Talk:Eric Lerner

Notice: Elerner is banned from editing this article.

The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article indefinitely. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. Posted by Thatcher131 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

Observable universe vs. Universe

Professional cosmologist may find this man's work lacking, but after a short examination of current cosmologist's writings, it is very evident that the term universe is often used with two distinct meanings. On the one hand the word universe is often used to mean the Universe that includes everything. On the other hand, the word universe is often used to mean what we can detect. By mis-using one word to mean two distinctly different things, cosmologists greatly de-value their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal Opnions

Lerner has published his theory/hypotheses in very reputable peer reviewed scientific journals. As far as I know, all criticism of his work has never been done in scientific papers but only as merely personal opnions. Personal opnions does not matter in science, even if it comes from a Nobel prize winner, or Paul Davies, or whoever. Merely personal opnions are not what the majority of people would like to find in a encyclopedia. The best approach would be to list and briefly comment the most important material and contributions to science made by Eric Lerner, include substantial criticism, published in peer reviewed scientific articles and let the people judge by themselves. They will have all references to do a deeper research on the subject if they want. What I think wikipedia can not do is to bias the judgment of people by simply saying "Nobel Prize winner does not agree with his book", etc. This does not add anything in terms of information content. [EPLeite 12:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epleite (talk • contribs)

Actually, all of that is clearly false. He has not published peer reviewed scientific articles. Oh, he has published in a journal (Progress in Physics), but it's not peer-reviewed. Perhaps we have too much criticism, but we clearly have too much support for the assertion that his scientific articles are accurate, so balancing is needed, per WP:FRINGE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do the following (and I see about a dozen more) not count as peer-reviewed?

• 2007: Scarpa, R.; Falomo, R.; Lerner, E., Do Local Analogs of Lyman Break Galaxies Exist?, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 668, Issue 1, pp. 74-80
• 2003: Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the big bang, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 31, issue 6, pp. 1268-1275
• 1995: On the Problem of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 145-149
• 1986: Magnetic self-compression in laboratory plasmas, quasars and radio galaxies., Laser Part. Beams, Vol. 4, Part 2, p. 193 - 213

--John294 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not strive for an article about every peer-reviewed idea. In fact, if there is no response to Lerner's articles in the peer-reviewed literature, then we should seriously consider not mentioning them at all, since they are not notable and/or we are unable to report what reliable, secondary sources say about them. --Art Carlson (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You want to suppress his published ideas, or responses to them, for lack of notice in a certain class of publications? That's absurd. It's well known that scientists ignore stuff that doesn't fit their paradigm. That doesn't make it less notable. What's wrong with presenting Lerner's ideas as his ideas, along with any published commentary on them? There's lots in books. Dicklyon (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume your comment is addressed to Epleite, since he is the one who proposed that only criticisms of Lerner's scientific contributions that have been "published in peer reviewed scientific articles" should be included. I merely called attention to one of the relevant Wikipedia policies. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that apply to mainstream articles on the subject, rather than an article about a living person? If Lerner claims that aliens built the pyramids, then his papers are adequate sources per WP:Living. It is incontrovertible that Lerner has peer-reviewed papers, and only if we misrepresent their contents, or claim they are proven, do we need the extra sources? --John294 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, if his papers are "peer-reviewed" (although many of those sources aren't), we shouldn't includes those which are fringe views if there's no commentary in "peer-reviewed" papers. Representing them as being "peer-reviewed", under the circumstances, gives them WP:UNDUE weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If his papers are "peer-reviewed"? This is checkable. Which of the papers I mentioned are not peer-reviewed? --John294 (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, I'm unclear on what in WP:FRINGE you are referring to, or what you're suggesting. Can you clarify? Dicklyon (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lerner has peer-reviewed papers in fringe journals. WP:FRINGE suggests we should only mention them if we can find references to them "in the real world" (outside of that fringe community). I think John wants to include more of his papers, even though there's no indication that anyone outside the fringe community has seen them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that the journals are fringe (I can't find any sources that say so... can you help?), or the subject of Lerner's papers are fringe? --John294 (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Arthur, WP:FRINGE is a long page; I wanted to know what part you're referring to (section link or a quote). Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the content issue, Epleite, what specific piece of info did you want to add or take away? ABlake (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The following passages are biased and adds nothing to understading: "The response of professional cosmologists to Lerner's ideas set out in the book has been negative; Paul Davies reviewed the book for the New York Times and found it to be unsatisfactory. The newspaper published a rebuttal by Lerner which was itself criticized by Arno A. Penzias, winner of the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics:

