Talk:Alan Guth

Alan Guth the atheist?

This appeared on my talk page, in defence of the claim that Guth is an atheist. It seems more appropriate here:

Here is a site map of the website; http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/index.htm .

It is even critical of Christianity.

Okay, it seems non-creationist.  :-) But the claim still seems ill-sourced, apparently being based on Guth's biography "The Inflationary Universe". I don't recall any atheist affirmation in it, although he does say something, somewhere (where?, I can't remember) about preferring beliefs to be empirically based. Guth sounds like an atheist to me, but I'm sure many religious people would disagree -- miracles are meant to be empirical, aren't they?

Just give us the page number from his bio. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not he's an atheist, can we get some citation from a WP:RS that documents it? I'm going to go ahead and tag the whole article as needing to cite its sources. Wellspring (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that he certainly is a practicing Jew. He is taking off this Thursday from MIT to celebrate Yon Kippur. Clark3934 (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I had heard he was a non-practicing Jew. But that's what I've heard, so it's not realiable. He is critical of creationism and intelligent design, as are most scientists (hell, even most religious philosophers), regardless of thier views on religion. You have to remember he's a String Theory proponent, though, they have no view on God as they see it sould be entirely possible he (or it) exists, and it could be possible that he does not. It is not a question they generally like to concern themselves with. I guess that's Apatheism. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Entry needs editing

Hello. My first Wikipedia comment. I enjoyed reading this entry on Alan Guth, but feel I should point out that there are quite a few grammatical errors, missing words, and questionable word choices which a careful reading will reveal. I won't wield the hammer and nails myself because it's past my bedtime, and I'm not sure I know how to go about it anyway. I leave it in your capable hands. All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.131.81 (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

   11 years having passed without your bedtime nor motivation having become more amenable, mebbe it's time for a review at the moderately capable hands of a grown-up physicist and experienced editor.
--JerzyA (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

Seems to me like the article is written very colloquially and is far from satisfying the NPOV guidelines. Throughout, there is pretty much a judgement and/or and opinion interjected with every fact.

Example 1: "MIT was easier for him than high school because all his courses were science and math. One reason he did this was because he was worried about the draft. He certainly was not a big fan of the Vietnam War, because in 1970 he participated in some speeches at political activities"

--> What does this undocumented speculation have anything to do with anything?

Example 2: "Ironically, much of that theory had been developed by graduate students at Princeton, but Guth had been too wrapped up in his own ideas to notice what was going on around him. When Guth discovered this he felt embarrassed that he was paying no attention to what his colleagues were doing. Since his time at Princeton had been wasted, he had to find another postdoc job in any way that was available to him, such as reading notices on bulletin boards and called acquaintances who worked in physics departments."

--> This is downright meant to degrade Alan Guth. What is its relevance and significance in this article?

In agreement with the comment above, it is in need of serious work. Evilmathninja (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the whole tone and style of the article is awful (the result of one editor's rewrite). The best thing would be to revert back. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

not encyclopedic

As others have noted, this article needs serious work. One thing that really stuck out to me was all the phrases like "Alan Guth believes..." and "Alan Guth's main beliefs about the universe are..." This makes him sound like a guru rather than a scientist. The whole thing is written like some kind of junior high school fanboy paper.75.83.69.196 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to make the article sound more encyclopedic, removing much uncited material, which was probably based by somebody on interview(s) with the subject. Interviewers typically lard up their articles with attempts to make the subject sound like a guru; this is NOT the fault of the person being interviewed. If there are good reliable published sources out there, I hope somebody will use them to make the article even better. betsythedevine (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made a start - for instance by removing all the material about confirming inflation, which was/is/will be the work of a much wide community.

Further work is still required. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing the context of the 70's Ph.d. Glut and the inability of Universities to recognize talent

The discussion of his early career fails to mention that when he graduated in 1971 it was during the Ph.d. Glut that hit in 1970 in Physics and other sciences. So the inability to get a tenure track job and the repeated postdoc positions was the most likely fate of the Physics graduate in that era. The key thing is that things switched from boom to bust very quickly, whereas today things have been pretty tough for Physics grads for 40 years (with some interludes of improvement). It also would help to contrast Guth's achievements as a postdoc with all those who got tenure track jobs before him, because it would illustrate the repeated pattern the failure to recognize scientific talent. Einstein being the most know example given that he could only get a job as a Swiss patent clerk, a job he continued to be employeed at even after the publication of his famous 1905 papers. 205.189.194.208 (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that relevant - after all everybody was in the same boat. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Publications

My first kick didn't yield any sufficient list.
Any suggestions? (The current "one item" list is way incomplete.) Josh, linguist (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Guth's recanting of inflation theory

Hi all. I added a subsection on the latest interview by Linde to FT, where Linde is cited as saying Guth has recanted inflation. This is newsworthy as it indicates a dispute over the Nobel prize.

"According to Linde in his interview to the Financial Times, Guth has recanted inflation theory altogether, in a paper "more than 100 pages long"."

Holybeef (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - rv edit - there doesn't seem to be a recanting by Guth (or any one else?) - nor any mention of "100 pages" - in the reference cited => < ref>Andrei Linde on the Big Bang and the biggest discovery of all time, interview with Clive Cookson. The Financial Times, 11 April 2014.</ref> - *entirely* ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry my bad, the entire interview is in audio format and the text is just an excerpt. You have to click on the mini player. Reverted. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Brief Followup - Updated edit to following =>

Guth's recanting of "old inflation" theory

According to Linde in his audio interview (04/11/2014) (about 14-16/43:06 minute total), Guth has recanted his "old inflation" theory, in a paper "more than 100 pages long".< ref>Andrei Linde on the Big Bang and the biggest discovery of all time, interview with Clive Cookson. The Financial Times, 11 April 2014.</ref>

Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but why "old inflation" and why the quotation marks? I didn't get an impression from listening to the audio that there was Guth's old v. Gut's new inflation. (In case you somehow missed it, my subsection is inside the Guth's inflation section only). Besides, see the section's end where it says Linde and Guth merely exchanged papers afterwords, and that's it. So I've just changed "old inflation" back to inflation. Holybeef (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for your comments - no problem whatsoever re your recent edits - seems I heard Linde say that Guth referred to his 1980 "inflation scenario" thinking as "old inflation" (about 15:10 into the audio interview?) - hence, the quotation marks - for me, a transcript of the interview may help I would think - in any regards - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, you're "very welcome." With or without transcript, "inflation scenario" sounds more like colloquialism than referring to a notable (original or later) theory of Guth's. If such a later theory exists, I think the article would have discussed it by now. The way things seem to be at the moment, Linde has proposed his own "very simple idea" only after Guth had already recanted inflation as impossible -- a conclusion Guth felt so strongly about that it took him "over 100 pages" to write the recanting paper. Holybeef (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering - what exactly are the "100 pages"? - a publication somewhere? - a draft? - maybe find out from Linde himself (or even Guth himself) if possible? - seems there may be more to the story than what we may know (or think we know) at the moment - including perhaps what Guth really meant by his "inflation scenario" wording of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Linde speaks of "a paper" so I'm assuming it was a scientific paper or report. Not a newspaper mind you, as the sheer volume seems forbidding for that type of scenario ;) Holybeef (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, might be interesting to know more about the paper(s) of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Having read this article for the first time today, it seems to me that the Andrei Linde interview provides an intriguing link, but I feel strongly opposed to creating a whole section titled “Guth’s recanting of inflation theory." As I understand it, almost nobody--including Guth--subscribes to the original “false vacuum” theory of inflation, but “slow roll inflation” is alive and well, and the deeper intuition behind both inflation theories remains intact in Guth’s original ideas. Indeed, it was Guth who originally coined the term. Thus, the statement “Guth has recanted his inflation theory," while perhaps technically correct, is misleading. Also, Guth hasn’t by any stretch of the imagination recanted all theories of inflation. See, for example, his most recent paper on the ArXiv (http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7619) where he writes: "We conclude that cosmic inflation is on a stronger footing than ever before." I’m going to take a stab at rewriting the article to keep these views in perspective. A practicing cosmologist ought to take a look, though. My expertise is in condensed matter.

For general reference, here is my transcription of the section of the Andrei Linde interview in question:

“But then he found—and this was in 1980—but then he found that it does not quite work. Because later you need to get rid of this false vacuum, you need to get normal matter. And this false vacuum, when it starts decaying, it becomes nonuniform, ugly, and as a result we do not get the universe the way we see it. So this was a scenario which no is called ‘old inflation.’ And he had written in his paper that ‘sorry, it does not quite work. We should all try, maybe we will make it work.’ And then, he had written a long, long paper—100 pages—proving it was impossible to improve this scenario. But there was little communication between Russia and the U.S., so all communications from the U.S. were coming to Russia during several months. So I received this preprint after … already improved his scenario. And that is something which I called ’new inflationary scenario.’ This version of this theory did not quite work either, and a year later it was discarded. And then in '83 I proposed something which is called chaotic inflation, and it was very very simple. It was really simple. There was no vacuum-like space … you need some special kind of field of the type Higgs field, which was already discovered at LHC, and under certain conditions, even in very simple theories of that kind, you will have exponentially fast expansion of the universe, and then you solve all problems which you would not solve otherwise, and this is exactly the version of the theory which predicted gravitational waves with an amplitude which was discovered by Bicep2. That’s why for me personally, this was a day of celebration. That is assuming that the interpretation of the experimental data is right.

