Talk:Omega Point (Tipler)

Tags - pseudoscience or not

• Question: I protected this article a week or so ago, so it's been on my watchlist ever since. Reading the above discussion, it seems to me that there is one editor (Jamiemichelle, and IPs thereof) who objects to the "{{Articleissues}}", "{{POV}}" and "{{Unbalanced}}" tags, and the "Category:Pseudoscience" - is that correct? I'm also seeing two editors (58.*, Tim Shuba) who apparently believe that these tags and cat should be added - is that correct? TFOWR 10:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, TFOWR. I recently added the "Criticisms" section, which details the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point Theory, and which also gives quotations from a number of non-refereed book reviews appearing in science journals and popular science magazines which have been critical of Tipler's Omega Point Theory.

After said edits, both 58.96.94.12 and Tim Shuba have refused to state what they believe is specifically wrong with the article vis-à-vis Wikipedia policy.

The "Omega Point (Tipler)" article is accurate in describing the Omega Point Theory, with thorough citations provided. The article follows Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV, as the article does not claim that the Omega Point Theory is true, but instead is written in the neutral point of view: it describes the Omega Point Theory, but it does not claim that it is correct. The article uses neutral-point-of-view language, such as "According to Tipler from a 2005 paper in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics, he outlines the following reasons why he maintains ..."

And now that I added the "Criticisms" section, the article also details the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point Theory, and also gives quotations from a number of non-refereed book reviews appearing in science journals and popular science magazines which have been critical of Tipler's Omega Point Theory.

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (See my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)

Hence, to add those tags would violate WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources.

Due to Tipler recently being in the news, this article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism, disruptive edits, nonsense edits and Wikipedia-policy-violating edits (e.g., the aforementioned policies) against this article, in addition to engaging in harassing behavior, due to such editors taking an extreme visceral dislike to Tipler's Omega Point Theory, even though they know next to nothing about it. Hence, they seek to diminish this article and to categorize its subject as rubbish because it conflicts with their worldview.

In adding the "Criticisms" section, I have been more than reasonable and quite happy to work with people. I'm the only one in these recent discussions who actually is knowledgeable about the Omega Point Theory, which is what allowed me to write the "Criticisms" section, as I had that knowledge already at hand. If someone raises a legitimate Wikipedia-policy-conforming concern, then wonderful, splendid! But people such as 58.96.94.12 and Tim Shuba have not been interested in conforming to Wikipedia policies, as demonstrated by their refusal to state what is wrong per Wikipedia policy with the article as it is now. All they know about the Omega Point Theory is that they greatly dislike its implications because it conflicts with their Weltanschauung, and hence, again, they seek to diminish this article and to categorize its subject as rubbish because it conflicts with their worldview.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, some of the comments above came after the criticisms section was added; indeed, they mention the new section. That said, "{{Articleissues}}" would need some explanation before adding it: I'd like to know what issues the article has (there's no point tagging an article for improvement if you don't also explain what needs improving). "{{POV}}" and "{{Unbalanced}}" tags may be warranted, if the criticisms of the "criticisms" section remain. The "Category:Pseudoscience" I'm far less sure about: Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience is our guide, and it does not seem to cover this article's subject. As far as I can see, this is a fringe theory (in that it does not yet have wide acceptance) but it is not pseudoscience. TFOWR 15:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "fringe" theory because that implies that there's been much higher than majority opposition to it on the same level or higher level of academic merit than it has received. As regards peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, there has not been. Again, there has only been one peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal critical of it. Whereas Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (See my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)

So as it concerns the peer-reviewed science journal papers, it is criticism of the Omega Point Theory that is fringe.

In the case of user 58.96.94.12, he has repeatedly called me such nasty names as "crackpot", "nutter" and "nut" even after he has been repeatedly warned by administrators not to engage in personal attacks. Even after all those administrator warnings, he is still continuing to engage in personal attacks against me, such as on his user Talk page: [1].--71.0.146.150 (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I.P. address 71.0.146.150 is me.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi TFOWR, I think it is good to tag this article as pseudoscience to warn readers about the disputed nature of the content. Other then psychoanalysis as I quote from Fringe theories#Pseudoscience, this questionable theory does not have a lot of followers. I refer to the article http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/01/05/the-varieties-of-crackpot-experience/ from Sean Carroll (senior researcher in cosmology at CalTech) and the comment of user Fizyxnrd: "'Speaking as a physicist and someone who frequently receives emails full of "crackpot physics", I have to say that the burden of citation here is a heavy one. Because these theories are (to a professional physicist) so ludicrous, they do not merit the time to be specifically rebutted. Therefore, there do not tend to be references for Wikipedia to cite in criticism of such blatantly fringe ideas. Perhaps the criticism section could be taken care of by moving this article out of WikiProject Physics, as it doesn't belong there (or even in Pseudophysics).Fizyxnrd (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)" from the archive of this talkpage.

I gave earlier my opinion on this talk page (See Skolem Lowenheim in the archive) but was aggressively met by 71.0.146.150 who appears to be Jamie Michelle. Otto (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Otto ter Haar. You're stating a falsehood when you say that you were "aggressively met" by me. It was you who called Prof. Frank J. Tipler a "lunatic" [2], whereas I was perfectly civil in my discussions with you.

In that blog post by Sean M. Carroll (who was denied tenure), he makes a number of factually incorrect statements, e.g., his statement regarding "no actual argument" is false. Two paragraphs before the excerpt Carroll gave, Tipler stated "Now let me outline the proof of my three claims above. I can give here only a bare outline. For complete details, the reader is referred to my book [1], and to papers ([3], [4], [5]) on the lanl database (available over the Internet at xxx.lanl.gov)."

So Carroll doesn't actually know much of anything about Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory because he's never bothered to actually research it, and he apparently has no intention to do so.

As TFOWR points out above, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory doesn't qualify as pseudoscience.

Nor is it a "fringe" theory because that implies that there's been much higher than majority opposition to it on the same level or higher level of academic merit than it has received. As regards peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, there has not been. Again, there has only been one peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal critical of it. Whereas Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (See my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)

So as it concerns the peer-reviewed science journal papers, it is criticism of the Omega Point Theory that is fringe.

The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device,[1] and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory in his book The Fabric of Reality. For that, see:

David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997); with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler.

Below is what the Royal Society of London says about Prof. Deutsch in its announcement of his becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2008:

Professor David Elieser Deutsch FRS

Visiting Professor, Department of Atomic and Laser Physics, Centre for Quantum Computation, The Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford

David Deutsch laid the foundations of the quantum theory of computation, and has subsequently made or participated in many of the most important advances in the field, including the discovery of the first quantum algorithms, the theory of quantum logic gates and quantum computational networks, the first quantum error-correction scheme, and several fundamental quantum universality results. He has set the agenda for worldwide research efforts in this new, interdisciplinary field, made progress in understanding its philosophical implications (via a variant of the many-universes interpretation) and made it comprehensible to the general public, notably in his book The Fabric of Reality.

From "New Fellows 08 Craik - Kaiser", The Royal Society.

The first book wherein the Omega Point Theory was described was The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), coauthored by astrophysicist John D. Barrow (Professor at the University of Cambridge) along with Tipler. Hence, Barrow must have thought that the Omega Point Theory had merit.

In the same book, Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on p. viii in the "Foreword". On p. ix of said book, Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]." So obviously Wheeler thought that the Omega Point Theory had merit.