"The sizes of the vast ribbons of galaxies that Eric J. Lerner refers to come straight out of the Big Bang model itself.... Contrary to Mr. Lerner's claim, therefore, the 'simple mathematics' he cites rests upon, rather than contradicts the Big Bang model."[4] Subsequent to this, Davies himself responded to Lerner's criticism[5] of his review:""

Paul Davies found it to be unsatisfactory. So what? What does it matter? There is no information content on this. Then, it says that Lerner wrote a rebuttal, but no further comment on it is added. But then there is an exert from the criticism made by Arno A. Penzias! This IS bias.

The, we have the following: '"It seems to me that the theory proposed by Mr. Lerner has serious problems in relation to thermodynamics. This is merely my professional opinion, for what it is worth. Others can judge for themselves.... I accept that Mr. Lerner's book reports work that is largely due to Hannes Alfven, but this does not render it immune from criticism."[5] "

Again, it is merely an opnion. I don't see HOW can this be encyclopedic in ANY way.

The, we have: "Victor J. Stenger, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii, criticized Lerner's book in a 1992 edition of the popular magazine, Skeptical Inquirer.[6] Professor Edward L. Wright of UCLA says that there are several errors of fact in the book,[3] a position which Lerner attacked on his website."

Dr. Wright say that are "several errors" in the book, then the sentence ends with "a position which Lerner attacked on his website". This is a biased way to write the sentence. A better and balanced way to write this would be:

"Professor Edward L. Wright of UCLA says that there are several errors of fact in the book,[3] but Lerner has responded in his website to every point raised by Wright, and says that the errors are actually in Wright's assertions".

(EPLeite 16:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)).

There's no inherent problem in reporting the published critical opinions of experts in related fields; sometimes even self-published opinions of experts may be OK (see WP:SPS). There may be a problem with balance, or with clarity in the presentation, to clearly attribute the criticisms as the opinions of individuals. If there are published supportive comments, those should be mentioned, too. Feel free to improve it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed fringe journals?

Arthur, we were trying to ascertain whether Lerner's peer-reviewed papers mentioned above, were published in fringe journals, including the The Astrophysical Journal, the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, in Astrophysics and Space Science, Laser and Particle Beams. Do you have any sources that suggest this as I can't find any myself? --John294 (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ApJ and IEEE Journals are hardly "fringe" Jon (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wright vs. Lerner diction

Professor Edward L. Wright of UCLA says that there are several errors of fact in the book, a position which Lerner attacked/refuted/complained about/contradicted on his website.

My choice is "disputed", but I hesitate to make the change with all that fur flying. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed is a neutral term that is acceptable to me. ABlake (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no objection to refuted as a neutral term, as Lerner claims (sorry) that he's discredited Wright's claims. (Sorry, we can't say claims in the article, but we should be able to use the word to discuss the issue, without violating BLP or WEASEL.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, "refuted" was my first choice, but "disputed" is fine with me too. However, an even deeper question that Epleite brought up involved the appropriateness of the whole Wright/Lerner exchange. Does Wright's personal page constitute a RS? According to WP:SPS...

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."