...and here is a link to what I think is likely to be the "100-page" paper Guth wrote in 1980 discarding the false-vacuum theory of inflation: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0550321383903073# The title is: Could the universe have recovered from a slow first-order phase transition? Csmallw (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please no POV. Holybeef (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Csmallw - Thank you for your comments - and transcription - they're *very much* appreciated - I agree - an opinion from a cosmologist about all this might be worthy of course - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Linde is a cosmologist, so only citing a reliable source reporting a statement by another cosmologist can be added to Linde's words, which cannot be replaced. We're not here to judge who's right or wrong so please stop deleting the highly newsworthy subsection that's based on Linde's audio interview to the Financial Times. Counter it with another reputable source if you like, but never delete news like it never happened. It did. Holybeef (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad I could be helpful :) Csmallw (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• strongly opposed. Reverted your change(s). The "first incarnation" is your POV. Point #2: sorry but what's "although he technically did recant"? You can't be "half pregnant", can you? Your explanation is sheer nonsense. Please don't make up stuff and don't provide your own thoughts about "what Guth might have meant." Besides it was not a new section (as you tried to imply) but simply a properly referenced subsection on a newsworthy statement by a cosmologist Linde who couldn't be more precise: Guth has recanted his inflation. What's to discuss? What's all the fuss about, it's just stating the facts that counts, this is Wikipedia. Holybeef (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As a reminder: Wikipedia includes newsworthy information from reputable sources and you can't imagine a more reputable source than the Financial Times and Andrei Linde as a world leading cosmologist, correct? So burden of proof in this case is on those who want to dispute Linde but that's going to be virtually impossible as he gave audio interview. But feel free to provide for example another reputable source that counters what he said. His interview is valid, so it stays in either case as newsworthy info. Besides, I see no point in soliciting opinion of "another cosmologist". Not only that Linde is a cosmologist but that's also not what Wikipedia does. It only reports from third-party reliable sources. Don't forget also: no POV please. Holybeef (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have anything more to add to this discussion, except to say that I stand by my original edits and comments. Csmallw (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Csmallw - Thanks again for your comments, edits and efforts - I, for one, think they're *very* worthy - for some reason, there seems to be a bit of WP:OWN and WP:SPA at the moment - but thanks again for your own comments and all - they're all *very much* appreciated - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but no WP:OWN here since I didn't edit the article so how could I be misbehaving like I "own it"? I just created the account and contributed one new reference on a topic that interests me. Implying WP:SPA is harsh; although my account is new, I am going to contribute, time permit. Very busy here, sorry if that's suspicious to you. Also, it took me awhile to learn rules (it wasn't that hard, actually). Hope we discuss the subject matter, as you suggested yourself and that you can assume good faith. Though in all honesty, the rules I cited are very clear and basic. So it seems only new outside sources can be added if someone wishes to counter the Linde's, but his reference must not be deleted as if it never existed. Thanks, I am enjoying this, wishing you the same! Holybeef (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - I have no problem whatsoever with Linde's comments, esp those supported by WP:RS of course, remaining in the article - but balancing (ie, WP:BALANCE) such comments with alternative viewpoints and/or interpretations, such as those that may have been presented by Csmallw above (and in this recently reverted => article version), may be worthy as well, esp, again, if supported by WP:RS - this may provide a better sense, including WP:NPOV, to the article - incidently, WP:OWN may refer to any article content, including sections - or sentences - or even a word (see a very recent example => Talk:Voyager 1#Manmade vs. Humanmade), and not only to entire articles - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, balancing is needed of course, but it doesn't mean deleting the Linde reference which came from a highly reliable source. As you put it, if a countering WP:RS is found, let's include it too, but side-by-side with the Linde reference and not instead of it. From what I could tell, Csmallw has tried to reword the article a bit, but in his own interpretation of work by other cosmologists, that is, without reliable sources that would counterbalance the Linde's statement. So it appeared as an excuse for deleting of a newsworthy addition that came straight from Linde who is a world leading authority in cosmology, the inflation field in particular. Thanks for the WP:OWN useful pointer, I'll keep it in mind. Although, I don't think it applies in this case, since I was just protecting a newsworthy addition from being removed (instead of properly countered using another WP:RS), which in my reading of the rules was vandalism. Holybeef (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - I generally agree with your comments re the Linde reference - and the need to WP:BALANCE the related section with an alternative interpretation - some of the text (worthy imo) added by Csmallw may be useful and merged into the article - you may like to try and merge the text added by Csmallw into the wording of the section - or conversely - you may try and merge your own material into the text that Csmallw has presented earlier - either way - you may solve your own problem with the material - and that of others - in any regards - please understand that =>

• Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
• Claiming a text/reference to be a "newsworthy addition" - even if from a "highly reliable source" - may not necessarily be a worthy addition to an encyclopedia article.
• "Additions" to articles - "newsworthy" or not (and even if from "highly reliable sources") - may be removed by Editorial Discretion (see WP:EDITDISC) - or by a WP:CONSENSUS of editors - for one reason or another (if interested, see => Example-1/manmade, Example-2/exoplanet, Example-3/big bang, Example-4/novel).

Hope this all helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at the examples you mention (which are often said to "confirm the rule", at least in theory), they seem rather remotely applicable in this case. Simply, they are related to special topics. Such editorial interventions seem harmless to the topic yet help raise the overall quality level of Wikipedia. Here on the other hand, we're talking a theory that's been in the focus of science news (agencies, if you like) all over the world for the past 3 months, since the news broke out. Holybeef (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Holybeef - YES, Guth's inflationary theory has been in the news and there are many cited references to support the news of his theory - however, more importantly for the present discussion, are there any clear references to support the so-called "recant" by Guth - if so, please add the citations - especially if from Guth himself (the most important citation - and clearest of all - I would think) - I know of only one cited reference at the moment - and that one cited reference is not from Guth himself - and - that one cited reference seems dubious and/or interpretable at best - as noted here by other editors (see comments posted in this talk section) - yes, more references, especially clearer ones, might help your position I would think - but, as it is at the moment, clear cited support from a WP:RS that Guth actually recanted the cosmic inflationary theory he's known for best today seems lacking - only one *very* interpretable reference? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the good point. You are right, the Financial Times reference could perhaps be seen as interpretable as any audio. So here's a Linde's exact quotation from his Scientific American article: The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, Andrei Linde, Scientific American, Volume 9, Issue 1 (1998) 98-104. As you know, the Scientific American is a highly reputable science magazine. In that article, Linde gives a complete account of the story behind the Guth's recanting, explicitly stating "Guth finally renounced (...) in a paper Guth co-authored with EJ Weinberg". I'm sure you can find the latter paper, and take Linde's word (as a world leading cosmologist's) that Guth himself did recant inflation (as Guth mis/understood it). Basically, this proves that Guth developed just one of many non-working versions of inflation out there, so it's incorrect to refer to some other person's (working) theory as "Guth's theory". So without further ado:

The first realistic version of the inflationary theory came in 1979 from Alexei A. Starobinsky of the L. D. Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics in Moscow. The Starobinsky model created a sensation among Russian astrophysicists, and for two years it remained the main topic of discussion at all conferences on cosmology in the Soviet Union. His model, however, was rather complicated (it was based on the theory of anomalies in quantum gravity) and did not say much about how inflation could actually start.

In 1981 Alan H. Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggested that the hot universe at some intermediate stage could expand exponentially. His model derived from a theory that interpreted the development of the early universe as a series of phase transitions. This theory was proposed in 1972 by David A. Kirzhnits and me at the P. N. Lebedev Physics Institute in Moscow. According to this idea, as the universe expanded and cooled, it condensed into different forms. Water vapor undergoes such phase transitions. As it becomes cooler, the vapor condenses into water, which, if cooling continues, becomes ice.

Guth’s idea called for inflation to occur when the universe was in an unstable, super cooled state. Super cooling is common during phase transitions; for example, water under the right circumstances remains liquid below zero degrees Celsius. Of course, supercooled water eventually freezes. That event would correspond to the end of the inflationary period. The idea to use super cooling for solving many problems of the big bang theory was very attractive. Unfortunately, as Guth himself pointed out, the postinflation universe of his scenario becomes extremely inhomogeneous. After investigating his model for a year, he finally renounced it in a paper he co-authored with Erick J. Weinberg of Columbia University.

