Talk:Lindblad resonance

Resonance or resonances

In the article you refer to, Orbital resonance, the title is in the singular because it deals with the process. The subheading "Types of resonance" is also singular for the same reason. The subheading further down "Mean motion resonances in the Solar System" lists a set of occurrences of Mean motion resonance in the solar system and if written properly should be "Occurrences of mean motion resonance in the Solar System" - frankly, as it appears it is excruciatingly bad grammar and should be changed, but a case could be made for using the plural since it refers to a plural notion. However, as I pointed out in my edit summary, one does not talk of hydrogen "fusions" driving the energy output from the Sun, despite the fact that any number of hydrogen nuclei are involved in the process. Feel free to consult others on the point, but please don't revert without a discussion that reaches some sort of consensus. Androstachys (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed the part where you cited a reference of any kind in support of your view. You note that other WP articles do not support your view, and then make the unsupported claim that they are wrong also (not that WP is a reliable source anyway). For an actual textbook used in the field, look at the Murray and Dermott reference that I recently restored to the page. I can give other examples if you require them. Your analogy with "fusion" is not an appropriate one. When one speaks of "fusion" one is speaking of the general process. One could also speak of "resonance" if one were speaking of the general process. But when one is speaking of an individual manifestation of the process, one speaks in the singular, because only one particular Lindblad resonance can act on a particular particle at a particular time (that is, for example, a particle in a 5:4 Lindblad resonance cannot simultaneously be in any other Lindblad resonance). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The world of science has never won any Nobel Literary awards for their abuse of basic English grammar. Even WP is guilty of poor use of language and continues to cherish mistakes. An example that springs to mind is the word "media", which is the plural of "medium". When referring to an image, WP templates repeatedly write "this media" which must make the toenails curl of every editor who understands basic English. That is why I don't cite references to support the proper use of singulars and plurals - for that one will need to go back to an elementary grammar textbook. Androstachys (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to fix "mistakes" made by reliable sources. I am reverting the changes now. If you come up with relaible sources to support your view, we can talk again in this space about changing it back. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not my job to teach you basic English - find consensus for your view before you revert. Androstachys (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for a third opinion at WP:3O. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Your Third Opinion Request

Hello. This is a response to your recent request for a third opinion. The opinion offered here is not one that has any authority greater or more special than any participant's opinion here; it should not be considered a tiebreaker and does not count towards creating a sense of consensus; its purpose is merely to offer a fresh opinion from someone new to the situation.

Opinion. It appears that there's two questions at play here: one of whether common scientific usage refers to the singular or plural, and one regarding whether correct grammar should supercede common usage by a reliable source. To the former issue, I have no idea. I'd suggest frankly that comparing sources here would be the best way to solve that issue: if the plural is the more common scientific usage, offer a few sources to back up said point. If the singular is, same. Right now, it just seems a peeing contest between the two of you, and that offers no concrete latchhold to move past the personal disagreement. As to the latter, it's an interesting theoretical question: if common usage is not grammatically correct, should Wikipedia reflect the most common usage or the most correct usage? Is it "original research" if our own belief as to what is grammatically correct takes a counterposition to common usage of terms? My own leaning is that Wikipedia tends away from "common" and towards "correct", given the vast bevy of regulations we levy to filter, delete, and prune material people would have us store, but if that's truly the difference of opinion at play, the theory might merit a larger-scale sounding out. Finally, having read each of your opinions, you're both being very nasty to each other, especially you, Androstachys, with your "not my job" comment. Incivility only works against the process of dispute resolution, so I encourage you both to be kinder to each other. Anyway, that's my 2¢.

Next up. If there are any questions you have that are specific to this particular opinion, I am happy to answer them; please alert me to the need for further follow-up by clicking here to leave me a note on my talk page, as I may not have this page on my watchlist. I will then post the requested follow-up here on this page. (This is done this way to avoid ex parte discussions.)