Prof. Paul Richard Simony, head of the Department of Physics at Jacksonville University, has also endorsed the correctness of the physics of the Omega Point Theory. For that, see

Chauncy Glover, "Man says equation proves God exists", Action News (WTEV CBS-47 and WAWS Fox-30, Jacksonville, Florida), May 17, 2010. Direct FLV video link (Prof. Simony's segment is from 3:10 to 3:40 min:sec).

(Note that the text of the above article misattributes the statement "Everything in here is correct and his interpretation of the equation is correct. ..." to Tipler, when in fact as the video of the report makes clear, it was Prof. Paul Richard Simony who made this statement.)

Again, keep in mind that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, which requires the referees to endorse the paper as sound. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)

So in fact, the Omega Point Theory has been endorsed by many professional physicists, including the world's leading quantum physicist. In the case of Prof. Tipler's many peer-reviewed papers on the Omega Point Theory, this endorsement was in a formal capacity.

Note:

1. D. Deutsch, "Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer", Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 400, No. 1818 (July 1985), pp. 97-117.

--Jamie Michelle (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've posted at WP:FTN, on a "more eyes have got to be good"-basis! TFOWR 17:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A great deal of material used as citations in this article does not specifically mention Tipler or his theories (e.g. scientific proof of God's existence, miraculous resurrection of bodies, etc.) but seem to be placed in the article to create the appearance that Tipler's ideas have some kind of mainstream acceptance. When reading the article itself, I get the strong impression of agenda-driven propaganda and coatracking rather than WP:FIVE. Tipler's "omega point" may or may not have been specifically criticized as pseudoscience, but it most certainly meets the criteria of a fringe theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you'll notice, LuckyLouie, the citation references are placed next to the relevant statement that is being cited. This practice is called the Scholarly Method, and it's also how scholarly books work. That is, specific statements are referenced. Obviously not all of the references will concern the whole of the topic of entire article.

The Omega Point Theory is not a "fringe" theory because that implies that there's been much higher than majority opposition to it on the same level or higher level of academic merit than it has received. As regards peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, there has not been. Again, there has only been one peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal critical of it. Whereas Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (For more on these matters, see my above 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC and 13:00, 24 June 2010 UTC posts.)

So as it concerns the peer-reviewed science journal papers, it is criticism of the Omega Point Theory that is fringe. Which isn't surprising, since the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to violate the known laws of physics, thereby requiring one to resort to fringe theories.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus of editors that disagree. The article can and will be improved. Firstly, it relies too much on a single primary source (Tipler). The article also suffers from whitewashing of criticism, over-use of quotes and its associated copyright violation. Removing the extensive verbatim quotes from Tipler's writings and briefly summarizing his theories using secondary sources will bring us into line with policy and improve readability. Also, per WP:FRINGE, the article must clarify that these fringe theories are not accepted by the mainstream (and no, journal publishing is not an indication of mainstream acceptance). The criticism section needs to be expanded and integrated into the article lead. I'll make these improvements as time allows, but invite others to lend a hand in the interim. I also ask involved editors to scrupulously refrain from personal attacks or discussing behavior of other editors, as this derails progress with the article. Sockpuppetry and incivility violations can be dealt with in a separate venue.- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, LuckyLouie. You didn't even know how the Scholarly Method works (e.g., your previous comment above about many of the citations not specifically mentioning Tipler or his work), and now you're all of a sudden an expert on these matters?

The article contains no "whitewashing of criticism", nor have you provided any evidence of that. This is the fallacy of bare assertion by you. Now that I recently added the "Criticisms" section, the article details the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point Theory, and also gives quotations from a number of non-refereed book reviews appearing in science journals and popular science magazines which have been critical of Tipler's Omega Point Theory.

Nor are Prof. Tipler's papers primary sources: rather, they are secondary sources. According to WP:No Original Research (including the articles "Primary source" and "Secondary source", which are referenced in that Wikipedia policy), all of Tipler's peer-reviewed papers qualify as secondary sources, since he is not an experimental physicists reporting experimental results, but instead is a theoretical physicist publishing well-formed physical theories on the implications of the known laws of physics which are based upon thousands of prior experimental findings. To quote note No. 5 from WP:No Original Research, which is a quote from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." So by Wikipedia policy's definition of primary and secondary sources, Tipler's peer-reviewed papers are all secondary sources.

Keep in mind that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, which requires the referees to endorse the paper as sound. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.) The scientists who refereed Tipler's papers are all professional physicists other than Tipler, and they endorsed the correctness of Tipler's papers in a formal capacity.

And above I also I listed a number of other reliable secondary sources, such as The Fabric of Reality (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997) by Prof. David Deutsch, the world's leading quantum physicist and inventor of the quantum computer; and The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), coauthored by astrophysicist Prof. John D. Barrow along with Tipler, and with a "Foreword" by Prof. John A. Wheeler, the father of most relativity research in the U.S. Then of course there are Tipler's 1994 and 2007 books, which are reliable secondary sources, as Tipler after all is the world's leading expert on the Omega Point Theory. (See my above 13:00, 24 June 2010 UTC post for details on these matters.)

So in fact, the Omega Point Theory has been endorsed by many professional physicists, including the world's leading quantum physicist. In the case of Prof. Tipler's peer-reviewed papers on the Omega Point Theory, this endorsement was in a formal capacity.

Nor is the Omega Point Theory a "fringe" theory, because that implies that there's been much higher than majority opposition to it on the same level or higher level of academic merit than it has received. As regards peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, there has not been. Again, there has only been one peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal critical of it. Whereas Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below).

So as it concerns the peer-reviewed science journal papers, it is criticism of the Omega Point Theory that is fringe. Which isn't surprising, since the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to violate the known laws of physics, thereby requiring one to resort to fringe theories.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Overuse of quotes is obvious. How many blockquotes does this article have? 7. How many blockquotes does this featured article have? 0. Oh, and consensus trumps Scholarly Method. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My comment to LuckyLouie above on the Scholarly Method did not pertain to quotations, but instead concerned him not knowing how the Scholarly Method works, i.e., his statement "A great deal of material used as citations in this article does not specifically mention Tipler or his theories". I had to explain to him "If you'll notice, LuckyLouie, the citation references are placed next to the relevant statement that is being cited. This practice is called the Scholarly Method, and it's also how scholarly books work. That is, specific statements are referenced. Obviously not all of the references will concern the whole of the topic of entire article."

According to WP:Quotations#Overusing_quotations, the article does not overuse quotations.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but any Scholarly Method will not work on an encyclopedia; it may work on your scholarly books, though. Consensus, however, does. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia nor is it a scientific journal. I can't even understand this "physically-necessary cosmological state". And the last line of WP:Quotations#Overusing_quotations says "Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose." Between blockquote 2:

I believe that the omega-point theory deserves to become the prevailing theory of the future of spacetime until and unless it is experimentally (or otherwise) refuted. (Experimental refutation is possible because the existence of an omega point in our future places certain constraints on the condition of the universe today.)

and blockquote 3:

It seems to me that at the current state of our scientific knowledge, this is the 'natural' view to hold. It is the conservative view, the one that does not propose any startling change in our best fundamental explanations. Therefore it ought to be the prevailing view, the one against which proposed innovations are judged. That is the role I am advocating for it. I am not hoping to create a new orthodoxy; far from it. As I have said, I think it is time to move on. But we can move to better theories only if we take our best existing theories seriously, as explanations of the world.

there is little to no content: less than two sentences. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:Quotations#Overusing_quotations, the article does not overuse quotations. Your above example abides by the Wikipedia policy on this, as the sentences coherently connect the quotations.