Hope this settles the issue of what Linde really meant, and that you can take Linde's word for it that Guth produced a sterile theory that led nowhere, which Guth himself admitted and subsequently recanted. Note: to renounce and to recant are synonyms: see below, link to Merriam-Webster's definition of recant where renounce is given as the first synonym. If you click on it, the following definition pops up: "renounce: to say especially in a formal or official way that you will no longer have or accept (something); to formally give up (something)". So that's it. I've just added this additional reference to the article, thanks for your help! Still waiting though for your response to my question in the below re the WP:SPA issue with that puzzling account by MGBirdsall that was used in this discussion for the first time ever in 5 years since created. Again, great discussing with you! Holybeef (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Holybeef - Several notes =>

• Re: Scientific American reference - Yes, your noted reference seems to be a better citation than the interpretable audio interview from the Financial Times you first presented - nonetheless, the best support would be a reference that Alan Guth himself (not someone else regardless of credentials) published that clearly states he renounced, not some "older" precursor theory, but the present cosmic inflation theory for which he has been recently honored - I don't believe that Guth has renounced the present version of the theory although your edit in the article implies that he has - unfairly imo - if true in fact, I would think you would have no problem whatsoever finding a clear supporting reference by Guth himself.
• Re: "Guth's Inflation Theory" - seems reasonable - after all, the lede in the Inflation (cosmology) article notes the following: "The inflationary hypothesis was proposed in 1980 by American physicist Alan Guth."< ref>Peebles, P. J. E. (1993). Principles of Physical Cosmology. Princeton University Press. Chapter 17. ISBN 0-691-01933-9.</ref>

Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not following, what's the "precursor" v. "present" inflation theory? I've never heard of this. Or did you mean Guth's v. Linde's version, as apparently accepted in science? If so, then there's no such thing as "Guth's inflation theory" any longer since Guth himself recanted it: just read the paper Linde kindly pointed at. You do agree that Linde is the final authority on the subject, because it's his version that works? Besides, the above Linde's reference in SciAm, which you welcomed, came 5 years after your book reference that's therefore disqualified. Furthermore, note that Linde says it was Starobinsky who had invented inflation, and that Guth's version came later on as well as versions by others. But none of those versions worked until Linde came up with his, or as you call it, "the current version". Guth has nothing to do with "the current version" because he recanted his according to Linde. Occasional moral support in the media or at conferences that Guth extends on to Linde's version should not be confused for a Guth's scientific contribution to "the current version". I've never heard that Guth co-developed the Linde's version with Linde, have you? Linde (and thus his account of the events) is obviously the final authority on inflation, as it is his version alone that works or that has ever worked. It's the press that started renaming the Linde's version into the "Guth's inflation" largely in the recent months, since famous BICEP2 results came out. So there's obviously no scientific reason for such renaming; on the contrary: the BICEP experiment was designed solely in order to verify the Linde's, not the Guth's version. The term "Guth's inflation" is the result of a media-hype which is defined as "self-inflating media coverage". Be careful not to confuse a media-inflation (hype) for a scientific theory of inflation. This article is about scientific theory of inflation, and as you pointed it out correctly yourself, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Hope you consider the issue settled now. I'm still eagerly (but patiently) awaiting your response on the WP:SPA issue with the MGBirdsall account. Thanks again, I'm really enjoying this. Holybeef (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Holybeef - Yes, but you have provided no reference at all that Alan Guth, himself, has recanted the inflation theory for which he has been honored in pioneering. Also, Please see WP:TALK => "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." (also, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:WALLOFTEXT) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course I did, it's Guth-Weinberg scientific paper referred to in the Linde's SciAm popular article. If you're a cosmologist you can understand the Guth-Weinberg paper in which Guth recanted, but editors need not be experts; see WP:EXPERTISE#Expertise_in_the_field, WP:POV. So thanks for pointers to general rules but we all know talk is about arguments, and Linde's word in a popular science article is good enough for Wikipedia. Most importantly: we can't vote on whether someone like Linde lied or not re his field of expertise, and your word or editors vote aren't good enough to counter Linde as per WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, so I deleted your bogus "voting table". To counter Linde's references, now you must provide WP:RS references by other cosmologists or Guth himself stating (as explicitly as Linde): "did not recant/renounce"; see WP:Consensus#Level_of_consensus on why you can't change broad policies. Thanks for letting me know on Astrophysics Kavli prize: you probably failed to read the Kavli prize citation which actually corroborates Linde: "However, Guth’s simple and elegant model was flawed: as he himself recognized, it would lead to gross inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter on large scales". I just added that reference to the article - thanks! And do enjoy! Holybeef (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Holybeef - You're *very* welcome of course - agreed - your latest text/ref may help support your position afaik atm - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this article for the first time since this section was added, and was very intrigued by what it suggested. But having read the Financial Times article and listened to the interview with Linde, I don't see any hint that Guth recanted. I don't see or hear that word used, and I think it is a bad interpretation of Linde's words. It certainly isn't Linde's words that Guth has recanted.

Given disagreement over what Linde meant, why not go to the source? If Guth has recanted, report it in Guth's words? Linde is certainly not reporting private communications. The only reason to use Linde is because this isn't reported anywhere else, and the only reason it isn't reported anywhere else is because it is a misinterpretation of Linde's words.MGBirdsall (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Look far above for where Drbogdan states exact time of the applicable parts in the audio file. Besides, here are definitions of recant, according to Merriam-Webster's: "to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and publicly; to make an open confession of error". Therefore to say someone has recanted isn't an insult but shorthand that's been used in science. Also, please don't take edits personally and assume good faith of other editors. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@MGBirdsall - Thanks for your comments - yes, seems reasonable - my present position is flexible with the material at the moment - suggestions to update/improve the material in the article welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

From the above definition, it follows that "to recant" isn't an insult, as MGBirdsall seems to see it, but shorthand. Besides, "to recant" has been used in science to describe that someone no longer holds his/her scientific belief or theory correct. So MGBirdsall seems to be taking the term as derogatory and approaches the discussion personally. By the way, this is his/her first contribution since the account was created back in 2009. I only mention this because you seemed concerned in the above with WP:SPA; indeed, why create an account to not use it for 5 years, unlike the rest of us who use our account right away? Or am I missing something, in which case I apologize. Holybeef (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Scientific American reference is from 1998 which is 16 years old. MIT online courses has released a 2013 cosmology video lecture series presented by Dr. Guth arguing for cosmological inflation. The link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANCN7vr9FVk Yamex5 (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, reading the above it seems to me that Holybeef has been pushing his particular reading of a particular sources as being critical to a particular wording (notably "recanted") in this section. It seems that there is no consensus in this section that his wording is anything like an accurate representation, but that he has persistently replied even as others gave up. I removed the section, which I believe is neither important to the overall article or well-supported as written; he reverted me, and I think mischaracterized the issue as having been settled here on the talk page. I give a fuller account of the edits here for those interested: User_talk:Holybeef#Misrepresentation_of_my_edit_to_Alan_Guth. However, I think the point is that this article needs more eyes on it, and I will request these shortly unless Holybeef changes his tune in response to my comment. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Also worth noting: someone on Twitter is using this section of the article to emphasize their mysteriously empatic point of view about Linde, Guth, and scientific priority [1]. That's what brought me here in the first place. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize, as a way of considering how to edit and discuss this going forward, that Guth did withdraw an early technical implementation of inflation, which is what Linde may have been referring to in the interview. However, the section as written clearly constitutes an undue emphasis on this which is not appropriate for the article. Maybe we can discuss how to include that piece of history in context in the article. To be clear, I do absolutely oppose the dramatic writeup about him "recanting" it, which is unacceptably slanted wording. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The subject has been thoroughly discussed and referenced as anyone can see. The concluding remarks were stamped as 15:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC) and 18:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC). You're clearly upset due to your bias towards Mr. Guth. Please tone down your comments (meaning: refrain from argument from authority) and stop obvious Wikipedia:POV. We can't draw our own conclusions; all we can do is use reliable secondary sources. Feel free to offer such references that say he didn't recant because Linde clearly (and repeatedly) stated (both in print and audio form) that Guth did recant. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with your ears, but you should bring it up with Linde and the Kavli Prize committee. References are quoted word-for-word, and we can't be using anyone's interpretation. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You're good at the wikilinks, especially about "authority," but when I can back up my individual professional knowledge with sources (as I did in my comment on your talk page, linking to this talk), then you are dodging the actual issue. This is an an encyclopedia, and we don't use cherry-picked passages from references word-for-word to the exclusion of a balanced perspective on subjects. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Your sarcasm only weakens your point and reveals your bias towards Mr. Guth. All I can say at this point is that I'm asking you again to be civil: in case you haven't noticed, this is an encyclopedia and Wikilinks and other links is all we can provide actually, as editors need not be experts as per WP:EXPERTISE#Expertise_in_the_field and no personal points-of-view as per WP:POV. Holybeef (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@SCZenz - Yes, for my part at the moment, I agree with SCZenz - that there may be a need for "more eyes on it" [a notion I had made to no avail earlier - 00:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)] - to try and sort the matter out - and better settle the issue - everyone, I would think, might benefit as a result - in any case - Thank you for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course. All I ask of him is to provide reliable references that cite some top cosmologist saying that Guth didn't recant. SCZenz seems to be upset for no reason whatsoever, apart from his personal ones it seems. As usual, I'm enjoying! Hope you do too. Holybeef (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's clear the situation remains disputed, and has been the whole time. The timestamps for the last comments are irrelevant, no consensus was ever reached. I recommend the section be omitted until discussion makes progress. If it's put back, I'll slap it with an NPOV tag at minimum. In the meantime, I'll go see if I can't find us some more eyes. I also note that Holybeef persists in labeling others' edits as vandalism. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course I had no choice but to revert it. You're bordering on edit war so it's advisable for you to use the tag if you like. But the requirement for you to provide reliable references countering Linde's conclusion remains as for any other editor. Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing your own Wikipedia:POV. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag for 'Guth's recanting of inflation theory' section

User SCZenz who joined the above talk discussion rather late, has just tagged the discussed section, disputing that section's neutrality. This is strange given that only quotes by top cosmologists from reliable secondary sources including the Kavli Prize committee's were used in that section. And although the nominator does seem upset while taking it personal due to his background which makes him paddle his Wikipedia:POV hard, feel free to discuss his tag/remarks here. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In particular, please review the section above (Talk:Alan_Guth#Guth's recanting of inflation theory) and decide for yourself if Holybeef is representing the situation accurately. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are you re-linking to the section I already linked in opening paragraph? Also, this isn't about my interpretation or a "situation." I just quoted reliable secondary sources you're now trying to interpret. You should take your issues to Linde and Kavli Prize committee, not Wikipedia. Also, soliciting editors to "vote" won't help you, as per WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

When you have a four-page discussion regarding one paragraph, complete with dripping sarcasm, that counts as a dispute of neutrality. However, I think I have modified the section to include the information present in Linde's interview with the actual published papers by Guth and Linde (thereby removing the necessity of including the interview itself).

