Talk:Redshift quantization

Citations required

• "In particular, many opponents of the Big Bang from Halton Arp to creationists to geocentrists have referred to such observations as reason to reject the standard account of the origin and evolution of the universe."‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

This requires three citations, one each referring to (a) Halton Arp (b) Creationists (c) Geocentrists, each specifying that redshift quantization is their reason to reject the standard account, etc.

• "Tifft's proposals are relatively unknown even among professionals." ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

• "Of the small number of instances known where independent corroboration of the phenomenon has been attempted, there has been no evidence for quantization of redshifts."‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

This appears to be contradicted by the two studies, now mentioned in background. --Iantresman 09:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Current observations and models of large-scale structure models trace filamentary superclusters and voids that cause most galaxies in a rough statistical sense to have correlated positions, but such groupings do not have the characteristics suggested by Tifft and his enthusiasts." ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Again, we need a verifiable statement that directly addresses Tifft's observations.

Don't be a dick

Ian, the article is under development. Don't be a dick and remove quotes when you can tag them with the uncited point. --ScienceApologist 11:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They weren't quotes, they were statements, and until they are verified, they are your own personal point of view. --Iantresman 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove them, as the article is still under development. --ScienceApologist 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

SA just reverted most of the changes I had made in the intro. Why is not entirely clear, but he apparently thinks they are POV. Some examples:

• I explain what redshift quantization is about in the first paragraph and give the historical summary in the second paragraph. SA mixes them.
• I write: Since there is a correlation of distance and redshift as expressed in Hubble's Law. SA writes: Since Hubble's Law predicts redshift as an indicator of distance. Hubble's Law is simply the observation of a correlation. Predicts sounds like there something more and complicated behind it.
• I write: either of which would have serious implications for various standard cosmological models and alternative cosmological models. SA writes: Those who claim quantized redshift exist claim it to have implications for various standard cosmological models and alternative cosmological models. My formulation is less awkward and, I insist, accurate.

I think my version of the intro is better. --Art Carlson 13:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I think that it is important to note that this is a peculiar idea promoted by one individual for about 20 years before two catastrophists picked it up.

To make that part of the history clear would require another sentence, which perhaps should not be the third sentence in the article. --Art Carlson 14:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that including Tifft makes the definition understandable as a minority viewpoint. --ScienceApologist 18:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• • The issue is that the prediction of Hubble's Law is what most who support the claimed observations insist on. It isn't simply the correlation but it is the acceptance of the law as observational fact that riles the anti-bangers.

I'd rather not get into what riles whom and what conclusions various parties draw. The correlation is all that matters here. How about this: Since Hubble's Law establishes redshift as an indicator of distance? The word "indicator" already implies that the relation may not be hard and fast. --Art Carlson 14:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A little better, but we need to be clear that quantizations of redshifts have no implications on the redshift-distance relation unless you assume that redshift is not a predictor of distance and that distances cannot be quantized. --ScienceApologist 18:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't think that quantization of redshift necessarily must have implications -- but this is subject to interpretation, I agree.

You would have to give up something dear to your heart, although I'm not sure whether I would rather let go of the redshift-velocity relation or the cosmological principle. --Art Carlson 14:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement starts from a strong premise and leads us to weak premises. So let's report exactly what the implications are rather than making vague pronouncements. --ScienceApologist 18:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

--ScienceApologist 13:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• What is this with catastrophists and creationists? This is an ad hominem argument. Ideas do not stand and fall on who supports them.

It's a fact, though, that the people most in love with quantized redshifts are catastrophists and creationists. An ad hominem description is perfectly legitimate. --ScienceApologist 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hubbles Law does not establish redshift as an indicator of distance, not does it predict it. It's a statement [1], and a hypothesis at best; in this respect it is no different from the quantized redshift observation.

In one fell-swoop, Ian reveals his sore lack of education in these subjects. One wonders why he continues to editorialize like this. It makes him look really silly. --ScienceApologist 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I said in my original draft of the introduction that "Quantized redshifts may have implications for various standard cosmological models and alternative cosmological models." Do you want citations?

No, I want a statement that actually conveys some information to the reader. --ScienceApologist 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

--Iantresman 15:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

New revision

I've taken a deep breath and jumped back in to editting this article. I tried to accomodate the very reasonable ideas of Art Carlson in order to get at a better and more understandable article. I still think there is a problem with the article that it isn't clear from that get-go that this "issue" isn't really considered problematic or existent by most cosmologists (especialy with regards to the end of greatness), but we need to have some place to start. I've made a few tweaks that may seem superficial to some of the less hot-under-the-collar editors, but they truly make me feel better about what the reader will be experiencing when they read this article.

So, let's start-over and begin anew with new comments about what we need to discuss on this page.

By the way, the reason that creationists are relevant is because something like a full 90% of the references that are made to redshift quantization come from creationists sources. Of course, these references are outside the scientific journals, but I imagine many readers coming here will be coming after reading about this subject in such a tract. Acknowledging this idea's support among creationists makes sense to this end -- especialy because it proceeds in a positive fashion rather than a detracting fashion. --ScienceApologist 19:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Creationists are mistaken if they think that Quantized Doppler redshift means we are at the center. That would only be true if Doppler redshift and quantized redshift BOTH are true. What is true from the scientific view is that quantized redshift means Doppler redshift is not true. I think ScienceApologist is merely trying to distract attention away from the obvious conclusion. 205.188.117.6 23

13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that creationists are mistaken. However, their views are verifiable and significant enough to this subject to be mentioned in the article since most popular understanding of this subject comes from creationist literature. Alternatively, it's extremely obscure. --12:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes, and have some comments on the following:

• "After a brief flurry of interest, the consensus in the astronomical community became that any quantization was either coincidental or due to so-called geometrical effects" ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

I see a couple of peer reviewed papers, which does not make a consensus, and is significantly short of the number of papers in support of, or neutral, on redshift quantitization.