However, as the third-opinion process is not a mediation process, if you find the opinion below is insufficient to resolve the situation, you should proceed to a request for comment, wikiquette alert, noticeboard post, WikiProject post, or other dispute resolution process for further assistance. WCityMike 21:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution: Talk ⇨ Editor assistance ⇨ Third opinion ⇨ Request for comment ⇨ Wikiquette ⇨ Mediation (informal) ⇨ Mediation (formal) ⇨ Arbitration

Resonances is fine As a physicist. I can confirm that the use of resonances is commonplace in physics. I am sure many examples in reliable sources can be found if required. By the way, do we need such complex formatting here. It is not easy to leave comments in the right place. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Thanks for taking the time to comment here. You say that we need to offer sources in order to "move past our personal disagreement", but I would humbly suggest that I have already done this in the exchange above. My view of the exchange is that I have offered evidence of the way the term is used by the professional community, and have offered to give further references upon request, while Androstachys has responded by saying the sources don't matter because he quite simply is right.

Also, regarding your inclusion of myself in your admonishment for "nastiness", I can only see a possible problem with the first sentence of my first post on this page, which admittedly is a bit sarcastic. You may not have realized that that was not the beginning of the conversation, which had previously taken place in edit summaries (here, here and here). This may or may not change your view on the civility question. Thanks again, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm leaving this response in reply to a message recently left on my talk page. (This reply is admittedly a canned one, since this particular reply is needed often.)

The purpose of a third opinion is to provide a single third opinion from an objective outsider who has no investment in an existing disagreement between two users -- not for the person providing the third opinion to then become enmeshed in the argument. The purpose of a third opinion is not to provide a mediation process wherein the outsider listens to ongoing evidence and renders a final judgment. Mediation -- both formal and informal -- is available on Wikipedia (see below), but not from the third-opinion process. I feel that what I wrote provided an adequate-enough third opinion and that to reply further as requested would not serve to clarify my opinion but would serve to unduly enmesh me in the disagreement at hand.

If my third opinion has proven insufficient to enable the disagreement to now be resolved between and by the disagreeing parties, then I suggest you proceed further into the dispute resolution process. Your options include a request for comment, noticeboard post, WikiProject post, wikiquette alert, or a request for either informal or formal mediation. Each of the links in that sentence should take you to a place where you can begin said process, although I suggest you begin small and work upwards.

If, despite this response and despite the limited role of a third-opinion provider, you feel further assistance is still needed, please feel free to contact me. WCityMike 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okaaay. Here is what I'm taking from WCityMike's contribution: 1) We need to work harder on being civil. 2) Appealing to reliable sources is the only way to proceed when there is a dispute.

I have already cited sources (including the Murray and Dermott textbook), and can offer more if needed. I think the onus is on anyone who wants to contradict the sources to find consensus to do so. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to this: No, the version that has been supported with sources should be the baseline unless there is a consensus to ignore the sources. As I see it, Androstachys has steadfastly refused to cite any support for his view, other than his own opinion. If you want to further waste everyone's time with an RFC, that's your prerogative. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

None so blind as those who will not see - If you read my comments you will note that I am of the opinion that the article is in line with common English usage. To state that I have 'steadfastly refused to cite any support' for my view is a blatant misrepresentation of the matter. WCityMike suggested that the next step should be an RFC, so please do that and leave the article as I wrote it until there is consensus. Androstachys (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And in your complaint about my statement that you refuse to cite support, you again failed to cite any support except for your opinion about proper usage. You also reverted the page again, without consensus. But even with the page in the wrong version, someone has got to stop the edit war, and that will be me. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added an RFC in the Science category, since the locus of the dispute has much to do with how the word is actually used among scientists. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are certain nouns in English that do not sit comfortably with a plural - just a few such, from a vast list, are maintenance, prurience, severance, radiance, clairvoyance, ambience. Plurals are not in common use in such cases. There are many physics articles on WP that deal with resonance - see Nuclear magnetic resonance, Nuclear quadrupole resonance, Solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance - and I have not found any mention of 'resonances' in these. Androstachys (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary lists "resonance" as both countable and uncountable, and lists the plural "resonances". The fact is that professionals in the orbital dynamics community (a group that includes myself) commonly use "resonance" as a countable noun, and use the plural to refer to multiple manifestations of the phenomenon. As I've said before, the textbook Solar System Dynamics by Murray and Dermott (1999) is just one reliable source that can be consulted to verify this. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that being professional entitles one to ignore proper English usage. WP, as you've noted, is not a good reference source. Looking up the word 'media' I find