Frankly, I think we could and should eliminate a lot of the book section, as there is too much detail in explaining Lerner's position as well as his critics'. I don't know of any other article that discusses and quotes various banter from opinion pieces in the NYT regarding a semi-obscure book. In any event, I think we should stick to the relevant and notable facts about the book and dwell less on the subsequent opinions of, reactions to, and arguments over its propositions. Really, who cares? ABlake (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that there should be an article at all, ABlake? If we remove that section, what's left? Perhaps Lerner is a WP:ONEEVENT candidate for deletion. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there should be an article, but probably much shorter. As much as my COI and POV would like to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, I understand and respect the Wikipedia project too much to do that. Looking over the article, a lot of info comes from primary sources, like personal/corporate web pages, etc. There are a few RSs that make him notable, but if I honestly had to apply my understanding of all the policies, I'd have to remove a lot of stuff, both "positive" and "negative". In the past, a lot of the flare-ups and arguing have been over including marginal material (criticisms from blogs, the LaRouche stuff, the Van Allen quote, etc.). Can we set up a working page where I can hack and slash and see what I can come up with? I don't know how to do that, although I could probably figure it out. ABlake (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A shorter article? I'm not so sure an article that is this short really belongs in the encyclopedia at all and one that is even shorter seems to me to be rife for deletion. Anyway, if you want to give it a shot, just make a page in user space like: User:ABlake/Eric Lerner draft. Just make sure you don't put it in any mainspace categories. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It is set up now. I boiled it down to the verifiable, notable facts, without any spin (as far as I can tell) using reliable sources. Anyone is invited to comment on the talk page, but please leave the actual editing to me. ABlake (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this approach. I think the article is not so bad as it is, going into the controversy around his views a bit. But I agree it's a bit unbalanced in favor of the critics, e.g. by putting them into the lead paragraph. I think we can get to a good article by more selective edits. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the article, if anything, is too unbalanced in favor of the subject. The critics are far more notable and their criticisms are far more relevant to the grand-scheme than Eric Lerner's protestations and nipping at the heals of the scientific community. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the scientific mainsteam guys are more notable, and, at least within the current paradigm, more relevant to the "grand-scheme". But this article is about Eric Lerner, and it shouldn't threaten those guys to have his views presented here, without overwhelming the article by viewpoints of those that he criticizes. Keep it encyclopedic, meaning focus on the topic first, and then a fair mention of the criticisms. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

His views are presented here. Nor is the article "overwhelmed" by viewpoints of those that he criticizes. I believe the article has done exactly what you propose in its present state. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to keep working with this version, I think we might as well put in something about his activism too. He's been quoted on a couple of occasions in newspapers on immigration topics as a leader and spokesman for the New Jersey something something something, so I think that's notable too, and helps serve to round out the article. ABlake (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think his break with LaRouche which is referenced by a third party would also be relevant too. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be relevant. What's the reference? ABlake (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

See below. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Activism / LaRouche

I propose the following bit about his political activism. I believe it meets all of the criteria for inclusion. ABlake (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Lerner has also been involved in political activism. He has sought civil rights protection for immigrants as a member and spokesman for the New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee.

I think that's fine, but I think that this also meets all of the criteria for its inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• He was a former follower of Lyndon LaRouche who left the movement after being pressured to funnel money from a desalination company he started into the US Labor Party.

I can't speak for how reliable the source is, but assuming it is fine, how about this verbiage, which puts it into a little better context:

"Lerner's activism led to his involvement for a time with the National Caucus of Labor Committees and the US Labor Party, led by Lyndon LaRouche. A company had been formed to promote Lerner's water desalinization invention. When Lerner was allegedly pressured to funnel the profits to the US Labor Party, he quit the movement and sued."

This captures the situation and hopefully avoids the negative association that was argued over before, if you remember. ABlake (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay to me except for the bit about "allegedly pressured". I think we should say something like "Lerner testified that he was pressured to funnel the profits to the US Labor Party causing him to quit the movement and sue."

How about that?

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I added the LaRouche stuff to my proposed page here. Comments? ABlake (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, your draft is quite problematic from my perspective. It doesn't detail at all how marginalized Lerner is from the academic communities. The current version does a much better job of this. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to look at any source you might have that details that marginalization. If you can find a good source, I'll include it. Otherwise, I think I've done a pretty good job of getting the meat and cutting the fat. ABlake (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You eliminated more than half of the sources that are currently being used in this article that indicate just that. Take your pick. They're all reliable (many moreso than most of Lerner's ramblings). Otherwise, I'm afraid consensus for your revision is something you do not currently have. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Some notable people don't agree with him. OK, noted and documented. Beleaguering the point smacks of target fixation. See WP:UNDUE, Impartial Tone. ABlake (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that Lerner's point is totally dismissed. It's not just that the notable people don't agree with him, it's that everybody disagrees with him for very straightforward and easy to explain reasons. Reasons that we refer to in this article but not in your version. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So Lerner doesn't agree with them for very straightforward and easy to explain reasons. So what? As WP:UNDUE, Impartial tone discusses (did you even look at it?), this is not the place to bring the arguments. In my version, I appropriately say that there was some controversy over it, give citations, and leave it at that. I believe that is the appropriate weight to give to some opinion-page banter. I understand that it is your desire and intention (AGF) to ensure that the world knows just what a kook Lerner is. Might I suggest that WP is not the correct venue? It's an encyclopedia. ABlake (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your version is dishonest. There isn't any controversy over it. It is simply an intellectually bankrupt backwater. We have the verifiable sources of Nobel Prize winning physicists explaining why Lerner's ideas are not worth the paper upon which they're written, and it is the job of verifiable, reliable encyclopedias to let readers know this so that they can really understand the context of this particular person. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You certainly have a flair for hyperbole. There was a controversy, and it is referenced appropriately. Controversy=discussion of opposing viewsABlake (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The controversy existed only as invented by Lerner. Nobody really took him all that seriously in the community and although he may have gotten some level of popular support judging by the discussion of his book, this is not a controversy happening within the scientific community. Lerner is shut-out. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