As an aside, Guth did indeed change his theory, but continued working on the overall problem. These sorts of things happen in science, so one instance does not merit a full-blown nutter alert. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That's your own interpretation, which puts you in violation of Wikipedia:POV. Personally, I don't recall reading about Guth proposing another inflation theory after the one he recanted. If you do know of it please provide a valid reference which reported that. As you might have noticed by now, we only go by what secondary reliable sources such as those quoting Linde and the Kavli Prize committee have said. Secondly, length of a discussion doesn't constitute a valid argument for article edits. Also, we don't use primary but secondary sources only. You're bogus changes will be reverted therefore, of course. Holybeef (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggestion you both take a time out on editing this particular page. Holybeef is already in violation of WP:3RR and SCZenz is coming close. WP:DEADLINE. I would suggest you look into the dispute resolution mechanisms and try to achieve consensus before taking any further action, and that neither of you make any more reversions to this page.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop insinuating and misleading the community: check your records better since I was reverting vandalism by a user who attempted substantial changes to an article (delete an entire section) w/o any discussion whatsoever. The section was introduced after a lengthy discussion on the article talk page. This is simple: I provided some reliable secondary references stating Guth recanted inflation theory, and all the other party has to do is produce as reliable references stating he didn't recant. Holybeef (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE: The first step in dispute resolution is requesting more people take a look and built consensus. I have taken a break to do exactly that. So now that you're here, instead of quoting rules that I already know, how about you take a look at Primefac's edits and see if you have anything to add? -- SCZenz (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As I already told you, reliable secondary sources aren't subject to vote as per WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY: you can only counter such references with other equally reliable ones stating the opposite (that Guth didn't recant.) Stop offering your own interpretation of what Guth meant, that's your Wikipedia:POV. Holybeef (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE: If you have taken a complete look at the history of the article and the course of the discussion, and you understand of the substance of the edits, and you still have specific comments on how I should have handled today's discussion better, then I do welcome your comments. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I did take a look at the history of the comments, but it doesn't really matter all that much. Holybeef actually violated the 3RR, and you have performed a second reversion, which is when you really need to step back (which you seem to have done). I don't mean to castigate you for your role in this so far, I just generally find that these things go most smoothly when nothing gets escalated to any sort of formal sanctions, so I wanted to advise that both parties step back from editing the article directly. Getting more eyes on the dispute is the right thing to do.

Again, stop insinuating that I was engaged in edit war as I was simply reverting vandalism by a user who attempted substantial changes (deleting an entire section) w/o discussing it at all. Repeating your insinuation will not make it true. Holybeef (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

In general, I tend to point people to WP:DEADLINE because I've been in disputes before and felt like it was unfair or something to let the person who does the extra edit warring and gets in that last revert to be the one who chooses what's on the page now, but when someone pointed me to that essay it clicked for me that this is a long-game type situation, so unless it's WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP, there's no big rush to revert.

In terms of my assessment of your behavior, I'd say the second reversion was unnecessary. It's Bold, Revert, Discuss, not BRRRD. I think it would have been appropriate to warn Holybeef for their second reversion using {{subst:uw-3rr}} and then bring it to the talk page. I think notification at the appropriate wikiprojects was also the right thing to do, since there seem to be a small number of principals involved here. I agree with the addition of the neutrality tag until this is resolved. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

We're writing a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia here! Of course it matters what the content of the edits was, who has been making accurate edit summaries, whose talk page comments actually reflect the rules that are being cited. As you say, maybe BRD is better than BRRRD, but the discussion above makes it pretty clear how things would've gone if I had just stood by my first edit and let things go. People have stood up like I did and then wandered off before. So now I did cool down, maybe not quickly enough to put myself 100% impeccably on the all-clear side of every wikirule, but I did cool down and ask for opinions... But you're not offering one, except to proclaim that everyone who has any enthusiasm should cool off and come back tomorrow! I ask you to reflect, for the future (no need to answer now): does this false equivalence really serve the goal of building a better encyclopedia? Do you want every physicist who sees a slanted article to leave again after one try at fixing it? Or do you, maybe, want to comment on the content and help make the article better? I shouldn't edit anymore, you're right, but you can. -- SCZenz (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

We prove neutrality of some reference's viewpoint by providing other references that counter the former, not by deleting the former references altogether. This isn't the Dark Ages, and there's no forbidden literature. You don't seem to have cooled down really, because you're still fighting with Linde and Kavli Prize committee but this is a wrong place to do it since their exact words were quoted. If you think Linde used libel you should take it up with him, but I don't think he did as his statements were vetted by editors in chief of Scientific American, Financial Times, etc. You can take it up with those media editors as well, but not here. Holybeef (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying you should leave the page. What did that second revert get you? Nothing. It was reverted again. If your edit war had continued, you'd likely get this page locked and possibly a temporary ban. Would that make anything any better? No. Everyone thinks they are right. I get that you feel like Holybeef has taken some sort of ownership here, but what are multiple reversions going to help with that? If you think things are going nowhere, start an RfC. It doesn't matter if the information is wrong right now as long as we've got a process that gets us to right in a reasonable timeframe. Take the time to do things right and get appropriate feedback. There are MANY mechanisms for dispute resolution. If you want, you can take Holybeef to WP:AN/3RR right now. Personally I think it's better to have all the principals involved here stop editing the article until a consensus is reached.

I most certainly didn't take any "ownership" here, I was engaged in a lengthy discussion (above) to substantiate the section. That went pretty well until user SCZenz (physicist according to him) came with his anxiety and unsubstantiated accusations. He's fighting reliable secondary references, which is his problem and his alone. That's like fighting facts, and we all know who does that. Holybeef (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Just consider that what I would propose is that you do exactly what you've done, except don't give it that second reversion. If you feel that this unstructured discussion is not getting anywhere, start an RfC. You'll get to consensus eventually.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This issue is not subject to vote as per WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. This is simply about providing reliable secondary sources which quoted top cosmologists without anything added or subtracted. So in order to make the section "more neutral" the opposing party must provide equally reliable secondary sources stating the opposite (that Guth didn't recant.) No interpretations are allowed, even if the user SCZenz is a physicist. We don't have to be, see WP:EXPERTISE#Expertise_in_the_field. This is an encyclopedia, it uses secondary sources only. Pretty much everyone is able to assess those. Holybeef (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it does require consensus, which you very clearly do not have. If you feel that this compromise is inappropriate, build a consensus for your view. Your edit warring on this page is highly disruptive and counter-productive. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 12:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

