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.

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, and Lerner. Dicklyon (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming from BLP/N, my personal view is I'm not seeing compelling evidence either way re: the political activism in immigration section. The WP refs only seem mentions Eric as a spokesperson. I can't read the full version of The Record one but I presume its similar. In that case, it's not that great a ref since it's incidental to Eric. One the otherhand, being spokesperson for a group is generally a prominent and highly public role so it's not something we should definitely exclude especially with a ref from a prominent newspaper (WP). If we could get a another ref or two particularly from prominent sources I would lean to include. Even better though would be if the activism is mentioned in an aritcle about Eric or an interview with Eric. In terms of the LaRouche thing I have to say exclude based on what I've seen. I haven't read the ref but I'm presuming it simply mentions Eric briefly. In that case and given he was simply a member I would definitely have to say exclude even more so since the book while perhaps an RS doesn't seem that notable. If the book mentions Eric's involvement in detail (say 10 paragraphs or more long) then I may reconsider. Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The book mentions Lerner only in one four-sentence paragraph, and it's not really even about him: Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Businesses run by NCLC members are expected to put the NCLC's needs first. Former LaRouchian Eric Lerner found this out when he and several comrades formed a company to promote a water desalinization invention. After leaving the NCLC, he stated in a 1979 lawsuit that NCLC leaders had pressured him to funnel the firm's profits to the U.S. Labor Party, the electoral arm of the NCLC, in violation of election laws. Lerner charged that this was standard policy with other NCLC-controlled businesses.

(Following this here from the note on BLP/N, and copying this comment from RSN). Will Beback says above that Lerner's political activism is a constant and important part of his life. If this is the case, and can be demonstrated by more than the brief mentions in the King book and piece in the WSJ (which is, I'm guessing, an op-ed?) then it makes sense to include a political activism section in the article. As to whether Lerner can be described as a "follower of LaRouche" or "LaRouchian" (or a formerly either) -- my opinion is that the sources don't support that. King's identification of Lerner as a LaRouchian seems off-hand, and he hasn't given details that would support that description. An association with an organization led or founded by LaRouche, or subordinate to another organization that is, doesn't make Lerner a "follower" any more than being a Democrat or Republican makes one a "follower" of Obama or Bush.

I'm not sure its established that inclusion of the political activism material is necessary for this article, but if that is agreed then here is the version of the sentence above that I suggest:

• "In the 1970s, Lerner became involved in the National Caucus of Labor Committees, an offshoot of the Columbia University Students for a Democratic Society. Lerner left the National Caucus in 1978, and later argued in a lawsuit that he had been pressured to (but did not) illegaly channel profits of an engineering firm to the US Labor Party, an organization led by Lyndon LaRouche."

Is that an improvement? It doesn't represent him as a LaRouche follower, or inaccurately claim a connection to the US Labor Party, but it does note his connection to the NCLC and the lawsuit that followed his disassociation with that group. Avruch ^T 15:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an improvement over any of the versions that SA wrote, but is it really necessary to go into why he left the NCLC, when all we know about it is the offhand comment by King in his LaRouche attack book? I don't see how it helps the article, and I don't see why the King source would be judge reliable enough to include such a thing as fact. I think it still fails the bit I quoted from BLP. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 31 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)

COI proposal

I propose that User:ABlake and User:ScienceApologist agree to not edit this article, since each of them has a too-strong conflict of interest and POV. Of course, both are welcome to mention errors and to propose corrections and improvements here on the talk page. I think the remaining editors, if not quite neutral, are at least not so conflicted that they can't work together to improve the article. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not OK. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't best place to decide something like this proposal, but I support it. I think the named editors have a hard time editing this article with the neutral point of view. Solutions like this have their own problems that also need to be discussed. Would either a WP:AN thread or a WP:RFAR motion under the 2006 case be most appropriate? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Since it's not OK with SA, we'll have to pursue other methods. There's an RFAR case ongoing already about him at [7]. I recommend people post relevant evidence there (at [8], that is). Dicklyon (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you outline what you think their conflicts of interest are? They have an opinion, that is clear enough, but they don't appear to be alone in that. Having a COI, by the way, isn't an automatic bar to contributing to a particular topic. Avruch ^T 14:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

SA is running near the edge of what's allowable in Wikipedia in other areas, and should probably cool down here, but it's not a COI issue. ABlake almost certainly does have a COI, but he hasn't made improper edits in the article lately. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think ABlake knows that he has indeed made an inappropriate edit recently, and think that when an editor like SA has a bit of a COI and is running close to the edge of what's acceptable, that's unacceptable. But I understand we may assess things differently. Dicklyon (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Big bang section -- what happened?