The notability of such papers and the researchers who wrote them far exceeds that of the anti-Bangers. You're going to have to come to terms with that. The scientific community is meritocratic, not democratic. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Current observations and models of large-scale structure models trace filamentary superclusters and voids that cause most galaxies in a rough statistical sense to have correlated positions, but such groupings would not allow for a strength of periodicity required if it were a hallmark characteristic of the redshifts of galaxies." ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

This reads as if fact, but needs to be based on a peer reviewed citations that mentions redshift quantizations; otherwise it's original research.

Actually, they don't have to mention quantizations since the predictions and comparisons are easy to make, but it's fine to ask for a reference to this point. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• "As such with exceedingly few exceptions, modern cosmology researchers have suggested that redshift quantizations are manifestations of well-understood phenomena,"

It appears that the "modern cosmology researchers" are in an even smaller minority. How shall we describe smaller than "exceedingly few"?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Note that when describing an extreme fringe viewpoint such as this, there often are not a whole lot of mainstream scientists clamboring to disprove what they view as crankism. That does not mean we cannot report on the fact that no one takes them seriously. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

--Iantresman 20:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with every one of your replies. One set of standards for mainstream, and another set of standards for non-mainstream. I reject your opinion that your views are more notable, more reputable, and less cranky. If you can't verify it, it doesn't get in... that's policy. --Iantresman 23:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't hide behind policy, Ian. We're here to write an article for the benefit of readers. If you have a problem specifically with one of my points because it causes confusion for the reader, let me know what it is. --ScienceApologist 00:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Good articles can be written for the reader both conforming to policy, and contravening policy. Some policies such as Neutral point of view, are "absolute and non-negotiable" [2]. If you wantto call that "hiding behind policy", then I'm fine with that, and I am happy to write for the reader, as long as we don't contravene policy.

To re-iterate, I have problems with the points I mentioned above for the reasons I gave, which I believe is providing a distorted (biased) view to readers. That is not in the readers' interest. --Iantresman 08:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to each of your points. I await your thoughtful reply. --ScienceApologist 12:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We need citations first, so that we can edit the appropriate wording. The statements must be based on some origial source. --Iantresman 12:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to get citations. Coming up in the next few days. --ScienceApologist 12:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Text that was removed

I removed the table as it suffers from typical shoddy research on the part of Ian. In particular, the relevance to the above discussion a few quick searches on a search engine is not made clear.

The following paragraph is removed to here for discussion:

""Discretized structure" in clusters of galaxies" was noted by Dominic Edelen in 1963, and subsequently Albert Wilison reported "an observed regularity in the mean red shifts of clusters of galaxies which appears unlikely for randomly distributed clusters"."

THe issue I have with this paragraph is that these are fundamentally different assertions from the redshift quantization asserted by Tifft. The first paper isn't about redshifts at all and the second paper regards a regularity of form that is not the same as Tifft's "banding". What Wilson suggests is that there is a granuality to galaxy/cluster positions -- something that is understood today as due to the bumps and wiggles seen in the CMB and in the power spectrum. This is different from Tifft's assurances and it is somewhat novel to connect the two in this way. --ScienceApologist 13:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• As usual, editing with a steamroller, rather than the finesse of an editor. This article is NOT about Tifft's redshift quantization observations. It is about "redshift quantization" of which Tifft was one of the first people to make such observations.
• That the article goes beyond Tifft's redshift quantisation is clear from the statement that YOU ADDED "cosmologists dispute the existence of redshift quantization beyond a minimal trace due to galaxy clustering."
• It was YOU who brought in clustering, so to remove the references along with the rest of the table, is throwing your baby out with the bathwater. If it was shoddy research, then you shouldn't have included in the first place.
• That all the phenomena mentioned in the table are EXACTLY the same as Tifft's redshift quantization I doubt very much; that some ARE the same, there is no doubt, that some are due to galaxy clustering there is no doubt. For the rest, that is NOT for you and I to decide as anonymous unaccountable editors... that's something the reader can decide.
• What's the difference between the phenomena? That's what an editor contributes, an EXPLANATION, a DESCRIPTION, a COMPARISON.
• I am actually delighted that you included galaxy clustering in the article; the reader can learn something, find out WHY it is different from Tifft's "redshift quantisation".
• Your explanation of Wilison's paper is fine, that's exactly the sort of thing we should be including in the article, along with the other phenomena mentioned in the table. But it is NOT "something that is understood today", it is one of many theory, with perhaps more support than others, so to present it as a truth is shoddy science indeed.

--Iantresman 14:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

References

Uncited statement removed

"In particular, many opponents of the Big Bang from Halton Arp to creationists to geocentrists have referred to such observations as reason to reject the standard account of the origin and evolution of the universe."

I've now removed this statement, queried in May, if and until verifiable citations can be found to support its incusion. --Iantresman 09:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable citations were easy to find. --ScienceApologist 12:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• You mention "A page devoted to catastrophism" here, but it don't think it is. The Web site Science Frontiers, according to the Home Page, reports on items found in respectable journals "Over 14,000 volumes of science journals, including all issues of Nature and Science have been examined for reports on anomalies.". There is a link from Science Frontiers to a site on Castrophism, but Science Frontiers is not a site catastrophism. So I've removed reference to catastropism, unless you have another reference. --Iantresman 00:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• (1) I've looked at the Answersingenesis review of Arp's book [3], and while I can find some references to "Redshift quantization" and "Arp’s view of the universe? He calls his cosmology ‘Quasi Steady State’", I can find nothing to suggest that Arp uses "Redshift quantization" to reject "the standard account of the origin and evolution." (2) Consequently, the page does not suggest that Creationists use Redshift quantization to reject Big Bang theory. (3) Indeed, the page concludes that "Redshift quantization will doubtless be an important feature of any successful cosmological model.", which is not the same thing as rejecting the standard model. (4) I can also find no indication whether the authors are creationists, whether they represent ALL creationists, whether they represent Answersingenesis, and whether Answersingenesis represents ALL creationist. I think this reference to creationists, and Arp, is looking rather weak. --Iantresman 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite right about the catastrophists. The website is just a clearinghouse of "beyond the mainstream" ideas so catastrophism just comes along for the ride. Good catch. AiG is not the best creationist resource: Barry Setterfield's article serves as a much better resource, but AiG's mention is important because it is a better known creationist organization. --ScienceApologist 01:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that AiG is a creationist site. It's just that I can't find a quote which implies that creationists believe that redshift quantization is used to reject the Big Bang. --Iantresman 08:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any quotes in the references you have provided, that support the statement that:

• Arp, or, Creationists, "have referred to such observations as reason to reject the standard account of the origin and evolution of the universe."