An editor doesn't need consensus in order to include reliable secondary sources and the objected-to section contains only quotes from such sources, no interpretation. You don't argue with such sources here on Wikipedia. It's every editor's right and duty to look for and include such references as we make a better encyclopedia. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can leave it at this: thanks to Primefac, the page now has a hopefully-acceptable compromise. It may be stable. But I hope you will look back and help keep it that way. Getting it right eventually would be fine if it would stay right after that, but my experience suggests that the editing required may be a bit more active. (P.S. Unless the reading of WP:3RR has changed since the days I was editing actively, it's only more than 3 reverts that's prohibited. So nobody actually violated it at all.) -- SCZenz (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. Please either provide reliable secondary sources reporting of reputable cosmologists who have stated Guth didn't recant, or stay away from trying to edit this article. Your own interpretation of what Guth meant when recanting is against Wikipedia:POV. Holybeef (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note Since there has been some ambiguity (see my talk page for details) as to my labeling the attempted deletion of an entire section as vandalism, please note that deleting (w/o discussion at that) an entire section that contains only quotes from reputable secondary sources and nothing else (so there's no room for interpretation, only counter-references, if any) is bad faith (not good faith as some would suggest), so that my judgment was based on Wikipedia:VANDAL#For_beginners. Besides, this isn't the Dark Ages and there's no forbidden literature, so we don't delete reliable secondary references just because we don't like them or because we think they're slander. In this case: if Linde's statements were indeed slanderous, editors-in-chief of SciAm, Financial Times and other fine media referred to in the section would have certainly vetted such statements. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether an edit was done in good faith or bad faith is a matter of user intentions, not a matter of their actions. SCZens clearly had good intentions, and has expressed that numerous times - additionally, everyone else here believes that SCZens was acting in good faith, which means that it's possible to WP:AGF, which means that you are required to assume good faith in this matter. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What you call "expressing it numerous times" is simply his pushing own WP:POV. There is no voting on the issue of whether or not reliable secondary references could be included or not, since finding and including such sources is a right and a duty of every editor so that we can make a better encyclopedia. I explained above why it's bad faith and vandalism to delete such references or sections that contain only such references and no interpretation. You can question neutrality of interpretation by arguing this and that. But in order to counter reliable references alone, you too must provide reliable references that counter the ones you don't like or don't agree with. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Notice: I have reported Holybeef on AN/3RR after his/her most recent reversion of Primefac's edits. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Responded, no edit war obviously. Be careful though, false reporting can be considered harmful. Holybeef (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• 2nd Note I removed the notability tag since we can't question notability of sections that contain only quotes from reliable secondary sources and no interpretation. Since the section contains no interpretation, the tag meant we were questioning those reliable secondary sources, but Wikipedia isn't a place to do that. In order to counter reliable references alone, other reliable references that counter the disputed ones must be produced. The above discussion shows the proponent of deletion has no such references; instead of discussing such counter-references, the discussion is running circles in a he-say-I-say fashion, but no secondary references whatsoever, without even a hint at existence of such references either. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no cause for this. You are completely misinterpreting WP:VAND and WP:DEM to support your position and completely ignoring WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS. The neutrality of this section is very clearly in dispute at this moment. The neutrality tag is definitely appropriate. I think the best way forward is to start with a content discussion about the inclusion of this text, which Primefac and SCZenz are very clearly trying to do, but at each point you simply say, "It's not up for a vote." In fact, on the edit-warring noticeboard, you explicitly told me to stop trying to build a consensus. The fact that wikipedia is not a democracy does not mean that you don't need to build consensus. Consensus is group decisionmaking, but it is not majority rules voting - that is the whole point of WP:DEM. I highly recommend that you take a big step back, and at the very least stop editing this article until the issues have been worked out. Like I said above, WP:DEADLINE is a very useful guideline in cases like this. If you're right, then you'll be able to make your case and build a consensus for it eventually. If you continue reverting anyone's edits (including Primefac's attempt at a compromise wording, which you have no recourse for calling vandalism), you're just destabilizing the page and forestalling the consensus-building process. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no right or wrong here. An editor does not need consensus when including reliable secondary sources, and the objected-to section contains only quotes from such sources, no interpretation. So this "discussion" is bogus as it's not offering any new counter-references. Instead of that, you're pretending to be arguing a non-existent interpretation, while in fact misusing the discussion process in an attempt to ban certain literature. We don't fight reliable secondary sources here on Wikipedia. It's every editor's right and a duty to look for and include such references as we make a better encyclopedia. See WP:Consensus#Level_of_consensus on why you can't change broad policies. It's an end time for you to stop behaving like Inquisition. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you didn't pipelink to the policy that says that an editor does not need consensus when including reliable secondary sources. That's not a rule I've ever seen, nor do I believe you'll find that it's true. Reliable sources and sections are removed in many situations as part of the editorial process. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say rules, I said broad policies; see WP:What is Wikipedia: " If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, or suggest them on the article's discussion page. Changes to controversial topics and Wikipedia's main pages should usually be discussed first." That's precisely what I've done. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That says nothing about the need to get consensus. Decisions about whether or not something complies with Wikipedia's broad policies have been made are not down to your personal interpretation, they're made by the process of consensus-building. If your case is strong, then you should be able to build a consensus for it, end of story. You're not going to get something included in this article by reverting anyone who makes a change. Instead, you should work to persuade people that your position is correct. Having a source and turning it into a section doesn't convey some magical protection to text you've included. And again, keep in mind WP:DEADLINE. Even if you were 100% right, that's not an excuse for edit warring. Consider that everyone else thinks they are right, too. If everyone reverted because they felt they were right, the page would be in constant flux. We're clearly at the point where we need to build a consensus path forward, and given the strong reactions you've provoked, it would be best if you stopped editing the page until we've decided what should go there, even if someone makes changes you don't like.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't you read? Broad policies are not subject to change by anyone, therefore they're not subject to any democratic procedure including consensus. Holybeef (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How would you decide who is right when (as there is between you and I), there is a disagreement about what is the proper implementation of policy in a given case? We build a consensus for one interpretation or the other. I'm not arguing that we ignore any policies, in fact I'm arguing that your edits are a violation of those policies. You obviously feel differently, so the way forward is to build a consensus about which version of the article is consistent with Wikipedia's policies, which we seem to have done - with your objections noted. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You are (again) manipulating the facts: my problem with your and other Guth groupies' edit was that it was replacing my subsection without actually discussing. I discussed my edit, and you're not exempt from obeying the same broad policy either. Again, this isn't about application of any policy, but the specific broad policy that demands from you to discuss potentially controversial edits in order to reach a consensus, not replace first and then get your Guth's groupies to gang up on the original editor who obtained consensus for his edits and push him out by faking a discussion after you buried your kill. Holybeef (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of some general, unstated policy, which is directly contradicted by WP:BOLD. Not to mention, all this time we haven't even been addressing the content of what you're talking about. I think many of us would deny that you had ever achieved any kind of consensus on the inclusion of this "section" in the first place (though if you ever did have it, you don't have it now, so there's no point in continuing that argument), and you see below there are some WP:OR issues with what you had added anyway, and as you're so fond of pointing out, local consensus can't override the global policy against original research. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Using Linde's comments to support a subsection proclaiming that Guth recanted his inflation theory gives this POV undue weight. I realize I'm entering this discussion without a full appreciation for the argumentative nuances presented, but the basic issues seem clear, so I'll try an edit.-Dilaton (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I never insisted on having a subsection. I support your version. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Recantation section: Content discussion

OK, so regardless of the edit warring going on, which I think we can agree is a separate issue (and is hopefully going to be resolved with via the WP:AN/3RR thread), can we start trying to build a consensus on the content, so that, behavioral issues aside, we can end up with the best page? I think this diff contains the options presented by stakeholders here. SCZenz's original proposal was Holybeef's version, but with the entire "recantation" section removed, but he/she has indicated previously that Primefac's version is acceptable. I don't see anything obviously objectionable about it. If something like Holybeef's version is to be used, I think we need to start by removing the inline link to the podcast episode, which should be a citation.

SCZenz has just reverted not mine but the Dilaton version. I had to rev again his edit as I don't see a problem with Dilaton's version. I never insisted on having a subsection. On the SCZenz: other editors have tried to tell this person to keep his cools so I don't what else to say. Holybeef (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't "have to" do anything, and it was actually hugely inappropriate for you to do that. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Holybeef: - regarding the content, what are the essential elements that you think Primefac's version is missing, and do you have a proposed compromise wording that can integrate these elements into the article? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

As I have stated above, I find Dilaton version OK. I never insisted that we must have a subsection. Holybeef (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The question was not about Dilation's version, which is basically just your version without a specific subsection. The question is what's the problem with Primefac's version, which is the clear consensus version. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but your're just an editor so please don't try to use argument from authority any more. My agreeing to Dilaton's version is a sign of good faith, unlike what you've been doing when acting in a disruptive manner by reporting only me for alleged breach of 3RR rule though it's clear that a (edit) war takes two doesn't it. Holybeef (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have restored Primefac's wording per your suggestion, which will be my only edit of the article for the evening. (And with apologies to Dilaton, whose edit was certainly in the right direction but left some slanted wording even without the section.) Primefac's attempt at compromise is stable and emphasizes the history more or less appropriately, although I think people with knowledge and access to more sources should look at the whole structure more carefully when time permits. I think in order to have a serious content discussion it would be helpful if Holybeef would stop making spurious charges of policy violations against everyone who changes his/her preferred version. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not suggest that you revert Holybeef's edits. What I'm suggesting here is that we discuss what should be up there here, in the talk page, before making any further edits to the page. I was recommending that since PrimeFac's version was a compromise version that you accepted, it might be a good starting point for the discussion. Please everyone stop editing this section of the text - it's clearly controversial and we haven't yet established a consensus on what to do. If you have a suggestion, discuss it here. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for conflating your statement that that version of the article was ok with support for changing immediately to that version of the article. Now, whether there's any more edit-warring or not, we can certainly start a content discussion. As the only person who hasn't commented seriously on the content yet, perhaps you should start? Do you really believe that anything like Holybeef's version, with its conflation of Guth withdrawing a particular technical implementation of inflation with him "recanting" the concept, is even plausibly on the right track as far as a neutral point of view? -- SCZenz (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not familiar enough with the subject to really understand what's going on, and I was hoping to keep a role as a sort of neutral arbiter for for the discussion, as there seem to be plenty of people with a strong stake in the content dispute it doesn't seem necessary for me to take a position. I certainly think that the section shouldn't stay in Holybeef's original version, as the quality seems low. Just from his/her behavior, it seems like there are also some POV issues with it, but that could just be their style, I don't really understand what philosophical or political worldview would be associated with a physicist's recantation of a cosmological model.

Please refrain from spreading conspiracy theories. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding stepping forward, it doesn't really matter that much where I come down, because I'm not the holdout. I would be fine with Primefac's version, but I think the right thing to do is to get Holybeef's precise objections to that version on the record so that we can hear the "other side". So far, all I'm hearing is, "there's a reference, therefore it should be included", which I find inherently fallacious. If there are valid objections, I'd like to hear them. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank You *very much* for the help with this - for my part at the moment, the present version of the article, with Primefac updates, seems *Excellent* - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering where you disappeared, it's great that you joined. For me, the Dilaton version seems like a compromise. Thanks, and yes I do enjoy as usual when discussing with you. Holybeef (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems increasingly clear to me that Holybeef will be blocked for his/her edit warring here. I think pretty much everyone else is in agreement on Primefac's version, which is clearly the consensus version. If Holybeef has substantive objections, he/she should probably bring them up either before the WP:AN/3RR is resolved or after any punishment has run out its duration. Given Holybeef's clear decision to revert any edits we make, I think we should wait for administrative action to resolve the ongoing issue, then restore the Primefac version of the text. If Holybeef comes up with a substantive critique (which is seeming less and less likely to me), we can incorporate that into the final version. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not clear at all: you're acting in a disruptive manner by reporting only me for alleged breach of 3RR rule though it's clear that a (edit) war takes two doesn't it. Besides, 24 h have lapsed so I can't be in violation of that rule, unlike SCZenz who now even reverted not only mine but also the Dilaton version (without waiting for my opinion that you solicited) and which I find to be a satisfactory compromise since I never insisted on having a separate subsection. Let me know when you're ready to discuss the only real issue here: your and SCZenz's failure to provide counter-references supporting your view. Oh, and be reminded: it's every editor's duty to include reliable references as we make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that no one else feels that Dilaton's version is an adequate compromise, for obvious reasons - the use of a section header was never an issue, so moving from your position to Dilaton's version is a false compromise - it's like if we changed the font of the section and said, "OK, see, it's different now, that's a good compromise." What was changed was an irrelevant detail to the main argument.