SA, I think you're right. Lerner is marginalized, but the current sources were poor examples of that. They only argued about scientific points, without specifically saying, "Hey, Lerner and his cohorts are marginalized." However, as I was thinking about it more, I had an idea. Lerner himself talks about that marginalization in the open letter in New Scientist. So, hey, problem solved! ABlake (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the New Scientist letter does indicate that they themselves admit to marginalization. Unfortunately, it doesn't explain why he's marginalized. For that we need the sources you want to excise. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Which sources are you referring to? The only one that hints of those reasons for marginalization is the personal blog of Sean Carroll. The others merely point out perceived discrepancies in Lerner's arguments. I "excised" Carroll's because it violates WP:SPS, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." Seems pretty clear to me. I "excised" the Stenger citation because it was also self published and didn't add anything to the article. I suppose I could add it to my version, but then I would be obligated to put in Lerner's self-published rebuttal. Either way, I don't care, as long as it's balanced (without undue weight either way). I'd prefer to leave them out unless they really, truly add some sort of value, which I doubt. At least the Stenger quote comes from a RS that we can actually use. I propose deleting the Carroll link for reasons I just cited. I think the correct and RS way to show that marginalization is through the New Scientist letter. ABlake (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

These aren't just "perceived" discrepancies. They are really big problems with Lerner's intellectual integrity, understanding, and capability. You are also misapplying SPS. Carroll is criticizing Lerner's entire pathos, not just him personally. In fact, he doesn't single Lerner out at all. But that's important because Lerner's attempts to critique the Big Bang need to be properly contextualized as marginal and as intellectually bankrupt as the relevant community thinks they are. The problem is that you are trying to "balance" an elephant and a mouse: Lerner's ideas simply do not hold a candle to those who criticize him and it is Wikipedia's repsonsibility to get that across. Unfortunately, it is becoming clear to me that you haven't quite grasped this yet. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not misapplying SPS. You're ignoring it. This is a BLP. If you want to argue the merits (or lack thereof) of plasma cosmology, Carroll's commentary may be appropriate on that page. Your straw man arguments aren't helping. I'm working the content issue, which is that the Carroll line is not up to snuff according to policy. It is becoming abundantly clear to me that you are failing to distinguish between a BLP and a fringe science article. I believe that is the root cause of this discussion. ABlake (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are misapplying it, and you're becoming very shrill in this discussion. This has nothing to do with plasma cosmology (which is not discussed by Carroll in any case): it has to do with the idiosyncratic beliefs of the subject of this article: beliefs for which he has received a moderate amount of notability that is the only reason this article exists. Carroll's critique of Lerner's (and others of his ilk) position vis-a-vis the establishment of academia is vital for readers who are not familiar the situation. I'm afraid we aren't going to make any progress. I hope that Eric isn't telling you to advocate this way. I'm not sure that someone who is as emotionally and financially involved with his madcap endeavors as you are should be consulting on this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is pushing me to advocate for this. I also think we're not going to make any progress on this, so we'll just agree to disagree. Cheers. ABlake (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I referenced the critical material that we've been discussing, and I updated the Carroll link, which didn't include a subsequent blog entry. So, did we come to an agreement on the activism stuff? ABlake (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added the material concerning Eric Lerner's civil rights activism to the article. However, Dennis King's political attack book "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" [1] is not even close to a sufficiently reliable source to make a certain controversial claim: it is unacceptable to use political extremist sources to make controversial claims relating to third parties. To describe Dennis King's anti-LaRouche diatribe as extremist is quite an understatement -- Godwin's Law, anyone? John254 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

