists know or care anything about Eric Lerner. Even the majority of professional cosmologists seem to be more "sharply indifferent" than "sharply critical". How about something along the lines of "The ideas in the book have, however, received sharp criticism from cosmologists."? (You could always add some "some"s, but it is not really necessary, since I didn't say "all".) How would the Brittanica handle this? --Art Carlson 08:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds OK. Personally I think Britannica would exclude all the quotes as they are selective and out of context.
• I also think the quotes should be divided into positive and negative sections. --Iantresman 09:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We could also try "Those cosmologists who have responded to his theses have been highly critical." --Art Carlson 13:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Closer, but not quite. I think the sense we are trying to approach would be closer to "Cosmologists in general have been highly critical to his theses." Many of the people who have "responded" might argue that they are "cosmologists" (as per the last alternative cosmology conference held in Portugal). This is a demarcation problem that comes up deciding who is and isn't a cosmologist. Really dicey issues. --ScienceApologist 17:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

SA might have some better words, but it's no good anyone trying to sugarcoat the bitter pill that the relevant sub-set of the mainstream scientific community in whatever field we call it (cosmology, perhaps) has been ... um ... unreceptive-cum-hostile. Or if you dispute this, you may have a real problem on your hands that will have to be settled through some means more formal than a couple of admins floating around. Metamagician3000 10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute the criticism. I disputed that half a dozen cosmologists represent the "scientific community", especially when Lerner and 200+ other scientists seem to be sympathetic with criticism of the Big Bang [83] --Iantresman 11:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian, most of those 200+ "other scientists" are not cosmologists. --ScienceApologist 11:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• So you agree that where the article says "the response of the scientific community...", is inaccurate because cosmologists form a minority of scientist. And presumably only a minority of cosmologist commented. In other words, half a dozen members of the scientific community (or cosmologists) responded. --Iantresman 13:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, normally the scientific community defers to its expert members for evaluation of controversy. This deference enables the scientific community to avoid being dragged through endless squabbles and debates. So your characterization may be splitting hairs a bit too finely. --ScienceApologist 13:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We also should make it clear that the scientific community is broader than the astrophysics community which is broader than the cosmology community. I think toleration of Eric's ideas tend to get less and less as you move from broader to narrower communities. The scientists the most familiar with cosmology tend to be the ones most critical of Eric. --ScienceApologist 12:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before, let me say it again: I don't support statements about "the response of the scientific community" at all, unless we have sources for it, not examples, by which I mean someone actually saying, in a published forum, what "the response of the scientific community" has been, as opposed to just giving their own response. Why? Because with only examples, we'd be making "new analysis or synthesis of published arguments" which is in direct violation of WP:OR. Look, I'm not saying it's inaccurate. But don't you think maybe this is one of those issues where only time will really tell the story? I mean, I'm not in this area, but for all we know, work that followed Lerner's could become important someday. Or, possibly more likely, when in 30 years nothing has come of it, enough of a picture of the reception of this work will have formed that someone may actually publish something about it. Until someone writes a book about Plasma Physics and/or Lerner, we're doing work no one else has done, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Mangojuice^talk 17:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the “Visiting Astronomer” issue has been resolved, I will leave my page in the hands of others, so long as similar issues don’t again emerge.

Some comments in parting:

While I have not taken statistically valid polls, it is obvious to anyone in physics or astronomy that overwhelming support for the Big Bang theory, and therefore overwhelming hostility to critics like me, is pretty much limited to cosmologists themselves. The vast majority of these cosmologists are theoreticians who have devoted their careers to the Big Bang theory. So while they are well-informed, they are scarcely unbiased.

If you talk to astronomers who are not cosmologists, skepticism of the Big Bang is widespread, quite a large minority. I certainly saw that at ESO. If you go farther field to physicists who are not astrophysicists, for example plasma physicists, support for the Big Bang, I think, drops to a strong minority. There is a lot of scorn among physicists for cosmologists’ introduction of hypothetical entities—dark matter and dark energy—which are unsupported by, or even contradicted by, laboratory results.

So it would be very inaccurate and certainly, as Mangojuice points out, very unverifiable to refer to the views of the “scientific community” as opposed to “most cosmologists” or even “the great majority of cosmologists”. If we were to limit the page to what is verifiable it would have to be "many more cosmologists oppose his views than support them" since obviously "most cosmologists" have not expressed a view on my work.

I think that the inclusion of six long critical quotes in my page is totally biased. By the way, the two positive quotes are still included in “critics”, which is remarkably deceptive and biased. A casual reader would conclude that Van Allen is a critic of my book rather than a supporter. The two positive quotes should be moved to another section, or the whole section should be renamed “debate on Lerner’s ideas”.