And again, my comment to LuckyLouie above on the Scholarly Method did not pertain to quotations, but instead concerned him not knowing how the Scholarly Method works, i.e., his statement "A great deal of material used as citations in this article does not specifically mention Tipler or his theories". I had to explain to him "If you'll notice, LuckyLouie, the citation references are placed next to the relevant statement that is being cited. This practice is called the Scholarly Method, and it's also how scholarly books work. That is, specific statements are referenced. Obviously not all of the references will concern the whole of the topic of entire article."

But I am glad that you admit that you "can't even understand this 'physically-necessary cosmological state'." That has been quite obvious.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. How many times do I have to quote to you before I can get it through your thick skull? According to the last line of WP:Quotations#Overusing_quotations:

"Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose."

This one comment:

Deutsch later comments within a concluding paragraph of the same chapter regarding the synthesis of his "four strands" of fundamental reality, which includes the strengthened version of mathematician Alan Turing's theory of universal computation in the form of the Omega Point Theory:

does not represent an entire paragraph of original prose. And so more than this one sentence is needed to fulfill that policy.

Oh, and Consensus trumps Scholarly Method, every single time. Also, if I don't understand it, how do you expect the general layman to understand it? The article is seriously overworded. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your complaint that you don't understand the physics that are in the article, and hence you don't think that other laymen will be able to understand it either: that's not a legitimate excuse for it being deleted. If that illogic of yours were the criteria, then there is a great deal of content that would have to be deleted from Wikipedia articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, engineering, chemistry and biology. Deleting the explanation of the physics from the article just makes the article incoherent.

According to WP:Quotations#Overusing_quotations, the article does not overuse quotations. Your above example abides by the Wikipedia policy on this, as the sentences coherently connect the quotations.

And again, my comment to LuckyLouie above on the Scholarly Method did not pertain to quotations, but instead concerned him not knowing how the Scholarly Method works, i.e., his statement "A great deal of material used as citations in this article does not specifically mention Tipler or his theories". I had to explain to him "If you'll notice, LuckyLouie, the citation references are placed next to the relevant statement that is being cited. This practice is called the Scholarly Method, and it's also how scholarly books work. That is, specific statements are referenced. Obviously not all of the references will concern the whole of the topic of entire article."--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to quote to you before I can get it through your thick skull? According to the last line of WP:Quotations#Overusing_quotations:

"Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose."

This one comment:

Deutsch later comments within a concluding paragraph of the same chapter regarding the synthesis of his "four strands" of fundamental reality, which includes the strengthened version of mathematician Alan Turing's theory of universal computation in the form of the Omega Point Theory:

does not represent an entire paragraph of original prose, nor does it "coherently connect the quotations".

You also violated this policy, WP:NOT PAPER, which states:

Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.

And so my "illogic" stands as the criteria. Also, you must show me why an article would have zero quotations and be able to become a featured article, while this one has seven quotations and is not even a good article. Oh, and Consensus trumps Scholarly Method, every single time. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

More sources claiming the omega point is pseudoscience can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect edits by LuckyLouie

LuckyLouie added the tags "Articleissues|article=y", "POV" and "Unbalanced" to the article, which are factually incorrect and which violate Wikipedia policies of WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources.

These edits are factually incorrect because no one has stated what they believe is specifically wrong with the article vis-à-vis Wikipedia policy. Vague bare assertions don't conform to Wikipedia policy.

LuckyLouie edit's summary for this edit states "Consensus is that these Tags apply. See Talk". There has been no one who has argued in favor of these tags. To date not even LuckyLouie has argued for these tags. 58.96.94.12 requested these tags, but he gave no argument for them.

As TFOWR stated in his 15:38, 22 June 2010 UTC post above:

That said, "{{Articleissues}}" would need some explanation before adding it: I'd like to know what issues the article has (there's no point tagging an article for improvement if you don't also explain what needs improving). "{{POV}}" and "{{Unbalanced}}" tags may be warranted, if the criticisms of the "criticisms" section remain.

And so the consensus is in fact that these tags are inappropriate, since no one has stated what is wrong with the "Criticisms" section as it is now.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

She hasn't violated anything. One editor does not represent Consensus. You're the one who violated the consensus policy. And the article obviously has issues. Otherwise it would have met the good artcle criteria a long time ago. Hey look, what is this? It's called pseudoscience. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

LuckyLouie edit's summary for this edit states "Consensus is that these Tags apply. See Talk". There has been no one who has argued in favor of these tags. To date not even LuckyLouie has argued for these tags. 58.96.94.12 requested these tags, but he gave no argument for them.

As TFOWR stated in his 15:38, 22 June 2010 UTC post above:

That said, "{{Articleissues}}" would need some explanation before adding it: I'd like to know what issues the article has (there's no point tagging an article for improvement if you don't also explain what needs improving). "{{POV}}" and "{{Unbalanced}}" tags may be warranted, if the criticisms of the "criticisms" section remain.

And so the consensus is in fact that these tags are inappropriate, since no one has stated what is wrong with the "Criticisms" section as it is now.

Regarding the false charge of pseudoscience, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)--Jamie Michelle (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, one editor does not represent Consensus. And just because she hasn't argued for inclusion of said tags is there consensus that they are inappropriate. Merely her suggested addition of them is enough for consensus to lean the other way. Oh, and don't cite policy: its all part of the WP:BRD cycle, so you are again biting the newcomers to the article. And I see plenty of argument from User talk:58.96.94.12 above. So far, its me, Tim Shuba, the IP, and her that agree with the tags, so clearly consensus swings the other way. Oh and since what I just quoted, this website "[3]" clearly criticizes his work as Pseudoscience and is a reliable source. Thus inclusion of the criticism in your "Criticisms" section as well as the category for pseudoscience becomes necessary. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(According to the new edits made in the sections below, I see consensus towards inclusion of tags and categories.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR is an editor, and in fact he is an administrator. As TFOWR stated in his 15:38, 22 June 2010 UTC post above:

That said, "{{Articleissues}}" would need some explanation before adding it: I'd like to know what issues the article has (there's no point tagging an article for improvement if you don't also explain what needs improving). "{{POV}}" and "{{Unbalanced}}" tags may be warranted, if the criticisms of the "criticisms" section remain.

And so the consensus is in fact that these tags are inappropriate, since no there has been no one who has given Wikipedia-policy conforming arguments in favor of these tags. 58.96.94.12 requested these tags, but he gave no argument for them. Discussion of rationales per Wikipedia policy, and conformance to that policy, is required in order to reach a consensus on Wikipedia.

The "Category:Pseudoscience" tag is factually incorrect and violates Wikipedia's policies of WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources. Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)

Needless to say, that blog post you cite is a non-refereed source, and so does nothing to diminish the many-times peer-reviewed fact (including in a number of the world's leading physics journals) that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory is not pseudoscience.

As administrator TFOWR said in his above 15:38, 22 June 2010 UTC post, Tipler's Omega Point Theory "is not pseudoscience."--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Two against four does not represent Consensus, at all. Don't matter whether he's an admin; I bet you've purposely pronounced this to mislead us. And I could quote the same reasoning from you below: "Whatever TFOWR's experience may or may not be, his edits are still incoherent". Together we have four, that's consensus for inclusion of said tags. Oh, and it doesn't matter if the source is non-refereed; its reliable, and that's what counts. So include it in the "Criticisms" section. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not a quote of me. Nor are non-refereed sources reliable when there exists many peer-reviewed sources demonstrating that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory is not pseudoscience. The "Category:Pseudoscience" tag is factually incorrect and violates Wikipedia's policies of WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)

The non-refereed sources which make the bare assertion that the Omega Point Theory is pseudoscience do nothing to diminish the many-times peer-reviewed fact (including in a number of the world's leading physics journals) that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory is not pseudoscience. The non-refereed bare assertions of pseudoscience do not have nearly the same level of academic merit that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has received.