The "best" quote I can find is "Redshift quantization will doubtless be an important feature of any successful cosmological model.", which is not the same thing --Iantresman 10:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Restored See also links

I've restored the See also links on the grounds the both subjects are related to redshift. --Iantresman 17:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not good enough justification. --ScienceApologist 22:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reply is not a good enough justification either --Iantresman 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is related to redshift doesn't mean it belongs in a see also list of this section. --ScienceApologist 09:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar terms

• Can anyone confirm whether "Redshift discretization" is a synonymous term for redshift quantization? See [4] [5] [6] [7][8][9] --Iantresman 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Double standards

ScienceApologist, your bloody double standards is a joke. You remove citable information on the grounds of "not peer reviwed", and yet are content to include material that isn't; and then when I replace it with information that is peer-reviewed, you not only remove that, but claim point-of-view pushing. HYPOCRISY

As a "layman", as you call me, I wouldn't include such dubious sources, and Wikipedia recommends against them. As someone who professes to know something about science, I can't believe that you're prepared to use such shoddy standards. --Iantresman 18:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You are engaging in tit-for-tat editting. To make it clear: it doesn't require peer-review to demonstrate that the major expositors on redshift quantization are as we describe in the first paragraph. However, when we are actually describing the phenomena itself, peer review is definitely a good sign of WP:V. The difference is when we are describing the beliefs about the idea peer review references are a ridiculous standard (because there isn't a peer review source that tries to describe who believes in what even though there are verifiable sources that are not peer reviewed that will do the job) while for describing the actual idea peer review helps us demarcate between respectable opinion and wild speculations. We would never quote what Answers in Genesis has to say about the subject itself, but we may include the fact that they are interested in it. --ScienceApologist 18:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I had already removed the uncited statement previously, so it can't be tit-for-tat. And since you reminded me that using non-peer-reviewed citation is a low standard, I naturally removed it again.

• I wholly reject the idea that creationists and geocentrists have any significance with Redshift quantization. You have TWO unreliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, and ANY respectable scientist's standards. The first reference is to a book review, which says "Redshift quantization will doubtless be an important feature of any successful cosmological model." and that's it! And Barry Setterfield doesn't even mention Creationists in his article.

• So we have 2 or 3 people mentioning Redshift quantization, from which you deduce that nearly all Creationists and geocentrists have jumped on the "Redshift quantization" bandwaggon. That is why there are no "peer review sources that tries to describe who believes in what"... because it is not verified, unless you have survey?

• If Barry Setterfield turns out to be a Communist, do you want to add them to your list of "Redshift quantization" supporters.

• This is an appalling double standard. --Iantresman 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you do not have a case for your wish to marginalize the advocacy of geocentrists and creationists who a)like to use the work of people displeased with the Big Bang to claim that "science is broken" and b)have commented on redshift quantization for this reason. I consider the sources reliable and respectable from the standpoint that they illustrate who is "talking" about this phenomena in the general public. --ScienceApologist 01:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've rmeoved the statements. There is no advocacy of geocentrists and creationists. You have 2 or 3 people comment on redshift quantization that:

• Are not peer reviwed
• Do not appear in any "reliable source"... but a Web site! A creationist Web site!
• Are from people in an EXTREME minority of THREE
• Are not experts in the field
• Whose "beliefs" are irrelevent
• Whose religous associations are irrelevent

• Your statement FAILS significance, reliability, verifiability, undue weight, and makes use of weasel words. --Iantresman 09:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure, Ian, that you are just wishing not to have one of your pet ideas not be "tainted" with the stain of creationism and geocentrism. However, if you do a google search for redshift quantization, the first site that's hit is a creationist website that is trying to debunk the big bang [10]. The next three are presentation of papers we include. The fifth is AiG. The next three are Wikipedia. The next one is a creationist [11]. So out of the first ten most popular websites on the subject, three are from the perspective of creationism. You've obviously not done your homework. --ScienceApologist 14:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redshift quantization, if that is what you are referring to, is not MY pet idea, though I thank you for considering that it could be.
• This has nothing to do with "tainting". It is about reliable verifiable credible sources. Web sites, whether they be Creationist, personal or other, are not.
• There are 925 Google hits to "Redshift quantization", a smaller proportion of which are to Creationist sites (ie. 275 hits). There are 19,600 Google hits to sites mentioning "redshift and creationism", a SEVENTY-fold increase. Creationists are 70 times more interested in redshift rather than "Redshift quantization", and I would be delighted to mention this on the Redshift page. --Iantresman 14:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Websites are a good idea for how the general public is exposed to something. Check out the googlesearch for Big Bang in comparison. You aren't looking at the prominence of the creationist websites in relation to redshift quantization. I'm sorry, it's simply a fact that many people who are conversant with redshift quantization will have arrived by way of creationism. See cogent statistical analysis below: --ScienceApologist 15:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, I don't particularly want to get involved in this debate, but there are two problems with this line of argument. First, there's the technicality that you used creationist in one query and creationism in the other, which in this case happens to skew the results in your favor. Second, if you exclude the terms creationist and creationism, you will see that (to borrow your language) people in general are 6500 times (!) more interested in redshift than redshift quantization (5,960,000 hits for redshift, 918 hits for "redshift quantization"). In other words, given that a person is interested in redshift, s/he is about 100 times more likely to be interested in redshift quantization if s/he is a creationist than if s/he is not. (I'm phrasing this imprecisely and very informally, but you get the idea.) To put it differently, 0.015 percent of redshift Web sites contain the term redshift quantization, while even by your measure, 1.4 percent of creationist redshift Web sites contain the term redshift quantization. Like I said, I don't have a stake in this, but I just came across this while on RC patrol and couldn't resist whining about bad statistics. ;) —Caesura^(t) 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, and the issue is more complicated that that, since "redshift quantization" is sometime spelt the British was as "redshift quantisation", is sometimes called "redshift perioidicity", also "redshift descritizations", etc etc.
• Additional, "redshift" sometimes refers to non-astrophysical redshifts (I think there is a game by the same name)
• But more importantly, just because 2 or 3 creationists write about "redshift quantization" does not imply that there is a creationist conspiracy to uphold "redshift quantization", and citing such Web sites as a source is unreliable at best --Iantresman 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A significant number of the sites on the internet that mention redshift quantization are creationists. This is undeniable. --ScienceApologist 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• On Google there are 925 sites mentioning "redshift quantization"?
• I see three creationists sites (1) ldolphin.org (2) www.answersingenesis.org (3) www.setterfield.org ?
• The Economist magazine includes articles on redshift. What can we infer about the Economists' view of Redshift? --Iantresman 16:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unscientific POV pushing