As to the six long critical quotes, they are very unusual for Wikipedia. If you look at, for example, Halton Arp’s page, there are no critical quotes, although the page states plainly in a single sentence that “Very few astronomers today accept any of Arp’s hypotheses on QSO’s or galactic redshifts.” A single sentence on Arp’s page vs. six long quotes in my page seems hardly consistent. It is perfectly appropriate to say that my views are not supported by “most cosmologists”. But having the great majority of my page being quotes from critics is hardly NPOV.

Finally, I still have heard no arguments from any of the admins on why the two paragraphs on where I have presented my views, including in peer-reviewed papers, should be entirely omitted. To say that this is too detailed information about me, but that long , repetitive quotes from my critics are not too detailed is clearly biased.

No admin has said that. Remember that the protected version of the article is expressly not endorsed by the admins or by Wikipedia. We don't try to identify the "right" version to protect. A couple of us have been stretching a point by trying to help settle a few especially contentious things while the article is protected, to address what seem to be some of your most pressing concerns. That doesn't mean we endorse the inclusion or omission of anything else. In the end, the editors on this article need to sort out for themselves how their content disputes will be resolved. There's a limit to what individual admins can do to help out. Personally, I think that some of the material you mention should be included at the end of the day, but that is just a personal view, and I'm not prepared to create my own preferred version of the article while it is protected. What I really want to see is enough agreement on process to justify lifting the protection. I.e., if we lift the protection, how can we be sure that it won't just turn into another revert war (as has happened in the past when protection has been lifted)? Metamagician3000 01:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I also note that, quite a while back, the paragraph about my very extensive science journalism ( over 600 articles) and my journalism awards were also eliminated by SA, which simply distorts who I am. While my science writing by itself does not merit a wiki entry for me, omitting it is a distortion.

Have fun, all. I have some research to do.Elerner 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL at "[among] physicists who are not astrophysicists ... support for the Big Bang ... drops to a strong minority." In addition to not being true, such a statement is a demonstration that describing the above commentor as a scientist is idiocy. Science is done by experts, not by consensus. There is none so blind, as he who refuses to see. JBKramer 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great, can you provide the source confirming this. --Iantresman 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cites

Citation is required for the following facts:

1. (b. 31 May 1947, Brookline, MA.)
2. Lerner received a BA in Physics from Columbia University
3. did graduate work in physics at the University of Maryland, College Park
4. veteran of the 1965 Selma March and the 1968 Columbia Student Strike. He is a member of the NJ Civil Rights Defense Committee, and Workers Democracy Network.
5. Lerner has done experimental work on the plasma focus in collaboration with the University of Illinois in 1994, with Texas A&M University in 2001 and with the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission.

This is not NPOV:

1. showing that this effect could make net energy production more feasible, potentially leading to an economical and safe source of energy.

JBKramer 18:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

JBKramer, I'd be curious know why you've requested sources for Lerner's date of birth, for example, but not of Reggie Bush, whose article you edited a few days ago? --Iantresman 20:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I direct you to m:dick. Please provide sources for the requested information. Thanks! JBKramer 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a fair question. I know no other biography where a date of birth has a citation, so I'm curious why the apparent special case for Eric Lerner? --Iantresman 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to object to another biography, please object to them there. JBKramer 19:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: [84]. JBKramer 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have no objection to the lack of citation in all the other Wikipedia biographies, and I suspect you've never asked for a birth day citation in other articles either. So it begs the question. Depending on your answer, we can go out of way and find a citation, or remove it all together. But asking for your reason seems fair.
• PS. [85] --Iantresman 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please provide citations for all of the requested facts or they might be removed by any editor that cares about WP:V more than MPOV. Thanks. JBKramer 01:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I quite understand the need for citations, and that statements may be removed without them. I still wonder why you've asked for a citatation for a birth date on Lerner's biography, but no-one else's. --Iantresman 08:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that some of these citations are attributed directly to Eric Lerner himself.