King's book was issued by a major publisher, and well-reviewed in the mainstream media. If you have any reliable sources that impeach its accuracy then please cite them. Otherwise, the book qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Erik Lerner's own book "The Big Bang Never Happened" was published by Times Books, a division of Random House -- but it's hardly a reliable source for anything except its own contents as described in this article. We're certainly not going to use "The Big Bang Never Happened" as a source for mainstream cosmology articles such as Physical Cosmology or Big Bang. Mere printing of a book "by a major publisher" does not conclusively indicate its reliability when there are otherwise very good reasons to doubt it. Do you have any sources to support the claim that "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" was "well-reviewed in the mainstream media"? In any event, the remedies and enforcement in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche strongly council against any mention of Lyndon LaRouche in what is, at best, a tangentially related article. Let's avoid importing the Lyndon LaRouche conflict into this biography. John254 05:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to support your views on the King book? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to claim that "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" is a reliable source because clearly reliable sources attest to its reliability, then we very much need to see the sources that support Dennis King's book. However, we do not, as a general matter, require that source reliability be proven by references to additional sources, nor can we, because of a problem of infinite recursion. Suppose that we wish to show that source A is reliable. Let us further assume that the only means by which we can establish source A's reliability is by citation to a source B which claims that source A is reliable. But now we need a source C to establish source B's reliability, and so on, so we cannot establish the reliability of anything. Source reliability is therefore, at a very fundamental level, a subjectively evaluated quality of the source itself. We need to cite further sources for claims of source reliability or unreliability only where such claims expressly assert the existence of such sources. John254 05:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with this, take it to WP:RSN. But don't try to push content that hasn't been agreed to. There is consensus above for inclusion of all of it. Please include all of it or none of it. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The "[inclusion of] all of it or none of it" isn't a consensus, it's your own ultimatum. There are good reasons to believe that respected newspapers are reliable sources for uncontroversial claims concerning Eric Lerner's civil rights activism, but a political attack book comparing Lyndon LaRouche to Adolph Hitler isn't a reliable source for establishing your highly controversial claim that Eric Lerner "was a former follower of Lyndon LaRouche". John254 05:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If I understnad correctly, the book is proposed as a source for this sentence:

• He was a former follower of Lyndon LaRouche who left the movement after being pressured to funnel money from a desalination company he started into the US Labor Party.[3]

Which part of that is contested? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire sentence is contested. Any mention of Lyndon LaRouche in this substantially unrelated article is contested as inconsistent with the remedies and enforcement in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, while the use of a political attack book is contested as being an unreliable source for making a controversial claim concerning a living person. John254 05:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

According to whom is it a "political attack book"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

According to a reasonable reader, who would view the comparison between Lyndon LaRouche and Adolph Hitler [2] as a nasty political attack on LaRouche. John254 05:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not adequate. You haven't shown that any part of the book is inaccurate, and you're just giving your personal opinion. As for Lerner, the same assertions are also in a Wall Street Journal piece co-written by King and Patricia Lynch, an NBC news producer.[3] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

An article co-written by the author of the political attack book may not be a reliable source. John254 05:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The bit that ScienceApologist just removed doesn't appear to be related to that, and as far as I can tell from the discussion above, there was no question as to whether it was acceptable, so I don't understand his remarks here. I'm going to put it back. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that the LaRouche relationship appeared in the WSJ, which would be a better source (still written by King, but presumbly got past an editor at least). Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While I wouldn't use this as a direct source, this page of contemporary history indicates that Lerner wrote a paper on the LaRouche Campaigns views of science.[4] Lerner is also mentioned in this LaRouche essay.[5] If John254 is asserting that there was no relationship between LaRouche and Lerner then I don't think that's supported by the evidence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Has he asserted anything like that? Not that I've noticed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That’s correct: I haven't claimed that there was no connection between Eric Lerner and Lyndon LaRouche. What I have asserted is that the alleged connection cannot be established via reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". John254 06:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