I've restored the alledged "Unscientific POV pushing" since I have no idea what it is referring to. Art, if you're reading this, perhaps you can comment on the following information in the article:

• In the introduction, ".. a number of creationists, and even geocentrists have referred to such observations"; Is this relevent? They've also refered to cosmology and redshift, but we don't mention that in those articles. Does it matter that they are creationist and geocentrists, what if they were communists and Economists [12]? What is the credibility of the source? Are a couple of articles representative?
• I included a commnet by Bajan, et al, that concludes that "galaxy redshift periodization is an effect which can really exist"[13], but this was removed leaving: "[..] in our opinion the existence of redshift periodicity among galaxies is not well established .. and found that at the 2σ significance level some effect was observed", yet the comment that "redshift periodization is an effect which can really exist". Their comments are verifiable.
• And it seems that Redshift quantization has also been called "Redshift distribution gaps" [14] and "preferred redshifts"[15], but these have been removed --Iantresman 09:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• • All these issues have been discussed to death. The NPOV version is the one currently standing. Take it to dispute resolution if you wish to get outside opinions. --ScienceApologist 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but you know I don't usually get into this Hundred Years War unless one side seems obviously wrong. It isn't obvious who is more responsible for all these issues being discussed to death (although looking back to November it's looking more obvious what was going on then), nor is NPOV obvious, nor is it obvious why Ian can't ask my opinion without going through some procedure first. If I had to decide it myself:

The best point I remember about creationism in this context, is that if you Google "redshift quantization" you find a lot of creationist pages. I just tried it. So this is indeed an important creationist belief, although we might clarify that Arp and Tifft are not creationists. None of those Google listings mentioned communism, and when you searched for redshift at the Economist, no creationists turned up. So there is a significant connection between creationism and redshift quantization.

I don't remember the justifications for removing the quantized redshift citations mentioned above, and I can't explain the removals. They're presumably fringe science, but I would think a fringe science article would be the obvious place to present the best possible case promoting that fringe science - along with science's best case for shouting it down. And if Ian wants something in, then it's probably part of that best possible case. Art LaPella 21:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I also did a Google search [16] and found just four Creationist websites [17] [18] [19] [20]. The ones on Geocentrism [21] are mirrors of the Wikipedia article, and I'll throw in the one on Theosophy [22].

• This doesn't seem to be a very significant number of results?
• For every creationist article discussing "Redshift quantization", there is more discussion on redshift in general. Do we infer that there is a more significant connection between creationism and redshift, and should it consequently be discussed in the article on redshift?
• My reference to the articles in the Economist had nothing to do with creationists. My point was that since the magazine had published articles on resdhift [23], do we also infer that there is a connection between economists and redshift? --Iantresman 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I clicked your own Google search link above, looked on through the pages and found [24], [25], [26], and [27]. Is there a Google page number after which these hits stop? I can't think of any reason why all the creationist Google hits should congregate at the beginning of the list, so I assume the proportion continues throughout all discussion of redshift quantization. You could argue that each of my sites is related to sites you already mentioned, but the point nevertheless stands that around 20% of the buzz about redshift quantization relates to creationism.

Yes, each of these sites also discusses redshift in general (well, maybe not the last one). So? Redshift in general is discussed thousands of times more than redshift quantization. Thus, creationists are a much larger percentage of redshift quanitization fans than of redshift fans. (I'm more at home with math than with cosmology.)

"when you searched for redshift at the Economist, no creationists turned up." I could have made the same point by saying that when I searched for redshift at Google, no creationists turned up there either, although an insignificant fraction could eventually be found that way. Art LaPella 01:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Google creationist "redshift quantization" results are indeed skewed.

• Google ranks search results partly based on the popularity of a Web site. Creationism is far more popular [28] than "redshift quantization"[29]
• In total, a Google search for "redshift quantization", with duplicate results disable, provides a total of 230 results [30] of which ten results are creationism related [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]; I ignored mutliple hits on the same site which works against me since there are far more non-creationist sites with multiple hits. By my calculations, under 4.5% of "redshift quantization" hits are creationist related.
• Now, how many of these results support the description that "a number of creationists ... have referred to such observations as reason to reject the standard account of the origin and evolution of the universe"? Half? Which brings us to under 2.5%
• And if we do a Google search for "redshift periodicity" [41] the number of creationist-related sites appears to be even less (I estimate a third as many), which brings us down to about 1%
• So does a handful of creationists really count as significant?
• And as for Geocetricism, I can find no independed links, aside from links to Wikipedia, or mirrors of Wikipedia. --Iantresman 10:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's late, but if nothing else to prove I haven't forgotten you:

A theoretical answer is that creationism is more popular than redshift quantization, but that means that creationism sites are more numerous, not individually more popular.