1. (b. 31 May 1947, Brookline, MA.) [86]
2. Lerner received a BA in Physics from Columbia University (1968), [Op cit]
3. did graduate work in physics at the University of Maryland, College Park [op cit]
4. veteran of the 1965 Selma March and the 1968 Columbia Student Strike. He is a member of the NJ Civil Rights Defense Committee, and Workers Democracy Network. [87]
5. Lerner has done experimental work on the plasma focus in collaboration with the University of Illinois in 1994, with Texas A&M University in 2001 [88] and with the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission.[89]

--Iantresman 09:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your citation for his birthdate, his BA, and his graduate work does not appear to support such. Could you direct me more specifically to where that paper mentions his birthdate, his BA and his graduate work? Quotes would be fine. Since I do not believe we consider Lerner to be a fully reliable source regarding himself, I believe the cite regarding his civil rights actions requires an "According to Lerner," as does his locational work on plasma focus. There is no independent verification of any of this? JBKramer 11:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• The birth date info, BA and graduate can all be found at the end of the paper. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is online in full.
• The dense plasma focus cite is on the Web site for the "Focus Fusion Society", I am sure that if you really wanted to, you could contact the Society, and/or other members, for corroboration.
• The info on the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission can further be corroborated in this news item [90], and [91] [92]

--Iantresman 13:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Are you 100% certain that I will find that info at the end of the paper? If I fail to, after requesting the paper, You and I will both agree that you are a wholy unreliable source, right, and you'll stop editing this article forever?
• The "Focus Fusion Society" is Eric Lerner and compatriots. It is not a reliable source, except that Eric Lerner can be used as a source about himself with appropriate notification. The PESN link is a press release from Eric Lerner. "The Space Show" is not a reliable source, and beyond that, is obviously written by Eric Lerner. The document at the NZ government is absurd on it's face "3.1.1) Hydrogen / Boron focus fusion technology:

There is planned development of this technology by Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Inc. in conjunction with the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission. Commercialization is projected by 2011/ 2012." Please source the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission saying they work with Mr. Lerner. JBKramer 13:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have purchased the article. The part referenced is not part of the peer reviewed text, and is Lerner's haiographic description of himself. While he is quite likley correct to his birthdate he is not a reliable source for degrees granted by Columbia University. Each time Eric Lerner is the sole source for facts about Eric Lerner, we must write "According to Lerner." Additionally, the listing of him as a "plasma physicist" will require that the source be cited ("described by his book publishers and librarian Gregory Sapp as a plasma physicist, but dismissed by the scientific community," for example). This article is clearly written without the skeptical tone required of pseudoscientists. Lerner's claims about himself are not true by definition, merely his claims. JBKramer 13:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "skeptical tone required of pseudoscientists"? --Iantresman 14:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean taking the claims of someone who makes extraordinary claims on their face as accurate is not the right act. JBKramer 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You means claims of his date of birth, and BA in Physics from Columbia University? --Iantresman 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'll give him a pass on those. JBKramer 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So help me here with some specifics. Which extraordinary claims, and which facts? --Iantresman 17:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Lawrenceville plasma physics

It is not appropriate for wikipedia to state that Lawrenceville plasma physics is a "technology research, consulting and communications firm," based only on it's say-so. JBKramer 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• The introduction has been extensively discussed, and a version arrived at, see the end of the section "[ Introduction Proposal" above.

• The biography at the end of the peer-reviewed article "Two World Systems Revisited: A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang", published in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 31, NO. 6, Dec 2003 tells us "Since 1974, he has been President of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Lawrenceville, NJ, an independent research and consulting firm."

• Since Wiki official policy on Biographies of living people suggests that we (a) may use the subject as a source, and (b) this is additioanlly corroborated in the peer reviewed source above, I see no problem in accepting Lawrenceville plasma physics as who they say they are; Unless you have any evidence whatsoever to suggest otherwise. --Iantresman 15:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The bio does not undergo peer review. WP:CCC. JBKramer 15:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• The information just has to be verifiable (according to the policy Biographies of living people:

"The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published" (my emphasis).