As administrator TFOWR said in his above 15:38, 22 June 2010 UTC post, Tipler's Omega Point Theory "is not pseudoscience."--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You've said this:

"Whatever LuckyLouie's experience may or may not be, his edits are still incoherent..."

And I've said this:

"Whatever TFOWR's experience may or may not be, his edits are still incoherent..."

So there's no difference in the logic. Furthermore, since you made the claim that non-refereed sources that make bare assertions are not reliable, you have the burden of proof and therefore must demonstrate to me how that is before removing the pseudoscience category. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits by Tim Shuba

Tim Shuba keeps deleting the Theophysics website link in the "External links" section, which has been in the article there for almost three years.

Tim Shuba's first excuse for this deletion [4] was that it is spam. It was explained to Tim Shuba that the link is not spam [5]. Now Tim Shuba's excuse has changed to "inappropriate personal links" [6] while citing no Wikipedia policy to justify his deletion. The website is hardly "inappropriate", as Tim Shuba falsely and bizarrely asserts, as the website's central topic is Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory: if this link isn't appropriate to the article, then no link possibly could be. Other than Tipler's own Tulane University website, there exists no other website whose main topic is the Omega Point Theory.

In Tim Shuba's latest edit summary for this deletion, he goes on to assert "many more of these need to be deleted", apparently referring to articles hosted on the Theophysics website. Of course, there's no basis in Wikipedia policy for this claim.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The links to these personal websites [7][8][9] have been repeatedly inserted by Jamiemichelle, and all should be removed. Linking to one's own site or a site one is related to without a transparent declaration is dishonest. Jamiemichelle has used different accounts and different mirrors to spam these sites. Some of the webcitation links are also spam from these sites.

I certainly recommend that others do web searches with these domains included in search terms, and discover for themselves the details. It is unlikely that the owner of these sites has the permission to keep copies of the all the files found there. Even if true, a personal site like this should not generally be a reference. The fact that someone has succeeded in spamming wikipedia for years is clearly not a valid reason to allow it to continue. Tim Shuba (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Theophysics website link has been in the article for almost three years.

As has already been explained to you [10], those links aren't "spam", contrary to your false and Wikipedia-policy-violating statement (e.g., it violates WP:Assume Good Faith). The Theophysics website is hosted on free website hosts, some of which place ads on HTML pages, yet no money goes to the website creator.

Your first excuse for this deletion [11] was that it is spam. When it was explained to you that the link is not spam [12]. Now your excuse has changed to "inappropriate personal links" [13] while citing no Wikipedia policy to justify your deletion. The website is hardly "inappropriate", as you falsely and bizarrely assert, as the website's central topic is Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory: if this link isn't appropriate to the article, then no link possibly could be. Other than Tipler's own Tulane University website, there exists no other website whose main topic is the Omega Point Theory.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Other than Tipler's own Tulane University website, there exists no other website whose main topic is the Omega Point Theory" - Why do you think that is? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Because no other websites have been started devoted to the topic.

Keep in mind that this is not a discussion forum.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But why have there been no other websites started devoted to the topic? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is not a discussion forum.

But to answer your off-topic question anyway, that's likely due to a number of reasons. One is the difficulty of the subject, which encompasses global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed, and which Prof. Tipler obtained his Ph.D. in and gave a number of important theorems in), quantum mechanics, particle physics (i.e., the Standard Model), and computer science (particularly computational complexity theory). Another is that it probably makes most laypeople feel highly uncomfortable. Most laypeople are also probably uncomfortable with the idea that humans are nothing more than finite-state machines, even though that's what physics says they are. Tipler's works are an ultra-reductionist way of looking at the world that most people are highly unused to.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you think of any other explanation for this curious fact, other than that there does not exist a scientist besides yourself who has the intellect to fully appreciate Tipler's genius? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, which requires the referees to endorse the paper as sound. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.) In this case of Prof. Tipler's many peer-reviewed papers on the Omega Point Theory, this endorsement by the professional physicist referees was in a formal capacity.

The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory in Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of his book The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997).

The first book wherein the Omega Point Theory was described was The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), coauthored by astrophysicist John D. Barrow (Professor at the University of Cambridge) along with Tipler. Hence, Barrow must have thought that the Omega Point Theory had merit.

In the same book, Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on p. viii in the "Foreword". On p. ix of said book, Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]." So obviously Wheeler thought that the Omega Point Theory had merit.

Prof. Paul Richard Simony, head of the Department of Physics at Jacksonville University, has also endorsed the correctness of the physics of the Omega Point Theory.

So the Omega Point Theory has been endorsed by many professional physicists, including the world's leading quantum physicist. In the case of Prof. Tipler's many peer-reviewed papers on the Omega Point Theory, this endorsement was in a formal capacity. For more on this, see my above 13:00, 24 June 2010 UTC and 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC posts.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen your copypasta of out-of-context quotes and proof-by-association before but I didn't ask for that, I asked if you could think of any other explanation for why you are the only one to have ever adopted your crusade. I guess you really can't. I should not have been surprised. Don't bother replying, this clearly isn't going anywhere. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you violated AAGF and WP:AGF#Accusing others of bad faith yet again by saying that Tim Shuba's edits violate WP policy. Tsk, tsk, tsk. And citing how old the website is violates LONGTIME, which is not a valid counterargument to deletion of said website. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia-policy-violating edits by 58.96.94.12

58.96.94.12 deleted the "Category:Theories of gravitation" category and added the "Category:Pseudoscience" category, with the explanation in the edit summary of "Changed some categories, this doesn't belong in Theories of Gravitation, maybe not some of the others either but let's talk about that" [14].

The "Category:Pseudoscience" tag is factually incorrect and violates Wikipedia's policies of WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources. Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)

58.96.94.12 deletion of the "Category:Theories of gravitation" category is bizarre, as obviously the article in large part concerns "The Omega Point and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything", as one section is entitled. If 58.96.94.12 is this ignorant about the Omega Point Theory, then he should not be commenting on it as he has been doing, since he obviously knows next to nothing about it. The same goes with the other recent detractors of the Omega Point Theory here, who also know next to nothing about it, other than that they dislike its implications.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the edits of Tim Shuba, TelCoNaSpVe and 58.96.94.12 in that they go a long way to making sorely needed improvements to this article (although I encourage the IP editor to establish a more permanent user account). Regarding Tipler's theories "having mainstream acceptance" and NASA having "found it (and, by association, all of Tipler's various claims) correct", I've asked members of Wiki Project Physics to look over this article. It being mid Summer and a popular vacation and holiday time, their input may be a bit slow in coming, but I'm sure their opinions and experience will prove valuable in evaluating such claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Who are you quoting when you write "Regarding Tipler's theories 'having mainstream acceptance' and NASA having 'found it (and, by association, all of Tipler's various claims) correct' "? You're not quoting me.

In the above you admit that you know next to nothing about the Omega Point Theory, in your above 14:30, 26 June 2010 UTC post you also didn't know how citations work, and in your present post immediately above you don't even know how quotes work, yet your ignorance on these matters hasn't prevented you from commenting on the merit of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and making maladroit edits to the article.

What I actually wrote was that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, which requires the referees to endorse the paper as sound. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.) In this case of Prof. Tipler's many peer-reviewed papers on the Omega Point Theory, this endorsement by the professional physicist referees was in a formal capacity.

The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory in Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of his book The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997).