The section with the reviews of the book seemed terribly slanted, for example in pointing out that Penzias had a Nobel prize in Physics, but not mentioning that so does Alfvén. And in not saying anything that Lerner said in his rebuttal, and nothing that was said good about the book. I presume this must have been something like ScienceApologist's "scientific point of view" dominating over "neutral point of view." I've tried to restore some balance. Comments welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The anon edit moving the ref was me, too; looks like I got auto logged off when the ball dropped. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were mostly fine, but there were some problems with some non-NPOV wording and a bit of mischaracterization of the science. I fixed them. Also, we agreed in the archives not to include statements from people who weren't reliable sources for reviewing Lerner's book. That includes librarians. If you would like to restart that discussion, please read it first and then begin the discussion here. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your "fixes" as being mostly very clear POV spin. What the heck? As to not being able to quote any review not by an insider in the standard mainstream POV, that's just absurd. I'll look for the prior discussion, but I can't imagine that I'll find a consensus there. Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to revert your entire contribution then per WP:BRD. Please form a consensus around your argument for why your version is better. This version has stood as consensus for a while, and though consensus can change, you must demonstrate that this has occurred. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not about "my version", but about your changes. Let me detail some of them here:

Your first edit took out the only positive review quote, from Library Journal; it wasn't pretending to be a technical assessment.

This was discussed in the archives. No quotes form non-experts were considered worthy of inclusion here and were explicitly excluded. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you changed "stated that there are several errors of fact" to "described several errors of fact". This presumes that the facts are not in dispute; obviously, that's only true within your universe, not the universe whose origin is controversial, the one being discussed here. And changing "Lerner disputed the claims of this review" (claims referring back to the previous sentence, namely errors) to "Lerner disputed some of Wright's statements", leaving the impression that he agreed with some of the findings of error; I don't read it that way.

There is only one universe. They are plainly errors of fact similar to someone saying that "2+2=7". Lerner did not dispute all of Wright's statements, he only disputed some of them. I'm not sure whether he agreed with the other errors that Wright pointed out or whether he didn't understand them, but it is untrue to claim that he disputed the claims of the review since he didn't dispute all of them.

Next you changed "focused on Davies's misattribution of the theory to Lerner instead of to Alfvén" to "who focused on Davies's failure to attribute the ideas in his book to Alfvén". This gives me the impression that you didn't read the rebuttal, or have forgotten the gist of it.

Lerner believes that Davies "misattributed" the theory to Alfven. However, it's actually only Lerner's belief that it is a misattribution. Alfven wasn't available for comment as to whether Lerner represented him properly.

Then you removed the characterization of Davies as "a leading proponent and popularizer of the big bang theory;" this is right out of cited source, and entirely relevant; are you thinking it's not true, not relevant, not well cited, or just not what you want to see there? It was actually in the text of Lerner's rebuttal, and we can attribute it that way if that helps.

The cited source does not indicate that it is a fact that Davies is a "leading proponent and popularizer of the big bang theory". What's more, the sources is dated. What's relevant is that he is an academic, not the editorializing of a controversy-stirring media hound.

Then, on the CMB, you took out "generally regarded as". Isn't this an adequate way to state that it's the mainstream view? It wouldn't make sense to treat the mainstream view as fact in the context of a discussion on an alternative view, would it?

It's not a view, it's a fact. See WP:ASF.