i still haven't seen any substantial reason why the King book and article should be excluded, beyond John254's opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't think the pages that Will Beback links above would be confused with reliable sources, and I agree that the King stuff looks pretty wild, but he did get an article in the WSJ, it appears; assuming that article is verified to exist, is that not a sufficiently reliable source to say something about the connection? Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the LaRouche paragraph, I have to agree with John254 that the web site is not a reliable source. Therefore, I'm withdrawing my agreement to have it in the article, and I'm removing it from my proposed Lerner page. I suggest that it also be removed from the article unless and until there is broader support for its inclusion. ABlake (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a website, it's a published book. Do you not think that the book is a reliabe source? If so, why? I don't think that Lerner's civil rights activities are any more reliably covered than this particular activity which, to me, seems just as relevant to the reader as anything else we propose here. Did you talk to Lerner about this? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The web site is based on the book. The book was published by a real publisher, but John254 suggested that it was a political attack book. I looked up the ISBN number in the reference section, which led to the Book Sources page, where I clicked on Find this book at Google Book Search, which led me to this description: "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism‎, by Dennis King - Biography & Autobiography - 1989 - 415 pages, This is a searing portrait of the man, his ideology, and the cult that surrounds him." This description (as well as a simple reading of the book) indicate to me that this is a political attack book. John254 suggested that "it is unacceptable to use political extremist sources to make controversial claims relating to third parties." The lines in the article make a serious and controversial claim, which Eric has already energetically challenged as being untrue and libelous[6]. This is the fundamental difference between the LaRouche information and the other civil rights activities. I'm not challenging whether there was an association, or whether it is relevant to the reader. The nature of the source as well as the untrue nature of the claims make these lines unacceptable. As this article is a BLP, editors must be very cautious about what information to include, and how it is included. In this case, untrue and potentially damaging information should be speedily removed. ABlake (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting link. I hadn't realized that User:ScienceApologist has such a clear WP:COI. I recommend that he stop trying to smear Lerner, and refrain from editing controversial material in which he has a professional interest, given his strongly declared bias. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If Lerner has disputed the assertions in a reliable or self-published source then we should certainly report that. However the King book meets the requirements for WP:RS and WP:V. We shouldn't delete material just because we disagree with it. If the material is untrue and libelous then the subject has full recourse against the publisher and author. So far as I'm aware, he's never taken any action against them. User:Elerner confirms that he was a member of the LaRouche organization. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a very backward interpretation of WP:BLP; see especially where it says, "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." This is a clear case of wanting to smear Lerner by association, using a source that is clearly biased and not even about him, and obviously has no role in Lerner's notability. Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dick posted in his response before I could, but just happened to say the same thing. Here is what I posted and moved here. "Will, in addition to WP:RS and WP:V, we have to consider WP:BLP in this case. As an admin, I assumed you would be familiar with this idea from BLP: "(Removed quote to save space.)" In the case of this reference, was the book about Eric Lerner specifically? No. Is there any guilt by association implied? Yes (LaRouche). Is there biased or malicious content (as Lerner pointed out in the link above)? Yes. Is there a clear relevance to Lerner's notability? No. To me, this reference fails on all four accounts, and should be removed. Since I have a COI, I'm abstaining from doing it myself. Otherwise, I would. ABlake (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)"

• I've reverted the outright deletion, but removed the part about the business and lawsuit. This material is based on a reliable, third party sources. No one disputes that Lerner was a member of the NCLC, and user:Elerner has confirmed it. There is nothing biased about including this basic, biographical information. The subject is notable because of his scholarship and advocacy of what we describe as a "non-standard cosmology". The LaRouche movement is also associated with non-standard theories on a variety of topics, including astrophysics. So the subject's association with that groups is relevant to his notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• The article contains several other references to political activism by the subject. I'd like to hear why editors think some of these are appropriate while others are not. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I agree with your analysis of the situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Will, I took out the U. S. Labor Party bit, as I didn't see any support for that in the King chapter. And I took out the mention of LaRouche, which didn't seem to have any relevance. The mention of his involvement in the NCLC itself is not derogatory, so doesn't require particularly reliable sourcing, so it's OK. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The US Labor Party is in the King Book and the connection to LaRouche is extremely important as there is likely a philosophical connection. LaRouche himself advocates an infinite universe and whether he was influenced by Lerner or the other way around, the reader should be aware of the connection which is made clear from the source. Therefore, I reverted per WP:BRD. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's a scientific relevance to the connection with LaRouche, you should say so and source it. I saw where King mentioned U. S. Labor Party in the same sentence of Lerner, but it didn't say he was associated with it in any way. So it's out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to quell the edit warring which has and probably will take place over the activism stuff, I'm removing all activism-related info from the article. I think this is an appropriate measure until it can be sorted out on the talk page. This is a reasonable step because Lerner isn't known for his activism anyway, and SA has already proposed having the LaRouche quote or none of it. That's probably a wise compromise for now in order to turn down the heat. ABlake (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This was the agreement we had before. I'm fine with it. If it is really a BLP-related issue to discuss Lerner's political history, we should leave it out entirely. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we just work on getting well sourced material consistent with BLP? It's clear that SA's agenda is to remove as much positive stuff, and add as much negative stuff, as he can get away with, since that helps in his campaign to discredit Eric Lerner and frame his controversial ideas as "pseudoscience." Aren't their any editors around who are willing to call him on it and try for a more neutral article in the spirit of wikipedia policy and guidelines? Why should we agree to having his political activism work removed just because we don't let SA say things not supported even by the flaky source he cites? Why should we let SA talk about LaRouche in the Lerner article on the flimsiest of sources? Neither makes any sense. I'm putting it back... Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