• media (plural medias) (hair-raising stuff)

1. Formats for presenting information.
Collage is a form of mixed-media artwork.
2. (with a definite article) The journalists and other professionals who compose the mass communication industry.
3. Plural form of medium.
Don't you think it confusing that a word is its own plural and singular? The real issue here is whether WP will try to encourage good grammar or whether it will sanction poor usage by publishing it without comment. Do look up the word 'mumpsimus'. Androstachys (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to consider that astronomers will use language in the way that best describes what they are trying to describe. Sometimes this may require linguistic innovation. If Wikipedia goes around "correcting" what it considers to be mistakes in reliable sources, there will eventually be no standard of verifiability.

Fine. Forget I mentioned Wiktionary. Let's try the Oxford English Dictionary. Among several other occurrences of the plural "resonances" in this entry, the most relevant is this:

4. c. Astron. The circumstance or phenomenon of the periods of revolution or rotation of two or more celestial objects (orbiting the same primary) having values in the ratio of small whole numbers (exactly or approximately).

1913 Science 17 Oct. 554/2 One visible example of this is the gaps in Saturn's rings. These are due to satellite resonance. 1928 Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 34 283 The millions of ‘stones’ or ‘rocks’ which must constitute those rings revolve round Saturn and resonances are caused by the action of its larger satellites. 1982 F. H. SHU Physical Universe xviii. 469/2 Let us focus on the strongest resonance where the orbital period of a test particle (asteroid or ring particle) is 1/2 that of the perturber (Jupiter or Mimas). 2007 Sci. Amer. (U.K. ed.) Jan. 24/1 Jupiter and Neptune also maintain their own families of asteroids..in special orbits known as stable resonances, where an orbital synchrony prevents collisions with the planets.

Finally, regarding your "mumpsimus" crack, if you engage in one more personal attack, I will report your behavior. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

1. My Oxford English Dictionary (1993) makes no mention of a plural and under "resonance" lists 'Astron. The occurrence of a simple ratio between the periods of revolution of two bodies about a single primary'. Is it possible that you are misquoting?
2. What percentage of astronomers use the word "resonances" and is this innovation or is it misuse rooted in simple ignorance of proper grammatic use?
3. Rather than making inappropriate threats have you even bothered looking up the word "mumpsimus"? Androstachys (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

1. The above was pasted directly from the OED website.

2. All dynamical astronomers are familiar with the usage of "resonance" as a countable noun meaning a particular manifestation of the phenomenon. It's not a matter of grammar, but of the meaning of the word. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly is a matter of grammar gone wrong and being familiar with a particular usage is not the same as condoning it. Androstachys (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know regarding "resonance" in particular, but in regards to linguistics, language evolve and if everything where to be "Grammatically correct" language would not evolve and we would be all writing and speaking the same language we did 1000, 2000, 3000 years ago. But on the other hand, I do support that "resonance" dose not sound well in plural with "resonances", I'm not even sure if you can count it? Thor erik ^{(talk|contrib)} 07:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary and source say Resonances

A look at the dictionary clearly allows the plural of the word in the context of physics:

• "the enhancement of an atomic, nuclear, or particle reaction " => allows plural form resonances.
• "The increase in amplitude of oscillation of an electric or mechanical system " => allows plural form resonances.
• "A subatomic particle lasting too short a time to be observed directly" => allows plural form resonances.
• "Intensification and prolongation of sound" => allows plural form resonances.
• "The sound produced by diagnostic percussion" => allows plural form resonances.
• "Oscillation induced in a physical system when it is affected by another system that is itself oscillating at the right frequency." => allows plural form resonances.
• etc..