The first book wherein the Omega Point Theory was described was The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), coauthored by astrophysicist John D. Barrow (Professor at the University of Cambridge) along with Tipler. Hence, Barrow must have thought that the Omega Point Theory had merit.

In the same book, Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on p. viii in the "Foreword". On p. ix of said book, Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]." So obviously Wheeler thought that the Omega Point Theory had merit.

Prof. Paul Richard Simony, head of the Department of Physics at Jacksonville University, has also endorsed the correctness of the physics of the Omega Point Theory.

So the Omega Point Theory has been endorsed by many professional physicists, including the world's leading quantum physicist. In the case of Prof. Tipler's many peer-reviewed papers on the Omega Point Theory, this endorsement was in a formal capacity. For more on this, see my above 13:00, 24 June 2010 UTC and 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC posts.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tim Shuba is improperly deleting article links

Tim Shuba is deleting links to articles, while giving the edit summary of "remove some of the spam" [15]. As was explained in the above section "Inappropriate edits by Tim Shuba", those links are not spam. Further, two of those deleted links were to PDF files, which do not contain any free-host generated ads, and one was to an HTML file hosted on theophysics.host56.com, which does not at this time place ads. As was explained in said section, none of the Theophysics website links are spam, because ads that may appear on some Theophysics hosts are put there by the free host in order for the host to pay for its free services, and the website creator does not make any money off of such ads.

Tim Shuba states in said above section that "a personal site like this should not generally be a reference", thereby demonstrating extreme confusion as to the Scholarly Method. None of the sources come from the Theophysics website. Copies of some sources may be hosted on that website, but they didn't come from it, and the Theophysics website is never cited as a reference in the article.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop adding new sections and simply comment on the one above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Tim Shuba

Tim Shuba has deleted large swaths of the article [16], in the process making the article incoherent, e.g., the "Physics" section previously contained Prof. Tipler's explanation as to why he maintains the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist, and now the section contains no explanation of why Tipler maintains that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

The section "The Omega Point and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything" previously contained an important explanation by Tipler as to why he in part maintains that the Feynman-Weinberg-DeWitt quantum gravity theory is correct, which Tim Shuba deleted.

One of Tim Shuba's edits also violates WP:Citing_sources#Citation_styles, i.e., his reformatting of Prof. Deutsch's book-reference in the "Physics books dealing with the Omega Point Theory" section.

Tim Shuba has not engaged in a discussion about these specific edits beforehand, and hence has not attempted to justify them beyond his non sequitur edit summaries. Tim Shuba has previously stated his dislike of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory on this Talk page, calling it a "highly fringe theory" in violation of WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources, and calling me "fanatical" for insisting that Wikipedia policy be upheld.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Answered here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop adding new sections and simply comment on the one above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Currently the article is listed quite widely within:

• Cosmology
• Physical cosmology
• Physics
• Quantum gravity
• Space colonization
• Eschatology
• Theology
• Teleology
• Religion and science
• Supertasks

And also Pseudoscience, which there seems to be consensus for (though notably not unanimous).

Does it really belong in all of these? I removed Theories of Gravitation because it just isn't about a theory of gravity, having only tangential relation to such...but to what extent does it belong in the others? I'm not sure so I'm asking. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. For guidance, see WP:ONEWAY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that gives quite clear direction, thank you. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory is not a "fringe" theory, because that implies that there's been much higher than majority opposition to it on the same level or higher level of academic merit than it has received. As regards peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, there has not been. Again, there has only been one peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal critical of it. Whereas Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, which requires the referees to endorse the paper as sound. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.) In this case of Prof. Tipler's many peer-reviewed papers on the Omega Point Theory, this endorsement by the professional physicist referees was in a formal capacity.

So as it concerns the peer-reviewed science journal papers, it is criticism of the Omega Point Theory that is fringe. Which isn't surprising, since the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to violate the known laws of physics, thereby requiring one to resort to fringe theories.

The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory in Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of his book The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997).

The first book wherein the Omega Point Theory was described was The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), coauthored by astrophysicist John D. Barrow (Professor at the University of Cambridge) along with Tipler. Hence, Barrow must have thought that the Omega Point Theory had merit.

In the same book, Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on p. viii in the "Foreword". On p. ix of said book, Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]." So obviously Wheeler thought that the Omega Point Theory had merit.

Prof. Paul Richard Simony, head of the Department of Physics at Jacksonville University, has also endorsed the correctness of the physics of the Omega Point Theory.

So the Omega Point Theory has been endorsed by many professional physicists, including the world's leading quantum physicist. In the case of Prof. Tipler's many peer-reviewed papers on the Omega Point Theory, this endorsement was in a formal capacity. For more on this, see my above 13:00, 24 June 2010 UTC and 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC posts.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Category:Pseudoscience" tag is factually incorrect and violates Wikipedia's policies of WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources. Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)

Your deletion of the "Category:Theories of gravitation" category is bizarre, as obviously the article in large part concerns "The Omega Point and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything", as one section is entitled.

The article also of course is strongly pertains to the topics of "Category:Physics", "Category:Quantum gravity", "Category:Space colonization", "Category:Cosmology" and "Category:Teleology" categories which you deleted [17], and so your edits here appear to be simply an obvious attempt to isolate the article from the rest of Wikipedia by removing it from categories to which it clearly belongs.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For the inclusion of Pseudoscience, see the discussion(s) above in which consensus is arrived at. Though you object, there is nonetheless consensus that the tag applies. The other categories are not relevant due to the editorial guidelines outlined. As for my bizarre editing, that's just an unavoidable side-effect of my being a bizarre person, I can't help it and it hurts my feelings for you to mock me about it. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As administrator TFOWR said in his above 15:38, 22 June 2010 UTC post, Tipler's Omega Point Theory "is not pseudoscience."

The "Category:Pseudoscience" tag is factually incorrect and violates Wikipedia's policies of WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources. Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)

Nor has there been any consensus on this Talk page that the Omega Point Theory is pseudoscience, because no one here has argued that it is. Bare assertions proclaiming that it is are not arguments.

Your above excuse for your improper deletions of the obvious categories that this article belongs in is "The other categories are not relevant due to the editorial guidelines outlined." That comment by you is nihil ad rem. Your deletion of these categories violates WP:Categorization, as obviously the topics of the article belong to the categories you deleted. Further, your additionally violated Wikipedia policy, as WP:Categorization states that

It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the {{Category relevant?}} template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

You didn't follow any of the above procedures. At any rate, you deleted categories to which the topics of the article clearly belong, in violation of Wikipedia policy.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Simply comment on the sections above rather than copying and pasting. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Article may fail WP:N

As there is consensus to make improvements to this article to improve readability and bring it into line with policy, I have begun trimming OR and removing synthesis, over quoting of Tipler, etc. However, as I get deeper, I note the article is mostly built on primary sources (Tipler), and actual independent WP:RS are few. Also, there is a problem with deliberate conflation of sources - e.g. a source having mentioned the omega point as a general term in physics is made to seem as if that source supports Tipler's theist interpretation in particular. As Tipler's Omega Point theory has not received the kind of notice we generally require to devote a separate article to, it may be that after sufficient improvements are made, the best course is WP:AFD and redirect Omega Point (Tipler) to Frank J. Tipler. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I had thought to suggest Omega Point as a better parent however that appears to be a somewhat different concept though with it's own (possibly misplaced) section on this same concept. Your idea might be best. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE Tipler's version of "Omega Point" should receive far less coverage than mainstream understandings of the term. Three articles that describe Tipler's claims at length may be 2 too many. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus over at Omega Point is that they really are quite distinct concepts with essentially no overlap and I tend to agree. I think maybe that section over there should go away and a disambiguation redirect be added over to wherever this ends up, I might raise it over there. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To do: ongoing improvement