Regardless of Dilaton's version, can you please express to me precisely what is wrong with Primefac's version? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

So the 3RR report has resulted in a 31 hour block for Holybeef. I've taken a more careful look at both versions and I am personally strongly in favor of Primefac's version, which seems to be the consensus of anyone who has looked at this, except Holybeef. I think it is reasonable to ask that, after the period of the block ends, Holybeef not continue to make reversions to this page, and rather discuss changes to this particular section here on the talk page. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 23:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you asked "Regardless of Dilaton's version, can you please express to me precisely what is wrong with Primefac's version?" let's discuss that.

Dilaton's version: According to Andrei Linde, in his audio interview (11 April 2014) (about 14-16/43:06 minute total), Guth recanted his inflation theory. Linde has been noted for stating this before, making statements such as: "After investigating his model for a year, Guth finally renounced it in a paper he co-authored with Erick J. Weinberg of Columbia University". Guth's Astrophysics Kavli prize citation acknowledges that Guth’s model was flawed, as he himself recognized.

Primefac's version: By 1983 Guth had published a paper describing how his supercooled-universe scenario was not ideal, as the "triggering mechanism" to exit such a state would require "extreme fine tuning of parameters" and felt a more natural solution was required. However, this did not deter him from the belief that the universe expanded exponentially in a vacuum in its early lifetime.

When the two are compared, the following striking differences surface: (1) The Primefac's version is not a compromise but a replacement of Dilaton's version. This because it's using one of the Dilaton's references but cherry-picking a segment from it that's unrelated to the Dilaton's version. In doing so, Primefac conveniently ignores both the Financial Times audio-interview and the Kavli Prize citation. So it's just manipulation, not compromise. (2) The Primefac version's ignoring of the Kavli Prize citation is bizarre since the article actually highlights the fact that Guth was awarded Kavli Prize. What a disconnect! Note that prize citations are considered reliable primary sources. So certain references seem to constitute forbidden literature in Primefac's view because they don't fit his/her (your) idea on what Guth's profile should be. (3) The Primefac's version uses an unreliable primary source (by Guth himself, of all people!) to imply a POV that Guth didn't recant, although there's now no mention of him recanting since, in addition to kicked references, "recant" too now became a forbidden word. That's the second disconnect.

As everyone can now see, here we have an article which is primarily about Alan Guth, his scientific theory, and a prestigious prize he won. But according to you, there's a consensus that: reliable written and audio records of an opposing view by a top cosmologist such as Andrei Linde stating explicitly that Guth has recanted his own theory "in a paper more than 100 pages long," as well as the most revealing Kavli Prize citation stating also that the Guth's theory was wrong as Guth himself admitted, both constitute forbidden literature. Sorry, but no sane editor will ever accept such an Inquisition-style "consensus" but will instead disregard it altogether as obviously bogus and therefore irrelevant for an encyclopedia. It's now also evident from the above comparison as well as the POV being pushed, that the recanting actually deserves a separate section in opposition to the section on Guth's theory, in order to achieve article's neutrality. Like we have in the introductory paragraph. Holybeef (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I will attempt to comment on your statements in order.

1. Dilaton wrote his version after I wrote my version (which you reverted as "vandalism"), so unless time has suddenly started flowing backwards their version is actually a replacement of mine.
2. I didn't ignore the articles, I didn't even think to include them since I had plenty of sources to go on. I am more than happy to add the Kavli Prize citation right after the Guth & Weinberg article, since they say essentially the same thing.
3. A peer-reviewed article in a notable science journal does not count as an "unreliable primary source." See WP:PRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD (and the rest of those pages) to see why such articles are perfectly acceptable for inclusion in an article such as this (and why peer-reviewed articles fall in the fuzzy area between primary and secondary).
4. You are such a stickler for the word "recant." If I say "my theory was wrong, and so I'm changing it" and you say "well, he was wrong so he's recanting his theory" we are BOTH CORRECT. I'm not saying we can't use it, but almost every one of your arguments has been a complaint that people are removing the word.
5. I think multiple people have asked for this 100-page paper, and unless I missed something the longest article I've seen is 40-odd pages long (which I referenced!).
6. Regardless of the end result of this "recantation" discussion, I don't think that it requires its own section. It's not like Guth was so horribly wrong that science has never forgiven him. Nor is it true that Guth gave up physics because he was wrong. I'm pretty sure I mentioned this somewhere else, but scientists make mistakes - if we made a big deal out of it every time someone was wrong, we'd never actually get any work done. He was wrong, he admitted it, and he continued working. End of story.

As an aside - do I think my original edit could be fine-tuned? Definitely. I think that whole section could be improved and better-referencecd. Do I think my edit should be ignored/reverted/treated as vandalism? Hell no.

Primefac (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you wrote yours before Dilaton wrote his/her is the problem: it shows you rushed into replacing my version instead of seeking consensus first (same as I sought it), which is vandalism by definition if you acted in bad faith. The level of arrogance with which, in performing the little stunt, you Guth's groupies even kicked out references did indicate y'all had been acting in bad faith. Note also that this isn't about whether science community forgave Guth, but wheter he recognized that he had been wrong. On the 100 v. 40 pages issue: perhaps Linde recalled seeing a typewriter version of the paper? Thanks for re-adding the Kavli Prize citation, keep moving in the right direction! Holybeef (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The word 'recant' itself

As a side note, but an important one, the word "recant" really is not a good choice. It's typically not used in modern science. It has a connotation of something that is repudiated because it's inappropriate or fundamentally incorrect, from which the person doing the recanting now disassociates himself. That's not an accurate description of what really happened, given that Guth in fact continues to promote a different technical implementation of inflation. The Kavli Institute Citation provides an example of a more moderated wording: "However, Guth’s simple and elegant model was flawed: as he himself recognized, [it created disagreements with experimental observations]." I think it is very important here to understand the difference between the general concept of inflation and a particular mathematical model that includes inflation; it was the particular version of inflation that was inconsistent with reality, and Guth acknowledged that, a situation that is totally inconsistent with the connotations of the word "recant." -- SCZenz (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not seeing "recant" or "repudiate" or anything even remotely dramatic in any of these sources. I actually listened to the financial times section, he's just talking about the history of how thinking on inflationary models changed. To call it recantation or repudiation definitely does not seem to be supported by the sources, and is likely giving undue weight to this particular incident.

I would also say that given that the relevant section is not mentioned in the financial times article accompanying this interview, and is spoken extemporaneously by Linde, it's not even clear that that qualifies as a reliable source. Yes, it's published by the Financial Times, but Linde's statements (unlike the accompanying article) are not subject to editorial review and fact-checking. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a reliable source that that was Linde's opinion, stated off-the-cuff, at that particular moment. :) To emphasize that strongly, if at all, would certainly seem to be undue weight. So it's certainly not the first source I would go to, which I think is what Primefac said above. SCZenz (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but ironically (given Holybeef's howls of censorship of "reliable secondary sources"), it's a reliable primary source of that particular statement/opinion. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As I already stated in the original discussion on adding my subsection (now demoted to a tail paragraph) to renounce (Linde's word) and to recant are synonyms: renounce: "to say especially in a formal or official way that you will no longer have or accept (something); to formally give up (something)"; recant: "to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and publicly; to make an open confession of error". Follow the links to see renounce listed as a synonym of recant. Then to say that someone has recanted isn't an insult at all, but shorthand that's been used in sciences for ages. Guth's groupies would like us to believe that the term recant has suddenly become politically incorrect in sciences, which is nonsense. What do language experts who write dictionaries know about language, right? Seriously: recanting (or renouncing as Linde said, but that's the same thing as you too now know) definitely deserves a separate section in order to counter-weight the section on inflation in order to achieve neutrality. Holybeef (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Scientific priority debate between Guth and Linde

An interesting context to this section, especially in light of the tweet that brought me here, is that the idea of Guth "recanting" inflation entirely can be interpreted as influencing the question of whether Linde or Guth is the "real" inventor of inflation. I am not sure who that's an important question to exactly, but it certainly does get discussed in the context of the nobel prize:

Under the strict rules of the Nobel Prize, a maximum of three people can be honored for a discovery. At least half a dozen people — including Guth and the Russian American theorist Andrei Linde — contributed significantly to inflation theory. Linde, now a professor at Stanford, acknowledges that Guth has scientific priority for the basic idea of inflation. But in the early 1980s, Linde came up with the first mathematically complete, “working” version that has been the basis of many inflation theories in the years since. “It’s not one thing,” Linde said. “It’s a class of theories. Inflation is a principle.” [2]

This, like the Kavli Institute citation, highlights that Guth invented an idea and Linde came up with the particular theory/model implementing the idea that worked. Given that this is an article about Guth, and given that context, the language and information used here on Wikipedia should (a) reflect a balanced overview of sources/discussion on the subject, (b) not overemphasize something Linde said once in one interview. Guth, Linde, and other experts have all discussed the issue in different ways over time, after all. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote the above quote but it seems we are doing a much better job, just read the intro paragraph to Alan Guth article:

According to some sources, Guth is the originator of the inflationary universe theory; however, according to other sources, the originator was Alexei Starobinsky.