An empirical answer is that if the creationism articles are skewed towards the beginning of the list, then I should compare the end of the list. Your Google list of 230 results (226 when I tried it) links to the last page of 26 results. Those 26 include 3 creationist sites including one not on your list [42], and 8 that somehow got onto the Google list without mentioning redshift quantization, many of which aren't even scientific. So the end of the list has 3/18=17% creationism.

Not all the creationist articles specify that redshift quantization undermines the Big Bang and supports Genesis, and none of them went on to ask us to give our hearts to Jesus - but that's their agenda. Art LaPella 06:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the trouble to answer. Google's estimation of popularity is based on the number of click-throughs to a site. So if Answers in Genesis get a million clicks via Google a year, it will have a greater popularity than a site on redshift which may get 100,000 clicks via Google per year. This is one of the reason why Wikipedia features so frequently near the top of search result, but we would never infer that Wikipedians have some kind of motive on the subjects it describes.
• It is troubling that:

• A Creationist website has merely to mention "redshift quantization", and its agenda and notability is implied, regardless of the nature or quality of the "article", and regardless of the Wikipedia standard described in reliable sources.
• In respectable scientific articles, Creationist website, and all critical Websites and blogs are considered unreliable sources, and critical peer reviewed citations are considered objectionable for other reasons, such as "out-of-the-way" journal, "second-rate" journals,[43], the infamous "Undue weight", and numerous slights directed at the author

• I guess we shall have to agree to disagree, but a level playing field, it is not. --Iantresman 11:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand this eternal soap opera very well, but I think you each have some kind of feeling that the playing field is tilted against you. Art LaPella 03:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that the playing field is indeed tilted against the article, especially if I compare the kinds of sources in this article, to the ones in less contentious articles.
• If the views of Creationists, or using Web sites as sources, is not good enough for accepted scientific articles, then they are not good enough for all articles. --Iantresman 17:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The views of creationists are good enough to be linked at the end of creationist cosmologies. I didn't find any at firmament (many creationists believe the Earth had a cloud-shrouded age something like Venus), but if that article were longer it would have to refer to creationist sites because Stephen Hawking doesn't have much to say about it. That's a better comparison than an article like Orion Nebula because creationists have no particular opinion about the Orion Nebula. They do have an opinion about redshift quantization.

It would appear you have a valid objection to the word "geocentrists" - I have yet to find a supporting site that doesn't mention Wikipedia.

The best argument that the playing field is tilted the other way, and I'm not completely sold on it, goes like this: Imagine an adolescent, or an adolescent-minded adult, with fantasies of great and easy fame. He could play basketball, and if he's lucky he could become an all-star pro just by playing. He could learn to play a guitar, and if he's lucky he could become a rock star just by goofing around. Should he write a book called "The Big Bang Really Did Happen"? He could become famous like Stephen Hawking, but Hawking is often hard to understand and he must have done an awful lot of boring study. A better idea would be to write a book called "Aliens Among Us", "Psychic Galactic Voyages", "The Illuminati Are Time Travelers", or "E Isn't MC Squared". If he's lucky, those ideas could make him famous just by repeating those ideas loudly and convincingly enough. Thus non-standard cosmology is dominated by a personality type whose most obvious example is Tommy. Art LaPella 18:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would suggest that certain personality types are found associated with all cosmologies, but the less "credible" types" are more apparent when they are not out-numbered by "respsectible" scientists.
• I agree that non-standard cosmologies have been seized upon by many alternative types, but they're driven by regular scientists in peer reviewed journals, whose just happened to fall into a non-standard, marginal field.
• As far as I know, Tifft is not a Creationist with a motive. I would guess that until he "discovered" quantized redshifts, he probably never questioned the Big Bang himself, and indeed, I have no idea of his views on standard cosmology. Likewise Arp, Burbridge, Bell, etc.
• I don't see alternative personality types, or Creationists, being discussed in the scientific literature. And I see it having as much relevence as if they were promoted or rejected by Communists, psychics or Republicans.
• To summarise, reliable sources is the minimum criteria for sources in "respectable" articles as set by Wikipedia and the mainstream science. The different standard applied to controversial scientific fields smacks of Pseudoskepticism. --Iantresman 19:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a hard enough time inferring your hidden motives and SA's, without trying to understand Tifft, Arp etc., but a discussion of alternative personality types is relevant to a discussion of the direction the playing field is tilted - although I wouldn't include it in the redshift quantization article. If we were discussing Lysenkoism, it would be relevant to point out that it was promoted by Communists because most Lysenkoists were Communists. Similarly for aura and psychics, or supply-side economics and Republicans. To argue that redshift quantization is associated with creationism could only be supported by quoting creationists - I can't imagine a more reliable source to support that particular claim, just as Lysenkoism includes some short quotes from Communists. Art LaPella 21:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, there are subjects where motives could be of interest, or where promoters of a certain view are relevent. But it seems that we don't gernerally included them in regular scientific articles and I don't think they're either relevent of significant here. If such views are to be included, then the introduction is not the place. In this instance, Creationists add nothing to the developement of the subject (that's done by scientists whose affiliation is unknown, Tifft, Arp, Burbridge, Bell, Napier etc.). If Creationists start publishing peer reviewed papers, AND, those paper have a Creationist interest, then sure, include them. --Iantresman 08:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, "we don't generally include[d] them in regular scientific articles" like Orion Nebula because creationists have no particular opinion about the Orion Nebula. We do include Genesis 1:27 in the otherwise scientific article gender differences because many religious people have strong opinions on that issue. Creationist opposition is mentioned at evolution. Lysenkoism is also a "regular scientific article" in the sense that "John Desmond Bernal, Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London and a Fellow of the Royal Society, made an aggressive public defense of Lysenko". Art LaPella 17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• And one of the most important scientific subject to Creationists is Physical cosmology, of which there is no mention of Creationists. Even the parent subject, Cosmology has but one mention in the subsection "Religious cosmology" directing us to an article called Creationist cosmologies. there, Redshift is mentioned several times, and Redshift quantization only once, in a subsection on "Modern geocentrism". This hardly makes Redshift quantization a significant subject for Creationists.
• I would suggest that the article on Creationist cosmologies is the proper place to mention Redshift and Redshift quantization, rather than mention Creationist views in these articles themeselves? --Iantresman 18:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The first 30 sites Google lists for "redshift quantization" include several creationist sites, and so do the last 30. The first 30 sites Google lists for "physical cosmology" don't include any creationism unless you count an anti-creationist site. The first 30 sites for cosmology don't either, although there are 3 sites mentioning religion including one Hindu creationist site. Anyway, the cosmology article has at least as much about religion as about science, including links to Biblical cosmology and intelligent design. Redshift quantization is a minor subject for almost everyone including creationists, but what little attention it gets is often creationist.