Description and discussion of Tipler's Omega Point theory cannot be mostly sourced to his own books and papers. The bulk of this material must be removed per WP:OR, and instead re-built from reliable secondary sources per WP:PSTS that discuss his theory in particular, and avoiding WP:SYNTH, e.g. Hawkings completely unrelated use of the term made to sound as if it supports Tiplers use of the term. As I have limited time, this will be an ongoing process of improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You removed the text "He [Tipler] says that physics will be able to become ever-more refined, knowledgeable and precise, but never complete (i.e., within spacetime). Only at the final singularity of the Omega Point (which is not in spacetime[citation number]) will the full description of physics be obtained, states Tipler." with the edit summary of "Hawking does not mention Tipler or Tipler's particular theories". That edit summary and your current post mentioning it is nihil ad rem, as that citation of Hawking referred to the fact that Hawking therein proved that a singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

In your above post, you state "Hawkings completely unrelated use of the term made to sound as if it supports Tiplers use of the term", thereby showing that you don't know what you're talking about but instead are fabricating your own fictional narrative as you go along. You obviously didn't even read the source and have no knowledge as to what it contains. Hawking doesn't mention the Omega Point in the source, as that's not what the citation was about, as explained in my previous paragraph.

In your above 15:36, 28 June 2010 UTC post you admit that you know next to nothing about the Omega Point Theory. If you don't understand something, don't edit it.

You removed the quotes and citation from Prof. David Deutsch's book with the edit summary of "rem. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH about Deutsch. We use secondary sources, not primary", which is nihil ad rem. Deusch's book is a secondary source. According to your illogic, we also wouldn't be able to cite Shermer's book, because per your illogic, it's a primary source. Of course, your statement is additionally false because Wikipedia allows primary sources to be cited--not that it's even relevant to this issue.

Again, Wikipedia allows primary sources, but that's not even relevant to your edits. Nor are Prof. Tipler's papers primary sources: rather, they are secondary sources. According to WP:No Original Research, all of Tipler's peer-reviewed papers qualify as secondary sources, since he is not an experimental physicists reporting experimental results, but instead is a theoretical physicist publishing well-formed physical theories on the implications of the known laws of physics which are based upon thousands of prior experimental findings. To quote note No. 5 from WP:No Original Research, which is a quote from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." So by Wikipedia policy's definition of primary and secondary sources, Tipler's peer-reviewed papers are all secondary sources.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, our WP:RS and WP:NOR policy prevents us (with good reason) from reading a book or a paper by an author and writing an article about what we think the author said. Instead we rely on what secondary sources and third parties that are independent of the subject have said about it. IOW, we use what WP:RS - other than Tipler - have written about Tipler's particular Omega Point theory, rather than use Tipler's writings as a basis to describe it. Wikipedia policy might consider a paper published by an author in an academic journal a secondary source for that authors opinion about a third party (e.g. "Tipler says Hulk Hogan's theory is significant"), but that same paper isn't considered a secondary source for that author's opinion of their own views (e.g. "Tipler says Tipler's theory is significant"). Peer reviewed papers do not have magical exception from this policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits violate Wikipedia policy. You removed the quotes and citation from Prof. David Deutsch's book with the edit summary of "rem. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH about Deutsch. We use secondary sources, not primary", which is nihil ad rem. Deusch's book is a secondary source. According to your illogic, we also wouldn't be able to cite Shermer's book, because per your illogic, it's a primary source. Of course, your statement is additionally false because Wikipedia allows primary sources to be cited--not that it's even relevant to this issue.

Again, Wikipedia allows primary sources, but that's not even relevant to your edits. Nor are Prof. Tipler's papers primary sources: rather, they are secondary sources. According to WP:No Original Research, all of Tipler's peer-reviewed papers qualify as secondary sources, since he is not an experimental physicists reporting experimental results, but instead is a theoretical physicist publishing well-formed physical theories on the implications of the known laws of physics which are based upon thousands of prior experimental findings. To quote note No. 5 from WP:No Original Research, which is a quote from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." So by Wikipedia policy's definition of primary and secondary sources, Tipler's peer-reviewed papers are all secondary sources.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive and biased editing by LuckyLouie

In addition to Tim Shuba's disruptive editing mentioned in the above "Disruptive editing by Tim Shuba" section, LuckyLouie has added on with his own disruptive and biased edits [18].

In LuckyLouie's edits, he twice mentions the same non-refereed book review by George Ellis while giving the same quotation from it twice, with the version of this same quotation that LuckyLouie added to the introduction being a misquote. LuckyLouie incorerently introduces this misquotation that he added to the introduction with "George Ellis .. described Tipler's book on the Omega Point as ..." Which book? LuckyLouie also adds his own citation to this, instead of linking up to the citation already in the article via using the "ref name=" system.

In the introduction, LuckyLouie also mentions criticism by Michael Shermer of Prof. Tipler in Shermer's book Why People Believe Weird Things, which of course is a non-refereed book by a non-scientist.

There is already a "Criticisms" section. As well, two citations to critical non-refereed sources now appear in the introduction before any mention of the fact that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in many science journals, including in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Again, there's only been one refereed paper published in a physics journal that has been critical of Tipler's Omega Point Theory.

LuckyLouie removed the quotes and citation from Prof. David Deutsch's book with the edit summary of "rem. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH about Deutsch. We use secondary sources, not primary", which is nihil ad rem. Deusch's book is a secondary source. According to LuckyLouie's illogic, we also wouldn't be able to cite Shermer's book, because per LuckyLouie's illogic, it's a primary source. Of course, LuckyLouie's statement is additionally false because Wikipedia allows primary sources to be cited--not that it's even relevant to this issue.

In this deletion by LuckyLouie, he also removed mention of the fact that Prof. Deutsch endorses the physics of the Omega Point and incorporates it as part of one of the fundamental strands in his "four strands" conception of fundamental reality. Instead, LuckyLouie has replaced all of this with the vague quote of "cheerful study" from a book review by Tim Radford from the Guardian (U.K.), thereby not even giving an indication that Deutsch endorses the physics of the Omega Point and holds that it ought to be the prevailing view. The citation of Radford doesn't even follow Wikipedia guidlines for proper citation formatting.

LuckyLouie removed the "Implications from string theory" section with the edit summary of "remove WP:SYNTH: Brian Green does not mention Tipler's particular theory, neither does Hawking." That section didn't say that Brian Green or Stephen Hawking mention Tipler's Omega Point Theory, and so LuckyLouie's edit summary is nihil ad rem.

LuckyLouie deleted the quote by Tipler from his book The Physics of Immortality with the bizarre edit summary of "rem. puffery sourced to Tipler himself". There's no Wikipedia policy stating that we can't source the subject under discussion. Nor was that quote "puffery", but it explains Tipler's position at the time The Physics of Immortality was published, which is important to coherency because the article goes on to contrast Tipler's previous atheist position with the text "Tipler now regards himself as a theist due to what he states have been advancements in his Omega Point Theory which occurred after the publication of The Physics of Immortality." Now this text is incoherent, because what it is referring to has been deleted. LuckyLouie also removed the text "The first book solely concentrating on the Omega Point Theory was Tipler's The Physics of Immortality in 1994." which had been the first mention of this book, so that the aforementioned incoherent text is now the first mention of Tipler's book The Physics of Immortality.