I don't recall reading that "Linde acknowledges that Guth has scientific priority for the basic idea of inflation"? Feel free to enlighten us with the exact source of that particular heavy-weight statement though. Of course, even if he did say it in those exact words (which I doubt because it would make him look like a joke, and that's exactly what Guth's groupies like some of you here want) that still doesn't change the fact that Guth recanted his only inflationary theory ever. Speaking of which: what does "basic idea of inflation" even mean? If I'm guessing it right, that too has been disputed so that US sources mainly say it's Guth, while Russian sources say it's Starobinsky. But I don't recall anyone ever implying it was Linde, so it's redundant at best to have Linde now "graciously" hand the priority over to Guth. Of course I may be wrong, in which case feel free to provide a reference on Starobinsky actually authorizing Linde to do this. A scan of notarized Power of Attorney will suffice. In any case, Nobel Prize is still international.

Dare say I, but Alan Guth more and more looks like a fraud to me, not only based on his change of heart as media coverage grew (though he never offered a replacement theory after the one that had failed miserably) but also based on how he actually got his hands on Starobinsky's original work and presented it as his own back in the day. Because according to Linde in his Financial Times interview, communication between the US and Soviet scientists existed at that time, but was quite slow-mo for obvious reasons. That should have given plenty of time to your guru Guth to pull off his little stunt. I mean, what are the chances of two such brilliant and entirely novel ideas popping up in two different heads on the opposite sides of the globe in such a short time? Pretty much zero. Holybeef (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The exact source for the block quote that you demand was literally right at the end of the block quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/bicep2-experiments-big-bang-controversy-highlights-challenges-for-modern-science/2014/07/23/707bc9e6-02c6-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html. As for the rest of your comments, I think you have made a very clear statement that your purpose here is to change the article so that it adjudicates between different reliable sources and supports your unsourced theory that the subject of the article is a "fraud." There are host of reasons why we cannot do that here on Wikipedia. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That's the URL of the article from which you pasted that quote. What I meant of course is the lack of references to the alleged heavy-weight statement by Linde saying that he acknowledged Guth had priority for inflation, or to the statement by Starobinsky saying he authorized Linde to hand over priority to Guth. The author of the article that you quoted mentions it as if reporting a generally known fact, but there is no actual statement by Linde, normally recognized in press as a sentence bounded by quotation marks. The lack of quotation marks means it wasn't that author who obtained such a statement from Linde, but made it up instead. As to the rest: what you call "a statement" was my reflection on what you Guth's groupies have done to this article which has already had consensus built and neutrality achieved. You acted like savages, and virtually massacred the article: manipulated rules, falsely reported me to admins, ignored already achieved consensus, implied certain literature and words are forbidden on Wikipedia, made intro not neutral by kicking out part on Starobinsky being the original creator of inflation - all in an attempt to prepare the field for Nobel Prize for your idol Guth. When I say Alan Guth is a fraud, that includes all of you as an inseparable part of his moral profile, or lack of one thereof. It's now clear that he most likely did steal the idea from Starobinsky after reading about it in a Soviet outlet, and after the method failed he hurried to recant in fear it might jeopardize his career that he as a novice researcher had in front of him. Much like an adoptive parent who returns a foster child back to the orphanage as the child grows up to become disabled and deformed, because the adoptive parent expected an Olympic athlete. Then having seen the media buildup in the past decade and increased chances for proving someone else's version of Starobinsky's theory, Guth conveniently forgot all about him ever recanting, and jumped back on the bandwagon hoping for the "big" prize. Russian mafia prize and Kavli were also part of prepping the terrain, softening it. I'd bet money that he's a member of Freemasonry lodge at MIT (world's Masonic stronghold) and that most of you "groupies" are his bros. I wouldn't be surprised that at least some of you don't know him personally, but do this sort of unprecedented manipulation out of patriotism, thinking it's patriotic to steal from Russians. What a sad hour for Wikipedia. Holybeef (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a reliable secondary source. If you have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources you will see that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" and that primary sources "must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Demanding that I provide a primary quote to substantiate a secondary source suggests that you completely misunderstand how sourcing is intended to work. I would be pleased to help explain if you express a genuine willingness to listen, but it's quite hard for us to collaborate when we're operating from such different understandings of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Who's talking about Washington Post? Do you have some problems that prevent you from fully grasping a text that you read? Holybeef (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I do note that I mixed up (because I don't really think it matters) the exact priority dispute that you're focused on here. I would like to actually change the article, at least in the long run, so it avoids undue emphasis on any priority dispute. Because this is the article on Guth, can simply say that Guth was among the originators of inflation, and that the Kavli Institute prize went to all three of Guth, Linde, and Starobinsky. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree on this general principle. Unless the priority dispute was some looming event in his life (e.g. has significant explicit coverage in the secondary sources), the whole subject should be avoided. From what I can see, you sorta have to read between the lines to even see that there was any sort of priority dispute at all- the Leibniz–Newton calculus controversy this is emphatically not. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed "Some sources say X; other sources say Y" and replaced it with: "Along with Alexei Starobinsky and Andrei Linde, he won the 2014 Kavli Prize “for pioneering the theory of cosmic inflation.”[1]" I'm sure it needs tweaking of course! -- SCZenz (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, its me! Remember? From M-H page. I change back what you speak of because you and others folloow Holybeef on WIkipedia and changing his work " just because " (no reason). Want nasty? I show you nasty. 188.167.90.109 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Calm down friend. USA military and intelligence operates english Wiki. All fake! They trap you (piss you off) and block you. Old trick... 46.217.47.76 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Opening section - priority claims

OK, since SCZenz's good faith edits have now been reverted twice, once as vandalism and once because of some notion of consensus, let's try and establish then what the consensus is on changing the opening paragraph. In the opening paragraph, we have two sources purportedly claiming that Guth is the "originator" of the inflationary model. The PBS Mysteries page is a secondary source, possibly reliable (haven't looked into this), and actually uses the exact term "originator". The New York Times, a reliable secondary source, credits Guth as the "inventor" of the "inflationary theory". Neither of these makes any reference to claims of priority or sole invention, they are simply silent on the issue.

From the other two sources, the scientific american paper (a reliable, secondary source) does not say that Starobinksi was the originator of the inflationary theory, just mentions that he provided the first realistic model of an inflationary universe. It does specifically credit Linde as "one of the originators" of the inflationary model. The second citation is a primary source that doesn't talk about claims of priority. None of the sources mention any contention about scientific priority.

It seems to me that the way it is now it's original research and WP:OR and WP:UNDUE to put these into the lede of the biographical article on Alan Guth. Maybe the claims of scientific priority are relevant in the article on inflationary theory (probably still WP:UNDUE, honestly), but explicitly pointing out that we can find two sources that say different, seemingly contradictory things in the lede of the biographical article here seems clearly inappropriate.

In SCZenz's version, the entire issue is sidestepped because the Kavli prize citation explicitly calls all three men - Linde, Starobinski and Guth - originators of the theory. You'll note that this is not actually inconsistent with the other sources, which each called at least one of them an originator of the theory. It is only a problem if we try and assign priority, and since we have no reliable source explicitly saying who had priority over whom (or that anyone even cares about this), it seems best to de-emphasize the whole thing, as SCZenz explained above, and executed in his edit. As such, I think it is clear that we should use SCZenz's edit as at least a starting point, and that the article should, in general, shy away from getting into these priority claims, which are not explicitly reflected by the sources. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Knock the bs, time to call a spade a spade: you're just a gang of manipulators who disregard previous consensuses, proclaim "forbidden references", "banned words", remove neutrality from intro and overall, etc. The IP guy perhaps didn't have the best approach, but he was basically right, unfortunately. Holybeef (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

While I find your claims of ever having consensus on this page dubious and overstated at best, that's completely irrelevant because consensus can change, so you still need to make your case and "I already got consensus on this matter" has no bearing on the matter. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Again you with misreading of the rules. The very same rule you now cited says: "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." Neither SCZenz nor you has proposed a change but instead went on to edit out the previous consensus-reached edit. The rule further says: "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion" I was being civil by not referring to previous consensus up until now. So you were disruptive according to the very rule you cited to me! Go and report yourself, will you. Holybeef (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE - FWIW - I *entirely* agree with your *excellent* analysis of the situation - esp re WP:OR and WP:UNDUE - and - agree that the SCZenz edit be restored as "at least a starting point" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, the page is now locked - as it happens, in the version without this change. (Please see m:The Wrong Version for a humorous essay on how this makes me feel.) So I would like to briefly summarize the edit and see if we can discuss any issues with it and build a consensus around it. Here is a link to the original change. What it essentially does (in addition to moving some reference names around) is makes the following sentence replacement:

• Old: According to some sources, Guth is the originator of the inflationary universe theory;[1][2] however, according to other sources, the originator was Alexei Starobinsky.[3][4]
• New: Along with Alexei Starobinsky and Andrei Linde, he won the 2014 Kavli Prize “for pioneering the theory of cosmic inflation.”[1]

The purpose of this change is not to use fewer references or avoid particular references; most of them are used elsewhere in the article. Rather the purpose is to remove our explicit discussion of conflicting priority claims and replace it with a highly-regarded tertiary synthesis that credits all three people as being involved in "pioneering" the theory. My hope was (and is) that everyone could get behind this because we all, for various reasons, seem to consider the Kavli Prize citation to be a relevant source. Moreover it avoids claims of Guth being the originator of anything, which have been controversial on this talk page. At the same time, it avoids placing undue weight on any priority conflict in this article, which is about Guth rather than inflation in general. I welcome comments about the wording or explanations for why the original wording is better. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - neutral claims are best, and since the article is about Guth himself (and not "the founder of inflation theory") it should read that he was one of the pioneers (regardless of who was the "first").Primefac (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - yes, neutral claims are best - I agree with the comments by Primefac above - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose You started the Guth 2015 Nobel campaign already? Good luck. By the way: his failed inflationary theory is the only theory Guth is notable for, otherwise most of the article all this time wouldn't be talking about inflation, but him personally and/or his other theories/discoveries. So it's clear where the focus should be when seeking neutrality also. Speaking of his other theories/discoveries: there's a total of exactly 0 of those. That also speaks volumes about the (lack of) genius of a guy who's about to retire. Holybeef (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, as expected, it seems like SCZenz's version of the lede is the consensus version, so I've restored it. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

AN/I Report regarding Holybeef's behavior.