A look at the source (see here) does the rest. Resonance is a noun, and defined in a way that the plural can be used.

This should settle it. Androstachys, let's respect the source and the dictionary, and let's drop this now. I have reverted to the resonances-version. Let's keep it that way. DVdm (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The dictionary you refer to does NOT mention any plurals. In all the cases you list above you have assumed that because the concept exists in the singular a plural is allowed. This assumption is unwarranted and I suggest we consult linguists on the matter. Until then I am reverting the changes. cheers Androstachys (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That the dictionary does not mention any plurals is of no importance. If resonanse is, for instance, "a subatomic particle lasting too short a time to be observed directly", then in case many such particles exist, we can speek of resonances, as is done in the literature. Likewise, in the current case, a resonance is an "oscillation induced in a physical system", so, when many such oscillations are induced, as is indeed the case, then we speak of resonances, as does indeed the source, and as does the article Orbital resonance, which is mentioned in the first defining line of the lead. An example in The Physics of Astrophysics: Gas dynamics: "These are called the outer and inner Linblad resonances (abbreviated OLR and ILR), and they occar at radii...". The entire technical literature shows that you are wrong: see here, here, here and here. Please drop the wp:STICK, and watch out for WP:3RR. DVdm (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As the article wasn't really properly sourced, I have added 4 relevant and easily verifiable book citations -- which, by the way, all extensively use the plural "resonances". Feel free to add more. You can use the google scholar and book searches of my previous comment. DVdm (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This entire matter is rooted in whether technical people have an adequate grasp of language, so that citing common usage in the papers they write does not really matter - see WCityMike's comment higher up if common usage is not grammatically correct, should Wikipedia reflect the most common usage or the most correct usage? Is it "original research" if our own belief as to what is grammatically correct takes a counterposition to common usage of terms? My own leaning is that Wikipedia tends away from "common" and towards "correct". This is why I feel that this is a matter for WP linguists to sort out and I suggest that we leave the article alone until then. cheers Androstachys (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's simple really: the common usage can be overwhelmingly found here, here, here and here, which de-facto establishes the correctness of "resonances". Any linguist will confirm that. Besides, changing this would be WP:SYNTH. Note that I have also made a little change to the "parent article" Orbital resonance. Surely you don't mind our being consequent here. Of course you are free to leave the article alone if you like. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already stated above that common usage is not the same as being correct. Let me say again: technical people are not known for their grasp of grammar. This matter should be resolved by the linguists whom you claim to know intimately - "Any linguist will confirm that" - so let's get their confirmation and leave the article as it started until then. cheers Androstachys (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please drop the wp:stick - you are wrong. DVdm (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The lack of logic displayed here is astounding. I can cite any number of references supporting flying saucers or dismissing continental drift. The existence of such sources proves nothing except possibly that such authors are in dire need of psychiatric help. What you are proposing and supporting is the novel notion that citing a sufficient number of sources displaying incorrect grammar usage gives the incorrect form credibility. Do you really believe this? Androstachys (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Androstachys, I appreciate and support your stand against poor English in WP but there are some points you need to consider in this case.

You have not provided any sources which actually say that 'resonances' is incorrect.

Technical usage of normal English words is normal and universally accepted. For example, 'energy', 'action', 'pressure', and many other normal English words all have well-defined technical definitions. To say, ' a child has a lot of energy' or 'let us see some action' in a physics book is pointless. On the other hand, in physics, we can talk about 'least action'.