LuckyLouie removed the text "He [Tipler] says that physics will be able to become ever-more refined, knowledgeable and precise, but never complete (i.e., within spacetime). Only at the final singularity of the Omega Point (which is not in spacetime[citation number]) will the full description of physics be obtained, states Tipler." with the edit summary of "Hawking does not mention Tipler or Tipler's particular theories". That edit summary is nihil ad rem, as that citation of Hawking referred to the fact that Hawking therein proved that a singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

In addition, LuckyLouie's edits introduce numerous typographical errors, such as malformatted references, a lack of a space between a comma and a following word, a space between and reference indicator and a period, and the introduction of a citation style different from the rest of the text.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has benefited greatly from LuckyLouie's heroic work. Already the article is looking far more encyclopaedic than it did mere hours ago, the reasoning used in eir editing is explicitely stated and perfectly sound to my mind. If you see typographical issues that need correcting then by all means add a comma or correct a spelling error, it's edit-warring that gets you 3RR'd, not providing genuine assistance to the consensus decisions. I wouldn't second guess the references though, LuckyLouie appears to have considerable experience with and knowledge of Wikipedia standards and if ey reference differently than you do then I suspect it would be prudent to ask before assuming that yours is the correct approach. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Your above post doesn't address the issues I raised, other than telling me that I'm free to correct LuckyLouie's typographical errors, which are the least of the problems with his edits.

You issued the bizarre statement of "LuckyLouie appears to have considerable experience with and knowledge of Wikipedia standards and if ey reference differently than you do then I suspect it would be prudent to ask before assuming that yours is the correct approach." Whatever LuckyLouie's experience may or may not be, his edits are still incoherent, nihil ad rem, malformatted, and violate Wikipedia policy. On the matter of LuckyLouie's competence and honesty, in his above 14:30, 26 June 2010 UTC post he didn't know how citations work (i.e., what is cited and why), and in his 15:36, 28 June 2010 UTC post above he didn't even know how quotes work (i.e., what constitutes a valid quotation), he also admitted in the latter post that he didn't know much of anything about the Omega Point Theory, and in his above 16:26, 28 June 2010 UTC post he outright fabricates the content of a source, yet his ignorance on these matters hasn't prevented him from commenting on the merit of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and making maladroit edits to the article.

And, by the way, in your usage of the gender-neutral pronoun of eir, you wikilinked to the Norse goddess Eir.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that Eir's blessing would help us achieve greater consensus. I really like Eir. Please don't point out my bizarreness, it's been a problem that I've had to manage my whole life and it upsets me when you mock my struggle. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Something Jamie can help with

In wanting to improve the section on Tipler's religious conclusions, I was trying to find where Tipler addresses the multiplicity of gods argument but got a little lost. Could you (succinctly) reference a section where he explicitely concludes that non-Christian religions couldn't be a valid interpretation of his OPT? So far I just see that he has an OT quote but that is valid for all the Abrahamic religions as well as any religion with a "god as universe" concept which includes Hinduism and lots of others, probably he's addressed this somewhere I can't find but I bet you know where to look. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There was something else I wanted ask you to do but I can't remember it now, maybe it will come back to me. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

I started taking a look at this article after it was listed at WP:RFPP. At that time there appeared to be a dispute over the use of "{{Articleissues}}", "{{POV}}" and "{{Unbalanced}}" tags, and the "Category:Pseudoscience" One editor strongly objected to the tags and category; at least two editors strongly supported the tags and category.

As a way of resolving whether Category:Pseudoscience was appropriate I posted at WP:FTN. A regular from that board, LuckyLouie, responded To paraphrase another editor, an over-referenced article that's clearly disproportionate to anything found in reliable secondary sources about the subject immediately raises lots of questions and Upon further investigation, his connection to "weak dematerialization" is only the tip of the iceberg. It appears Tipler's "theories" are derided by the mainstream as arguments for Christianity based on fundamental physics. No other regular has commented negatively on LuckyLouie's analysis, which appears broadly in line with prior objections to the article.

In addition to LuckyLouie, several other editors have now commented here. Their views appear broadly in line with prior objections to the article.

I believe there is a strong consensus for the inclusion of the disputed tags and category.

TFOWR 09:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is mostly a topic for bored smalltalk. Notable as such, I suppose. What do you want, it was the 1980s. I think this can well be merged into the author's bio. I think it could be interesting to examine this for possible influence on science fiction literature in the 1990s. Stuff by Peter F. Hamilton could be more or less directly inspired. It is ridiculous to try and create a "controversy" over the status of this stuff in "real science". It's a thought experiment, or one authors musings on interpretation of quantum mechanics. This sort of thing was popular 20 years ago, see also quantum mysticism, Deepak Chopra etc. --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made a number of improvements, removing the lengthy explanations sourced to Tipler, etc. At this point we can begin to evaluate the article: is it suitable to be expanded with secondary sourced material, or should it be redirected to a main article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

All those bare assertion accusations of pseudoscience are antiscientific, as they all violate the Scientific Method, since Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in many science journals, including in a number of the world's leading physics journals. So Tipler's Omega Point Theory has many times undergone the process of the Scientific Method. Whereas all of the examples of accusations of pseudoscience occur in non-refereed sources, and hence have not undergone the process of the Scientific Method.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• support redirect to main article. Verbal chat 19:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Omega-Point-Multiverse.png

Removed this diagram as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It also fails WP:VER as a verifiably accurate "diagram of the multiverse formulation of the Omega Point based upon the below works by Prof. Frank J. Tipler". An anonymous artist granting copyright is not a reliable source for information regarding Tipler's theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, based upon that standard, virtually every diagram on Wikipedia would have to be removed. Nor is that diagram WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, since everything in that diagram can be found in Tipler's works.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the diagram is that it consists mostly of text. This isn't good practice. We could keep the diagram, but we need to crop it, and extract the text, putting it alongside the diagram as caption/legend. After all, the point of the wiki is that we can debate and tweak the precise wording of each portion of text, and this isn't possible if an entire paragraph is hardwired into an image. It's also a bad idea for layout reasons, the text isn't even readable when the image is thumbnailed. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My biggest objection to the diagram is WP:OR, in that it's one editor's interpretation of Tipler's theory, and it omits some of the more eccentric religious elements found in similar diagrams published by Tipler. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

LuckyLouie deleted "The Omega Point and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything" subsection

LuckyLouie deleted "The Omega Point and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything" subsection without giving a relevant explanation in edit summaries.

In the edit summaries, LuckyLouie states "rem. OR, Feynman does not mention Tipler". That reference concerned Feynman giving the quantum gravity Lagrangian that Tipler maintains is the correct quantum gravity theory.

In another edit summary, LuckyLouie states "rem. OR cited to Tipler, Tipler's papers, and Tipler's books". This edit summary doesn't make sense even on its own terms. Everything claimed in that section can be found in Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper. There is a quote from Tipler's 2007 book, but that is merely a summary of what can be found in his 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper.

In the last edit summary, LuckyLouie states "rem. puffery, award has nothing to do with Omega Point theory". Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper concerns his Omega Point Theory, which he maintains in that paper is required by the known laws of physics and the Feynman-Weinberg-DeWitt theory of quantum gravity which Tipler maintains in said paper is the correct quantum gravity theory.

So each of the reasons that LuckyLouie states in his edit summaries for deleting this section are found to be factually incorrect, nor has LuckyLouie cited any Wikipedia policy to justify his edits, other than incorrectly citing "OR", which doesn't apply.

Therefore, I am going to add this section back.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

LuckyLouie has again deleted the section with the edit summaries of "Need secondary source for 'In his 2005 paper Tipler maintains...' analysis" and "rem. per WP:OR, we need secondary source for this analysis)".