I wonder how closely the usual SA vs. Ian debates resemble the last 3 pages? Art LaPella 20:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• The NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) gives 88 articles [44] from scientific papers that mention either redshift quantization, redshift periodicity, redshift discretization, and preferred redshifts, plus about 20 science-related book, [45] [46]
• A small number of Creationist Web sites that merely mention redshift quantization, whose quality as a Reliable source, does seem questionable. --Iantresman 20:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Although ADS is new to me, by now you probably have a good idea what I'm going to say next. In particular, WP:RS doesn't even support your point: "Groups like" [creationists] "may be used as primary sources only, i.e. as sources about themselves". Art LaPella 03:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• The section in the article on Wikipedia Reliable sources "Self-published sources as secondary sources" suggests that "they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book."
• A further section "Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine", tells us that:

• "Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles"
• "Avoid citing the popular press"
• "arXiv (or similar) preprints and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published .. to be treated with the caution"

• So I have no problem with the Creationist sources being used in Creationists articles, but as a source in an article on a scientific subject, does seems unreliable. --Iantresman 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A creationist source doesn't make it OK to state as fact that the earth is 6000 years old, but it's the only source you could use to support a claim about creationist opinions.

The nitpicky answer is: The self-published section says to use them as primary sources - that is, to prove that AnswersInGenesis, Barry Settlefield etc. promote redshift quantization. Are you distinguishing those guys from creationists? Your other section starts out with "Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies". Creationist interest in redshift quantization is neither an experiment nor a medical study.

The common sense answer is: Although my previous quote should probably be expanded to refer to any scientific issue, it couldn't be intended to say we should quote The Astrophysical Journal to prove that creationists are interested in redshift quantization, because The Astrophysical Journal presumably doesn't include creationism. And even if it does, the more reliable explanation of creationist beliefs would come straight from the horse's mouth. Art LaPella 22:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have no doubt that a handful of Creationists have written about Redshift quantization. I just don't think (a) it is significant (b) they constitute a reliable source (c) they have a place in a scientific article.
• Again, I think we shall have to agree to disagree. --Iantresman 23:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of citation

ScienceApologist, just wondering why you removed the following:

John C. Hodge concluded that "evidence is increasing that the discrete or periodic nature of redshift is genuine." (ref: Hodge, John C., "Scalar potential model of redshift and discrete redshift" (2006) New Astronomy, Volume 11, Issue 5, p. 344-35)

--Iantresman 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Editorially, Hodge, who is not a researcher of this phenomenon is extemporaneously evaluating a subject for the purpose of setting up a different analysis. As such, his statement doesn't represent a researched position but a starting assumption. It is misleading to the readers to pretend that this is somehow indicative of the current research trends in astrophysics. Therefore, by WP:NPOV#Undue weight, this comment is rightly excluded. What's more, his paper isn't even about evaluating the subject, it's about coming up with a theory assuming redshift quantization is correct. --ScienceApologist 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So the OPINION of a bunch of creationists and geocentrists, from unreliable self-published sources gets in, but the opinion of Dr William Napier, an astronomer/researcher of standing, who has done original work on the subject, and verifiable in an academic text book doesn't. That's consistent. --Iantresman 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's consistent as far as the context of the subject goes. The report by creationists of the subject is a verifable way in which the subject is introduced to many. The evaluation of the subject is, however, only relevant to the person making the evaluation. If we were to include the musings of Answers in Genesis about redshift quantization, that would also not be appropriate. --ScienceApologist 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

"Neither [referee] could find obvious errors with the analysis nor felt that they could enthusiastically endorse publication."(ref: Tifft, William G., and Cocke, W. John; "Quantized Galaxy Redshifts," Sky and Telescope, 73:19, 1987</ref)

• ScienceApologist , You've removed the clause, "could find obvious errors with the analysis" claiming "POV assertion". As far as I can tell, there is no Wiki policy that disallows "POV assertions". Indeed, POV's are described as "often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects."[47]
• The quote is accurate. The quote is from a reliable peer-reviewed source. There is no counter-evidence suggesting its inaccuracy in any way. The quote is NPOV. --Iantresman 14:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The POV assertion is presented as having the veneer of fact when it in fact may not be true. Hearsay is not permissible in a court-of-law, why should it be permissible here?

The quote is manifestly not peer reviewed, though it may be accurate. But every accurate quote does not necessarily belong in an encyclopedia.