• As for consensus, I refer to my first comment above, where the introduction was extensively discussed. --Iantresman 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I further note that you have decided that Lerner is not a plasma physicist, but "often described as a plasma physicist"[93], which appears to contradict verifiable third party sources, and discredit the person. Please note that Biographies of living people tells us that we should accept such information in good faith.
• Lerner is described as a "plasma physicist" by Amazon Editorial Reviews, twice,[94]. He also described as such on a NASA Web site [95], and at a conference [96]. --Iantresman 15:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Which appears to me to be a statement that he is often described as one. He lacks formal training and an advanced degree. Also, stop with the primary sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - we prefer secondary sources. (s8int.com is not a reliable source) JBKramer 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you object to Eric Lerner being labelled a "plasma physicist"? --Iantresman 18:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe in accuracy in all things, including the credentials of individuals. While the definition of scientist is not set in stone, Mr. Lerner does not unambigiuously and clearly reach such a definition - to do so would require, minimially, that he have an advanced degree and that he be engaged in meaningful scientific research. There is no evidence of the first, and little evidence of the second. JBKramer 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thinking more on this, there is no need to get into the dispute regarding his status as a physicist or not. JBKramer 18:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's exactly the dispute. And to remove the label is equally inaccurate.
• You stated that to "qualify" as a physicist an advanced degree is required, yet the Wiki article on physicist mentions "A physicist is a scientist who studies or practices physics."(my emphasis). Lerner's peer reviewed articles demonstrates that he meets this requirement and your "engaged in meaningful scientific research." --Iantresman 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Here are some more sources describing "Physicist"[97], none of which conform to your definition. --Iantresman 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Of your presented definitions, Mr. Lerner fails a number - he may or may not be "a scientist..." He is likley not "an expert in physics." He is not "trained in physics" nor does he have "a doctoral degree." Lerner's work does not unambiguously meet my "engaged in meaningful scientific research" test. It is imperitive that we recognize that Lerner's research has not generated a substantal (honestly, any) body of knowledge, nor has it been built on by others, nor has it generated meaningful predicitions, nor practical applications. JBKramer 19:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• If he's a physicist, then he's a scientist?
• How shall we assess "expert in physics"?
• If he's "not trained in physics", what do you think he studied for his B.A.?
• A doctorate is not a requirement to be a physicist
• Since when are YOU the artbiter of "meaningful scientific research"? His work certainly seemed meaningful enough to generate 50 peer reviewed articles.[98]

--Iantresman 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

1. All physicists are scientists. Not all scientists are physicists.
2. I am happy to evalute soley his understanding of the big bang theory as explained in his book to determine his level of expertise in physics.
3. A BA is not training in physics, it's a meaningless undergraduate degree. A BA in physics requires what, one class in quantum, one class in electrodynamics?
4. A doctorate is one of your listed criteria.
5. I'm the arbiter of meaningful as an editor here - and specifically, not a single purpose editor, but rather one with edits across a variety of topics. He has not published substantially for 10 years, and prior to that, his publication record is "poor" to say the best. The vast majority of those article are not cited by anyone except for co-plasma cosmologists. JBKramer 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Beyond that, your list of citations is questionable - specifically, your search includes this, which was published in Ohio when Mr. Lerner was 19. How many of the papers you attribute to Mr. Lerner are actually attributable to Dr. Eugenio Lerner? JBKramer 20:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I should think that most physicists (eg. those in industry) haven't published anything at all. And let's hope that none of them publish anything controversial, because it's the only thing they'll be judged on... that and whether they have a doctorate. And we all know that citation from other co-plasma cosmologists are worth nothing. --Iantresman 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• And yes, some of the papers I listed are attributed to be Dr. Eugenio Lerner. Those attributed to Eric are shown as "Lerner, E J." or "Lerner, Eric J.". More recent papers, that haven't gone through peer review are shown here [99] --Iantresman 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Gregg Sapp?

Should Gregg Sapp's comments to the library journal be included after we claim to be talking about his general reception in the scientific community? --ScienceApologist 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that most of the quotes should go.

• They are all highly selective and taken out of context.
• None are peer reviewed
• The article is primarily about Eric Lerner the person, not about criticism of his book

• It would be sufficient to say that his book has received much criticism, and include links the blogs in a footnote. --Iantresman 21:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Which quotes are taken out of context?
• Why should a non-peer reviewed books be subject only to peer-review criticism?
• I'd point out that some of the quotes are criticisms of Eric Lerner the person. Penzias and Carroll in particular are criticizing Lerner himself and not his book. --ScienceApologist 19:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Reception of Lerner's Ideas

I recently reverted ScienceApologist's change of the text about the source of the positive reviews. Look, guys, those positive reviews are positive reviews, period, from important people. We can't disparage them just because the publisher sought them! That's not a neutral presentation at all. And as to whether the publisher promoted them, yes, they sure did, it's standard practice, but pointing to Amazon's list of reviews as a source ... that's original research there. If we can't simply present both types of reviews without bias towards one or the other, we should not describe the reviews period. Mangojuice^talk 13:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the one source from Amazon [100] is not a customer-submitted references, but an editorial review attributed to the Chicago Times, which I believe is a reliable source; it's just that Amazon is an online source that re-publishes it. I feel that a popular newspaper commenting on a popular book, is adequate. --Iantresman 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazon publishes reviews provided by the publisher. In this case, the publisher submitted only positive reviews. This is cited by the reference in question and by Amazon.com's policy on publisher's ability to submit editorial review for inclusion on the page devoted to selling the book. Therefore, since the information is relevant and verified, I am including it. --ScienceApologist 17:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither presentation was neutral. SA, I believe, was overly critical. Mango was overly positive. As such, I have reported, accurately, that the book recieved varying reviews. This noncomittal language, while not as concrete as "The book recieved no positive reviews outside of ones solicited by the publisher and those from non-scientists," which appears to be accurate, is, at the very least, verifiable. JBKramer 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, response to SA) The real problem here, as I pointed out in my talk comment, is the POV issue. Publishers usually only submit positive reviews, that's normal. Go look at the Amazon page for "A Brief History of Time" and you'll notice the same kind of thing. It's universal. The text is very biased with that statement there, though, because when you read it you get the impression that the authors of the page think that the positive reviews can't simply be presented, but have to be qualified. And BTW, it's not really relevant to anything that publisher promoted the positive comments the book got: that is, again, normal for every book. I have no objection to the wording "varied reviews." Mangojuice^talk 18:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, The criticism is the use of language. The two positive reviews are described, in my opinion, disparagingly. For example,