While the rhetoric is flying fast and thick, I have one question, why is Eric Lerner's political activities of any interest to an enyclopedia reader? Isn't it mostly a private affair? He is notable for his pseudoscientific ideas, not for his politics. Furthermore, if anyone has any problems with the book that was published by a reliable publisher and looks to me to be well-regarded, simply take it up on WP:RSN. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT seems to be a pretty perennial problem here. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about rhetoric, but I have a very different view of the problem here. It seems to me, reading the article and the sources, that Eric Lerner's activism is a big part of who he is. And further that your anti-Lerner campaign is based on a particular conflict of interest of yours, as Eric himself pointed out here (if this has been discussed before, sorry, I've missed it; let me know if you've either declared this conflict of interest, or denied it). Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Lerner has an extreme persecution complex. He believes that I'm being paid by my academic advisers to dig up all the sources that criticized him because we mainstream cosmologists are so threatened by his exposition of The Truth. Yeah, I've denied it before and I'll deny it again, my interest in Lerner is no different than my interest in any other fringe/pseudo-science topic/persona. You could try reading the archives here, at Talk:Plasma cosmology and at Talk:Big Bang for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestions, I'm seeking comments on the source as it applies to the "guilt-by-association" statements here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#King, LaRouche, Lerner, and ScienceApologist. Dicklyon (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Big Bang "theory" vs. "model"

An anonymous editor changed "Big Bang theory" to "Big Bang model" at one point in the article with the summary "Big Bang is a model not a "theory" as it is too ambiguous." I was about to revert because the current scientific understanding of the Big Bang is anything but ambiguous. But then I looked at the Big Bang articles. It starts, "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is ..." (my emphasis). On the other hand, that article uses both phrases, "Big Bang theory" and Big Bang model", repeatedly and apparently interchangeably. Before this edit, this article used the phrase "Big Bang theory" three times. "Big Bang model" only appeared in a quote from Penzias. I started writing this comment thinking I was going to plea for consistency, one way or the other, but as I look closely at the usage in Wikipedia and in my own experience as a scientist, I think the distinction the anonymous editor wants to make between theory and model doesn't exist. In other words, I don't think it really matters (so let's not start an edit war). --Art Carlson (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If anybody is interested in this topic (anyway), Theory goes into considerable detail on the muddy relationship between the terms. Scientific modeling (to which Model (abstract) redirects) is not very helpful. (And the disambiguation page Model is worthless in this regard.) --Art Carlson (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that a model was a combinational result of theoretical arguments and simplifying assumptions that describes nature. The theory is what the model is based on. The Big Bang is a "model" in the sense that it describes nature using various theories (general relativity, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, etc.) with a few reasonable assumptions (Big Bang#Underlying assumptions). In another sense, it is a "theory" because it provides a framework for understanding certain physical processes by direct appeal. In other words, when people refer to an even being "due to the Big Bang", they are referring to the Big Bang as a theory. When they refer to some aspect of the Big Bang, they are referring to the Big Bang as a model. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that Eric Lerner himself refers to the Big Bang as a theory. (Not that he's an RS on this issue, but he might bear some weight with that anonymous editor with an ax to grind.) The full title of his book is "The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe". Anyway, since we are not using these words in any strict technical sense, I don't think the wikilink to "model" (or "theory") is helpful. I'm removing it. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)