It seems like we have a very strong consensus about what to do here and on Laura Mersini-Houghton, but unfortunately I believe that dealing with Holybeef's disruptive comments and edits has created a false impression that there is a legitimate content dispute on this page. I have brought this to AN/I here in an attempt to resolve the issue, as I think we've exhausted the other standard dispute resolution mechanisms here. Hopefully, when this is resolved we can have the temporary full-protection downgraded to temporary semi-protection and make the appropriate changes to the article. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus on anything, except on a fact that you're trying to overhaul an already reached consensus and are using all sorts of dirty tricks to that effect. Don't imagine people aren't reading this. You'd be surprised. Holybeef (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The result of this incident report was an indefinite block for Holybeef. Since Holybeef was the only source of the "content dispute", Ged UK has dropped the page protection from full to semi. I've implemented the consensus change to the lede as discussed above. I think we may want to wrap the discussions with Holybeef in a collapsible hat template above to make this page a bit easier to navigate, also. It seems Holybeef is appealing his block, so maybe we should wait a week or so first so that the "evidence" is still readily available for a reviewing admin. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think a little delay is in order. Followed by us cleaning up the talk page and looking over the article to see if there are more general improvements we can make. Thanks for your work on this! -- SCZenz (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Steven Weinberg on the origin of inflationary cosmology

In his Cosmology (advanced graduate textbook/treatise) Weinberg summarizes the origin of inflation as follows:

The possibility of an early exponential expansion had been noted by several authors,¹ but at first it attracted little attention. It was Alan Guth² who incited interest in the possibility of inflation by noting what it was good for.

Footnote 1 is to papers by Starobinsky (1979), Kazanas (1980), Sato (1981). Footnote 2 is to Guth (1981). Weinberg goes on to mention Guth found it solved several puzzles in cosmology, but he and others soon realized it had a fatal flaw:

Guth's "old inflation" was soon replaced with a "new inflation" model, due to Andrei Linde³ and Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt.⁴

Footnotes 3 and 4 are to various 1982 papers. Choor monster (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Guth's ideas about Big Rip not explained on the main article

Alan Guth suggests partial inflations on the vastness of space. When inflation at a region reaches lightspeeds (read wiktionary - lightspeeds means close or faster than the speed of light, because space itself can expand faster than the speed of light), then we have a pocket "big bang". If space itself expands faster than light, not relativistically [not if we compare afar galaxies] but absolutely [each single point of a space patch expanding faster than light], all that energy is transformed into matter. So "Alan's Rip" is an updated rip. We must include Alans predictions on the subject, through time he has evolved many thoughts. We shall include all his views but mostly his nowadays opinions and short formulas... The main article is not complete! Even if I said something you consider a mistake - simply find Alan's view on the subject and add it. That is the point. To make that article thorough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.220.197 (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Guth's mistakes and Guth's critic over his critics

Guth focuses on smaller and smaller frames of reference. That is a mistake due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The previous universe did expand faster than the speed of light and provided the energy of the Big Bang. So the old Guth's minuscule focus is out of date. Wikipedia is not a science magazine, thus we should add only Guth's response to that claim. By the way Alan is not so negative about that, ask him. We should add newer stuff but we have to ask him personally to depict his original views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.172.8 (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)‎

Keep in mind that this article is about Alan Guth, and that the physics topics themselves have their own articles that are probably more up to date. Could you please suggest exact changes and provide reliable sources? Thank you. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

"Default initial inflating spatial homogeneity" Guth students proposal

Alan Guth claims that the universe was vastly smaller, Planck sized, thus we have a homogeneous universe nowadays. Some of his students claim that quantum fluctuations if enlarged wouldn't produce the homogeneous universe we observe! If the pro big-bang universe was behaving like a degenerate quark-gluon plasma, the more degenerate, more dense state is to have a single particle. The guts of a single particle due to chromodynamics, are way more random than asymptotic quark freedom. So the universal homogeneity has been proposed to be instead the result of a dying universe, where the rate of expansion shrinked from relativistic light-speed distancing of afar galaxies, to all points light-speed expansion, and due to the characteristics of the void itself, homogeneity was a result of the "default initial space", and that makes more sense than distorting the actual asymptotic chromodynamic visceral chaos inside a particle (the smaller the scale, the more jitters we have on the chromodynamic medium, and more extreme turbulence can never be the reason of homogeneity). By the way Alan Guth is open to that alternative. We should ask him to add more data. It is an extremely crucial issue that the main article doesn't mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:3D00:781B:6484:AF81:A967 (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the right place to write about Guth's students' proposals for the first time (see the Wikipedia:No original research policy). Once you have reliable sources to back up what you would like to add to the Wikipedia article, be bold and do so yourself (help is available). If you are affiliated with the topic, please see our conflict of interest guideline. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alan Guth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/realestate/galleries/springsweep/14.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120803211628/http://www.fundamentalphysicsprize.org/news.html to http://fundamentalphysicsprize.org/news.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alan Guth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414223036/http://pauli.physics.lsa.umich.edu/w/arch/som/sto2001/Guth/real/n001.htm to http://pauli.physics.lsa.umich.edu/w/arch/som/sto2001/Guth/real/n001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121174617/http://rowinphoto.com/people/guth.html to http://www.rowinphoto.com/people/guth.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Trash

   No way am I going to read all of the trash like I just remedied in one small nbrhood of the accompanying article. I am only a BA/cum-laude math/physics major from the '60s, but the smells of bullshit and other forms of incompetence have been changing, since then, at rates incomparably lower than the speed of light! Perhaps professional physicists who deserve the respect of their peers will bring to bear their expertise here, lest the flaneurs who have fouled the nest with the few usages I replaced in my edits today continue to edit unchecked on matters where they lack any insight nor perspective. I can't claim professional competence, but the professionals would not be wasting their time by acting as the Man with Muckrake, or rather driving out the fan-boys and self-anointed dabblers from our modern physics articles.

precisely — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerzyA (talk • contribs) 16:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Inflation Discovered at SLAC not Cornell

I propose that the location of the Guth's discovery of inflation be changed to SLAC from Cornell.

From Guth's book "The Inflationary Universe", Guth and Henry Tye were working on ways to suppress magnetic monopole production in the early universe. That work began at Cornell and continued when Guth moved to take another postdoc at SLAC in the fall of 1979. This is covered in Chapter 9, "Combatting the Magnetic Monopole Menace". Guth and Tye believed that a delayed phase transition would "ward off the glut of magnetic monopole production" in the early time of the Big Bang universe (page 167). Guth sat down on the evening of December 6, 1979, to check that "the expansion rate of the universe would be unaffected by the supercooling" (page 165). Then, "after a few of the most productive hours I had ever spent at my desk, I had learned something remarkable. Would the supercooled phase transition affect the expansion rate of the universe? By 1:00 am I knew the answer: Yes, more than I could have ever imagined." (page 176). Guth realized that inflation "would not only wipe out magnetic monopoles, but it would also solve the flatness problem that I had learned from Dicke's lecture the year before." (page 176). A few weeks later, the "horizon problem" was explained to Guth by Marvin Weinstein during lunch at SLAC. "Having learned about the horizon problem at lunch, I went home and thought about it. Eureka! The exponential expansion of inflation would obliterate this problem, too." (page 184). Then, ... "I view the official debut of inflation as the seminar that I gave at SLAC on January 23, 1980.... There was also the fear that I would reveal my status as a greenhorn cosmologist. To shore up my general background in cosmology, I had crammed from Steven Weinberg's excellent popular-level book, The First Three Minutes."

It seems clear that Guth believes he discovered his version of cosmological inflation while he was at SLAC, not Cornell. Strangely, or perhaps not, this same statement about Cornell is made in the wikipedia page on Cosmological Inflation. Guth and Tye were working on a particle physics problem, magnetic monopole overproduction, and as a happy byproduct Guth ended up "solving" two major cosmological problems while at SLAC. AFAIK Tye did not share in the major awards Guth has received for this work. Guth essentially changed his field of study from particle physics to cosmology on the night of December 6, 1979.

Therefore I propose that the location of the discovery be changed to SLAC from Cornell. --Bluepost22 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)