• The positive reviews are described as if they were promotion material, and are "few".
• Yet the negative reviews, of which there are five, three of which being self-published blogs, are described as "the general response of the scientific community"

JBKramer, I have no evidence to suggest that the publishers solicited the review from the Chicago Times. --Iantresman 18:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You also have not read the review from the Chicago Times - just a snippet published on the back cover of the book, right? JBKramer 18:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, I've only read the extracted highlight on the Amazon site. And if I can see an original review in full, I'd be happy to amend the description --Iantresman 19:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Related but different question

Is Gregg Sapp's review on the back of the book? I can't get to the library right now to check. --ScienceApologist 18:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My version of the book has no reviews on the back cover, nor anywhere else; perhaps it was published before any reviews became available. --Iantresman 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not even the Van Allen review? --ScienceApologist 12:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. None. Different editions, different countries, different text. --Iantresman 12:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

All righty, then. This requires some research. We should probably ammend the text on the front to indicate that Van Allen's review is only printed on some editions. --ScienceApologist 12:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not such a great mystery. The softcover edition does not have a jacket, so it does not have the quote. The hard cover edition, which of course was published first, has the quote.Elerner 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul Davies suggestion

Paul Davies puts Eric's book in context in his book About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution on page 152:

While the debate over discrepant red shifts rumbled on, other odd bits of evidence kept cropping up that challenged the orthodox big-bang theory, such as the discovery of more objects that seemed to be older than thte universe, and some curious observations that suggested a large-scale periodicity in the distribution of galaxies. The accumulating difficulties prompted American physicist Eric Lerner to write a book provactively titled The Big Bang Never Happened, published in late 1991. A few months later, the COBE ripples were discovered, and suddenly the big-bang theory was firmly back on track.

--ScienceApologist 18:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a valid viewpoint. But just because observations and discoveries are consistent with the Big Bang, says nothing about Plasma cosmology. But this is not the place to debate it. --Iantresman 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it provides an important context and support for the points above that Lerner obtained "flash-in-the-pan" celebrity status during the worrisome late 80s early 90s before the anisotropies were discovered in the COBE spectrum. Whether it belongs in this article or not is debatable. It may be reasonable to include this and other reporting of Davies regarding these matters on the nonstandard cosmology page, however. We are currently rewriting that bit anyway and it looks like Davies lumping of plasma cosmology with redshift controversies in contemporaneous terms makes sense from the historical development of the subject. --ScienceApologist 19:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The timing of the COBE results can't possibly have any influence on the reception of Lerner's book, it's an independent event. From what I can gather, the book is still in print [101], and the recent Conference on Cosmology [102] is part of the legacy of his book. Is that a consideration for including in the article? --Iantresman 20:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What you or I think is irrelevant. Paul Davies said that the COBE results did have an influence on the reception of the book. --ScienceApologist 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

I think "The Big Bang Never Happened" should have its own section, and not be under "Reception of Lerner's Ideas" since it is just one aspect and product of his ideas. The reaction to the book is separate from the reaction to his other ideas and ongoing projects. Since this is a biography and not a compendium of book review reviews, more attention should be on Lerner's ideas than on others' opinions of his work. Too much focus has been placed on the interpretation of his ideas and not enough on his actual ideas. A section should be created on the book, with an outline of his ideas, and a smaller section on what others think of his ideas. It should be proportional. That is missing right now. Another section should be dedicated to his activities after the writing of the book.

Indeed, his book is just one string in his bow. --Iantresman 19:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

JBKramer, Arthur Rubin and other editors. Please read the Wikipedia polikcy page on Biographies of living people:

• "If the subject edits the article, it is of vital importance to assume good faith .."
• "When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed"
• ".. subjects of articles remain welcome to edit articles to correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel." --Iantresman 07:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)