So it is with resonance. There is a long and well established use of the plural 'resonances' in many technical fields such acoustics, high-energy physics, and planetary orbits. This is a technical article and therefore such technical usage is fully justified. You can object to 'resonances' in non-technical writing if you wish but here it is perfectly in order. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that though the word "resonances" could be considered a grammatic abomination, it is acceptable in the pages of WP since any number of references supporting its use may be found in technical papers. Any formerly accepted rules of grammar must accordingly always bend before the greater force of published common usage, and WP should not attempt to set or maintain any linguistic standards. Androstachys (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have the basic idea, but I would phrase it thus: "Wikipedia values clear and accurate communication over the enforcement of 'rules' invented by individual editors." -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A sense of knowing what is allowable in English, is not 'invented', but comes after a lifetime of speaking the language. Androstachys (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I would repeat to Androstachys that you have yet to provide any reference to a rule which says that 'resonances' is incorrect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be more illuminating to ask "what percentage of papers dealing with the phenomenon of resonance, does not use the word 'resonances'?". Androstachys (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Make that "what percentage of papers dealing with the phenomenon of orbital resonance and/or the phenomenon of Lindblad resonance". I think that would be interesting indeed.

By the way, earlier you said: "This is why I feel that this is a matter for WP linguists to sort out and I suggest that we leave the article alone until then." You went to the language reference desk (archived here now) to ask for some linguistic advice. None of the responses you got supported your view. Don't you think we should move on now? DVdm (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read the responses carefully you'll become aware that the reaction was mixed. As for how many linguists took part in the discussion, I don't know. I for one would not pose as a linguist - would you? And as for 'moving on', nothing obliges you to continue contributing. cheers Androstachys (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your stand against bad English. Like you, I hate to hear about new cul ar power and the letter 'haitch', however, language does evolve and I believe that there are different reasons for this, some good, some not. Those changes born of ignorance should be resisted but some changes are brought about by subtle changes of meaning which require new words or constructions to be used. 'Resonances' is one such case. The word 'resonance' originally came from the Latin 'resare' meaning 'to resound'. It was originally used to describe a quality of rooms and voices and consequently the plural would have had no meaning. Later on, the physical phenomenon of resonance became better understood physically and mathematically. The term 'resonance' became expanded to mean, 'a sound produced by a body vibrating in sympathy with a neighbouring source of sound'. In this respect it might refer to the way that part of a guitar might vibrate in sympathy when a string is played. This might be called 'a resonance'. For a good sounding instrument there might be several parts of the structure that vibrate in sympathy with the string or strings when they are played. It is hard to find a way of describing this phenomenon in English in a way that makes it obvious what is meant without using the plural 'resonances'. 'several instances of resonance' is subtly different in meaning, suggesting that the resonant events occurred at different times. By the time you get to the awkward 'Several simultaneous instances of resonance' it must be worth considering allowing the plural of a word which describes the situation succinctly. 'Resonances' is used because it describes something that cannot be easily described any other way. This is the way language should develop. As new concepts arise, new words, or new usages of old words, arise to describe them.

You clearly have an ear for bad English but in this case it has lead you astray. I suggest that your talents would be better put to use elsewhere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Incivility

Hello, Androstachys. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop pushing you point on Lindblad resonance. Two contributors have given a "third opinion". The technical literature is against your point of view. Please stop this. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As a note for the record, the above two items were reposted by Androstachys from his talk page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Locked

For 3 days. There is clearly a slow burn edit war going on here. Please discuss and reach a consensus. If you need external input try an article RFC. If you reach a conclusion before the protection expires feel free to request an unlock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This seems to be a good idea. We already have some input on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Resonances??. DVdm (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether this is a good idea or not is moot - the locking is certainly precipitate. Androstachys (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles usually get locked to prevent users from getting blocked. I.m.o. that's a good thing, although invariably one of the parties will feel that the locking administrator fixed the article to what we call m:The Wrong Version. DVdm (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your incident-rich talk page and considering your excellent relations with me, I can see why you think that way. Androstachys (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The input on the reference desk is now closed and archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 June 1#Resonances??. It looks like there was no support for Androstachys' viewpoint. DVdm (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Really DVdm! What an inaccurate summary! Do read the posts more carefully and avoid the temptation to play chairman of the discussion. Androstachys (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)