Wikipedia allows primary sources, but that's not even relevant to LuckyLouie's edits. Nor are Prof. Tipler's papers primary sources: rather, they are secondary sources. According to WP:No Original Research, all of Tipler's peer-reviewed papers qualify as secondary sources, since he is not an experimental physicists reporting experimental results, but instead is a theoretical physicist publishing well-formed physical theories on the implications of the known laws of physics which are based upon thousands of prior experimental findings. To quote note No. 5 from WP:No Original Research, which is a quote from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." So by Wikipedia policy's definition of primary and secondary sources, Tipler's peer-reviewed papers are all secondary sources.

Hence, no original research is contained in this section, since experimental results from journal papers are not being referenced in order to synthesize a novel theory, of which theory has not itself been published in a reliable source. Rather, every claim in that section is contained in Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics Paper, and the quote from Tipler's 2007 book simply summarizes one aspect of what is in said 2005 paper.

And of course, Tipler's 2007 book is a also secondary source.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have previously explained why these edits were needed per our WP:NOR policy as well as WP:PSTS. If you disagree with these policies, I suggest that you involve the community at Reliable Sources Noticeboard by seeking opinions that may clarify their application at this particular article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to explain how your edits conform to Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia allows primary sources, but that's not even relevant to your edits. Nor are Prof. Tipler's papers primary sources: rather, they are secondary sources. According to WP:No Original Research, all of Tipler's peer-reviewed papers qualify as secondary sources, since he is not an experimental physicists reporting experimental results, but instead is a theoretical physicist publishing well-formed physical theories on the implications of the known laws of physics which are based upon thousands of prior experimental findings. To quote note No. 5 from WP:No Original Research, which is a quote from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." So by Wikipedia policy's definition of primary and secondary sources, Tipler's peer-reviewed papers are all secondary sources.

Hence, no original research is contained in this section, since experimental results from journal papers are not being referenced in order to synthesize a novel theory, of which theory has not itself been published in a reliable source. Rather, every claim in that section is contained in Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics Paper, and the quote from Tipler's 2007 book simply summarizes one aspect of what is in said 2005 paper.

And of course, Tipler's 2007 book is a also secondary source.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: Jamiemichelle, your post above appears to be simply a copy of your previous post - or am I missing something? TFOWR 19:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not simply a copy of my previous post. It contains a lot that was in that previous post, of which LuckyLouie didn't actually address. And, of course, everything said therein still applies.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any difference. The first paragraph differs in each post, slightly. The (long) second and third paragraphs are identical. You just seem to be filling up the talk page, without saying anything new. That's not helpful.

While you're here, it would be helpful if you could avoid doing this: you know by now that editing while logged out is regarded with suspicion; you should also know that such suspicion is due to a concern that you are attempting to create an illusion of support for your views.

TFOWR 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The matter I addressed in my above posts was that LuckyLouie's edits violate Wikipedia policy, and LuckyLouie didn't actually address that.

71.237.141.241 isn't my I.P. address. The I.P. address that I have now is 71.0.146.150. 71.237.141.241's edits were not mine.

I fail to see how "it would be helpful if [I] could avoid doing this" if I didn't do it. It would be helpful if Wikipedia policy were followed regarding this article, but that is unlikely to occur.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, the IP closely resembled the ones you've used in the past.

It's difficult to see how to convince you that Wikipedia's policies are being followed. There was a near-consensus here that the article should be tagged. You disagreed. I took the issue to WP:FTN. They agreed with the tagging. Since then you've been attacking the FTN editor who's come to sort out the article. Your interpretation of policy does not trump everyone else's interpretation of policy. I'd suggest asking at a relevant noticeboard - but we've done that. If you still want to argue the toss I'd suggest Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Copy-and-pasting the same text over and over to a talkpage isn't going to work, however. TFOWR 00:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't address LuckyLouie's deletion of this subsection, which clearly violates Wikipedia policy, as I detail above.

But at this stage it doesn't matter. Wikipedia policy clearly doesn't matter, and I'm not going to get upset that it doesn't. I'm just looking on with amusement.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I can only assume that no other editor agreed with your view that LuckyLouie was violating policy. Certainly, you appear to be the only editor who objected. TFOWR 00:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, 2+2 = 5, if enough people say it does.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiality. There are websites that don't work that way though, the entry for OPT at Conservapedia is sorely lacking in detail and the one at everything2 lacks any sympathetic entry at all. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to throw the fact I brought up in my face. Believe me, I find these proceedings amusing. The idea of truth by fiat--or might makes right--humors me. So Tipler never published in one of the world's leading physics journals regarding the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE). Nor did it receive praises from the international referees and editors. Fine, it never happened. After all, might makes right. So it never happened.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, its Verifiability, plus Consensus, that counts; the Truth doesn't matter. Directly quoting you, "Ah, yes, 2+2 = 5, if enough people say it does". :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

the interface between humans and facts is language, and language is pure magic. If enough people insist that 2+2=5, this will just mean that the definition of "2", or of "+", or of "=", or of "5", or of any subset of these, will subtly shift to accommodate this as a sensible fact, within less than a generation or two, not necessarily but quite likely involving religious revelation. --dab (𒁳) 13:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage behaviour and WP:DISPUTE

I have read through this entire wiki discussion page, and I just want to say that I think its pathetic the way you all have been treating Jamiemichelle. You have all ganged up on this user, and I can't see where anyone has bothered to look into the violations that have been made by your little "gang" but everyone is analyzing Jamiemichelle's posts for violations. I came here to learn about the Omega Point Theory, but the only thing the article tells me is that Frank Tipler thought it up and some people have said he's crazy. The article is completely unhelpful, and it was clear in reading it that there was a group of people who so disliked the topic (for whatever reason) that the article is now just a platform for denigrating the Omega Point Theory (without bothering to actually explain what it is.

I still don't know what Omega Point Theory is, and I thought by coming to the discussion page I might find someone else who had questioned why the article is written the way it is. Instead I found about 5 to 6 editors bashing Jamiemichelle which is a shame because Jamiemichelle seems to be the only person who actually knows what the Omega Point Theory is really about.

I don't know about Omega Point Theory, and I'll be using another website to learn about it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.156.133.10 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

perhaps, if you are really interested, you should read Tipler's book? Just a suggestion, after all, he made it up, so his explanation is right by definition.

That's just if you are not interested whether the theory has made sense to anyone besides Tipler, or what other people's reaction was.

the short version is that this is one author's attempt to reconcile religion and science, and that he is using quantum mechanics as a deus ex machina for the feat. This is a respectable line of argument, on the face of it, but it isn't physics, it's metaphysics. The problems begin when people try to sell metaphysics as physics. This is also why the original omega point by Teilhard de Chardin (who inspired Tipler, but who didn't try to involve quantum mechanics) wasn't pseudoscience, while Tipler's idea is: Teilhard didn't try to pass off his ideas as anything other than metaphysics.

for this reason, it is also very unfair on Teilhard to treat Tipler's stuff as just another version of his original idea. --dab (𒁳) 13:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem here, as I saw it, was that it's not always obvious whether consensus is correct. Several editors disagreed with Jamiemichelle; I had to give Jamiemichelle the benefit of the doubt and assume that their position might be backed by policy. With that in mind, I persued WP:DISPUTE: specifically, I posted at the board best placed to resolve the dispute. They agreed with the consensus position here. So "ganging up" on a user? I "ganged up" so badly that Jamiemichelle tried (above) to suggest that I supported their position. The real problem here seems to have been a serious case of WP:OWN and latterly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. With some casual attacking of an FTN regular thrown in. TFOWR 14:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)