So, in summary, I didn't find much that you changed that wasn't done for SPOV spin. What little I did find, I incorporated. It would be useful to get input from editors not dedicated to smearing Lerner and his work as crank and pseudoscience, but rather are willing to treat fringe alternatives more neutrally, but you dismantle it again. But please do feel free to explain your reasoning on these edits. Dicklyon (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So in summary, you essentially inserted a lot of misinformation, asserted facts that were actually opinions and asserted opinions that were actually facts. Very problematic. Per WP:BRD you should form consensus around your version, but instead you chose to edit war. There can be no compromising with this kind of problematic editorial bent: especially one that seems so intent on ignoring attempts at collaborative editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I find your views too biased to respond to further, so I'll let others. As to "ignoring attempts at collaborative editing", I don't find much evidence for collaboration in the talk archives; it appears that you fight every attempt to make a balanced presentation of the ideas, reviews, etc. And as to that so-called consensus that "No quotes form non-experts were considered worthy of inclusion," I've looked for it in the archives, and can't find it. Maybe you can point it out more specifically.

The person who writes for the Chicago tribune is not an expert. The head librarian is not an expert. Why are we quoting non-experts here? That smacks of a violation of WP:RS. The reliable sources are the astronomers, the mathematicians, the physicists, and the people who have actually studied the material. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

They may very well be expert book reviewers; the article already makes clear that they are not cosmologists or domain experts, and the attribution makes clear who they are. These sources are reliable for the attributed opinions of the reviewers, and nothing more is implied. Dicklyon (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The opinions of people who know nothing about the subject which they are reviewing are not germane to the encyclopedia. Why should they be? We should not be attributing the opinions of people who don't understand. We don't quote the local newspaper's stock book reviewer for their opinion on David Irving but instead quote researchers who are in the know. Same thing applies here. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Violation of the BRD process

Per WP:BRD I reverted Dicklyon's edits as being factually incorrect, erroneous, and POV-insertions into this article. Instead of trying to form a consensus around his changes, he simply reverted me back. Rather than engage in an edit war, I'm simply going to point out that his behavior is bald edit warring. I would encourage him to self-revert. I may also appeal this move to an arbitrator who is equipped to deal with pseudoscience promotion per the pseudoscience arbitration. I have placed the totally disputed tag on the page to indicate my extreme objections to the actions of this particular user.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe those tags and the attention you can get from arb enforcement will bring some less polarized editors to come have a look at the basis for your discomfort. I'm actually quite perplexed, myself; see my comments on your changes in the section above. Dicklyon (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And see my responses. I don't know why you've become a strident fringe-theory proponent, but that's what's happened now and we're going to have to come to terms with the matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you think I'm a proponent of this fringe theory; I find it interesting and worth presenting neutrally is all. By the way, what facts are in dispute in the book section? Or is that tag not what you intended? Dicklyon (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits make you a de facto fringe theory proponent. You may like his interesting pseudoscience, but to try to present it "neutrally" in the way you are doing is misleading. Eric's ideas are soundly rejected by everyone in the know, and that needs to be made clear. He is not on a level-playing field. The facts that he tries to dispute are still facts even though he disputes them. However, you seem to be content to teach the controversy. The facts that are in dispute are things such as the fact that Eric Lerner didn't refute all of Wright's discussed errors or the fact that the CMB is relic radiation from the big bang (and not just generally considered so). ScienceApologist (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tags

I am removing the disruptive the tags placed by SA. After reviewing the changes, I can not se how the additions made User:Dicklyon can make the article {{totally-disputed}}. Also, I do not think Lyndon LaRouche needs to be mentioned twice to make the article less disputed. --Petri Krohn (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

- P.S. - Why can't you ScienceApologist use your skills to attack something really pesudo-scientific, like the Baltic occupation myth. It might relieve your stress - and help you find new friends :-) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with LaRouche. Please do not remove the tags that are in the section. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't pseudoscientific enough for you? ScienceApologist (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. In deference to specificity, I tagged all the statements I find problematic with the appropriate tags. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought those were pretty silly at first, but they've actually been quite helpful. I've taken a whack at fixing a few of the problems. See if you agree. Dicklyon (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This change is fabulous. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)