--ScienceApologist 14:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the quote in "Astrophysical Journal" (not surprisingly, it's identical). The quote is the result from at least two peers (hence the information is indeed peer reviewed), and endorsed by the editor of the journals. --Iantresman 14:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Include the editor's note in full and be done with it, then. --ScienceApologist 15:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Improper edit summary

Ian claimed that he reinstated the full quote. It is not the full quote. Ian also did not justify why this quote is worthy of inclusion on this page. Therefore I removed it until there is some indication that prose describing this disclaimer is necessary for the subject. --ScienceApologist 16:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Are Hawkins et al (2002) and Tang and Zhang (2005) fully relevant?

It seems to me that the 2002 and 2005 papers cited do not seem to be relevant to the discussion of redshift quantization in general. They don't discuss the redshifts of galaxies in general, but discuss data concerning periodicity in QSO redshifts, and in particular their association with nearby galaxies. Those papers seem to have more to do with Halton Arp's theories of quasar ejection from active galactic nuclei than redshift periodicity. Therefore their direct relevance to the issue at hand is unclear, especially to a reader who takes the bother of actually reading the papers. Clarification would be helpful. Shernren 15:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The subject doesn't have much traction outside of Arp's protestations. That's why those are the only bits that have received any attention from the astronomical community. --ScienceApologist 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But those bits are more relevant to Arp's protestations than to Tifft's own original work. Has there been any proper examination of redshifts of galaxies in general that directly contradict Tifft's conclusions? Shernren 09:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• The last paper that I am aware of, that directly set out to test Tifft's results, was by Guthrie and Napier, who according to Dava Sobel,[48] set out to refute Tifft, but found a periodicity themselves. This information was in this article, and in the article on William Tifft, but removed by ScienceApologist who would like everyone to believe that "discussion of it was generally confined to detractors of standard cosmology"
• The paper by Bajan et al (2006) [49], also says that they "found weak effects of redshift periodisation". --Iantresman 09:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Claims

• "The first researcher who claimed to make observations" (Second paragraph)
• "William G. Tifft was the first to claim to find evidence" (Second section)

Wikipedia's manual of style suggests that the word "claim" may be biased.[50], and has been re-instated by an anonymous editor,[51]. I proposed that we remove the ambiguous adjective, and just write that that Tifft was "The first researcher who reported observations of such clustering" which has less intrinsic bias. --Iantresman 13:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The same manual of style has reservations about the word "report": Likewise, the verb report can bestow a sense of impartiality or objectivity on an unreliable source, such as a political action committee or a government press agency, that may be inappropriate. I don't know whether "claim" or "report" is more colored, but I don't see either one as a big problem. Maybe we should try to find a different word entirely. --Art Carlson 14:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Except that Tifft published in a peer reviewed journal (Astrophys. J.) which is indeed a reliable source. So how about:

• The first peer-reviewed observations of such clustering...", or
• The first refereed observations of such clustering..." --Iantresman 14:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the wording, looks good. --Iantresman 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I know the first papers were:

Bell and Paál --Luxaba (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the two papers are:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969Natur.224..229B

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971AcPhH..30...51P --Luxaba (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Recent surveys

• The text says (second paragraph) "Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have produced no evidence of quantization in excess of what is expected due to galaxy clustering".
• History of Science professor, Virginia Trimble, et al, in their report on astrophysics for 2006, report that "An assortment of examples of quantized redshifts: Godlowski et al. (2006) on the Local Group; Bell and McDiarmid (2006) concerning SDSS QSOs (46,400 of them, so poor statistics is probably not an issue). The latter is contradicted by Tang and Zhang (2005), who include Bell in their acknowledgements, making them good guys in our simple classification scheme. (p.173) ["Ref]
• Is she not saying that Bell and McDiarmid,(ref) have published SDSS-sourced evidence supporting quantized redshifts, whereas Tang and Zhang have published SDSS-sourced contradictory evidence? In which case our statement of the current state of affairs suggesting there has been "no evidence" is wholly misleading? --Iantresman 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• And none of the cited authors mention "galaxy clustering". --Iantresman 15:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite good criticism

The writer of the last section is quite correct. This article contained numerous examples of statements that were often in directly contravention of the supposed citation.

I have tried to fix the FIVE examples of this that I found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.6.86 (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what you have done is promote an uncritical view of fringe science. This is not acceptable. ScienceApologist 14:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What I did was make the wording in the section match the actual content of the cited sources. The discussion of the Bell 2006 paper is particularly far afield from the paper's content. Please see these sources for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.6.86 (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove links to papers that were critical of quantization papers? For example, the Bell and McDairmid paper did not consider SDSS selection effects (see the note you removed about Schneider et al. 2007), and thus their entire paper is suspect (this should probably be noted in the intro, if you are going to mention Bell there). You also removed the citation of Tang & Zhang at the beginning, where I believe it belongs. I agree with ScienceApologist here: your edits appear to be promoting this fringe idea, while brushing away any criticisms. The introduction needs to make it clear that this is well beyond the mainstream. - 66.92.54.142 14:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored them. 71 is just trying to push an uncritical POV. That's forbidden per WP:NPOV. ScienceApologist 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Redshift quantization and religious beliefs

This is a first for me, so please forgive me if I have done it wrong.

I believe the section regarding religious beliefs is thoroughly unnecessary as it does not have any bearing on what "Redshift quantization" is or is not. It seems to me that the only reason it has been included is an attempt to bias the article by essentially saying "creationists believe it so it must be false".

A number of creationists may in fact believe Redshift quantization is reason to reject Big Bang Theory, but what about the non-creationists who believe the same? And what about the creationists that have never heard of it and wouldn't use it in that manner even if they had?

What relevance, beyond trying to 'tar with the same brush' does that section have to Redshift quantization?

Many creationists believe the Big Bang is proof that a creator exists too. Should their belief be included on the Big Bang page?

ScienceApologist said earlier: "It's a fact, though, that the people most in love with quantized redshifts are catastrophists and creationists." as his defense of why this section is there, which CLEARLY shows that it is being included for the reason I surmise above and seems to be nothing but a POV. As for the "most people" claim he makes, well that is pulled out of thin air.

There is absolutely NO REASON for this section to be here. If many or most creationists believe Redshift quantization is a reason to reject Big Bang Theory then that should be on a page about creationists and their beliefs. Should every page devoted to a subject that creationists believe in or refer to have a section pointing that out?

Early in the article it says:

"Many opponents of the Big Bang including Halton Arp,[1] have referred to observations claimed to be in favor of redshift quantization as reason to reject the standard account of the origin and evolution of the universe."

That conveys the exact same information (that many people believe redshift quantization disproves Big Bang Theory) and while still using relatively biased language, at least does not bring in irrelevancies such as the religious beliefs of the people who so believe.

In fact I feel so strongly about this, that I am ready to erase the entire section myself, and keep doing so every time it appears. Someone give me a good reason why I shouldn't.

118.90.3.141 (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your contribution to the discussion is fine, don't worry, but I think you need to take a deep breath. Erasing a section you think is inappropriate is also OK. Be bold. What would not be OK is to do so many times. If you did it more than 3 times in 24 hours, that would be in violation of the Wikipedia policy known as the Three-revert rule. As a rule, you should bend over backwards to resolve differences of opinion on the Talk page, not directly in the article.

As to your argument, I still think this section is appropriate, although I certainly don't feel strongly about it. Since this comment has been in the article for years now, it is likely that most editors think it's OK.

• The article says "A number of creationists and even geocentrists have ..." I think this statement is true and verifiable and doesn't misrepresent what non-creationists or other creationists believe.
• I think it is always of interest to learn what group of people hold a minority point of view.
• The religious beliefs of that major group of redshift quantization adherents is relevant because they themselves declare that the connection is important. The beliefs of creationists does not belong on the Big Bang page because creationists are only a small minority with an opinion about the Big Bang.

--Art Carlson (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The doctor is in with a second opionion. ;) A: You asked "Many creationists believe the Big Bang is proof that a creator exists too. Should their belief be included on the Big Bang page?" Not their belief, but that the fact that many creationists use the Big Bang theory as a religious argument is noted on the Big Bang page. In fact, the section links to an entire article devoted to Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. B: You said that the "section regarding religious beliefs is thoroughly unnecessary as it does not have any bearing on what "Redshift quantization" is or is not". An article does not only describe its subject, if often includes also information on its use, and this is part of what an encyclopedia is about, giving relevant information. Paradoctor (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

An Observation is not the same as a Hypothesis

And this article, from the first line, does not seem to understand the difference.

In the scientific method, observation precedes making a hypothesis to explain those observations, usually followed by corroborating tests to validate them. No hypothesis has been put forward by anyone as a POSSIBLE EXPLANATION of the quantization of redshifts.

This is some really basic science vocabulary this article seems to be lacking, and not the sort of thing you expect to find in an encyclopedia.Danshawen (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)danshawen

Hmm... Not a bad point, but I'm not sure what word is better. The point is that some people thought redshifts were quantified ("they hypothesized that...", combining observations and some rather shoddy math), but it turns out they were wrong. Do you have suggestions for better wording? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Most Authoritative Surviving Treatment of the Quantization of Redshifts NOT Associated with Creation Science

Here is the answer:

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/05/30/seeing-red/

Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the quantization of redshift observed by Tifft disappears completely.

I submit this article needs to be updated with discussion from the above article and from this referenced peer reviewed paper:

Su Min Tang and Shuang Nan Zhang. Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data. ApJ 633 41 (2005) doi:10.1086/432754

neither of which are based on crank astronomy or creation science.Danshawen (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)danshawen

Tang and Zhang is mentioned. I agree that it and Schneider should be more prominent, since once you account for known systematic effects in modern redshift surveys, any hint of quantization disappears. Not sure if the blog counts as a reliable source (general wikipedia policy), but one could use it as a guide. Want to try a rewrite? - Parejkoj (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits and making clear that this is very much WP:FRINGE

User:Watchman21 has recently made a number of edits and cleanups to the article. That's all well and good, but the article needs to be much more clear that redshift quantization is completely WP:FRINGE, with basically no attention paid to it from mainstream astronomers. Also, Bell et al. clearly don't know what they're talking about re:redshift surveys and selection effects, but you're probably not going to find any references that say that because of the fringey-ness of the topic. I think this article should exist (i.e. not be deleted) because it describes an interesting historical curiosity, but we need to be very clear that as an astronomical hypothesis, it is totally irrelevant and clearly incorrect today. The current article does not do so. - Parejkoj (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I've amended the introduction to put more emphasis on this. Watchman21 (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I redid the intro to be unequivocal. We also need to be sure we're not giving undue WP:WEIGHT to the fringe side. If there were any recent secondary sources (I'd be pretty surprised, but you never know), we'd be better off citing those, than the handful of essentially uncited junk papers that we currently cite. If anything, the lack of secondary source coverage suggests that this article should be drastically pruned down. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful with wording here. Declarative statements that involve unsourced absolute claims come across as opinionated, or even bitter and condescending, falling short of scholarly standards. I suggest something to the effect of:

"Redshift quantization is a controversial topic regarded to be at the fringes of modern cosmology. Though the idea has little support among the astronomical community, peer-reviewed publications and discourse on the topic still continue to the present day."

The context here is that these sources are published in scholarly journals, subject to editorial and peer review oversight, and party to dialectic that involves mainstream analysis and discourse. The fairest way to represent them would be as minority opinions representing alternative theoretical formulations in a controversial field. To dismiss them as uncited junk papers would require that you disqualify them on WP:RS criteria, which I don't think is defensible. Watchman21 (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Using the word "controversial" suggests that there is some controversy in the field about it. That's just not true: most astronomers are not even aware of it, and the few that are (particularly experts in quasar surveys) consider it laughably silly. That there have been a couple more publications doesn't much matter, since they are, and will continue to be, uncited. It's the same with any fringe topic: people may continue to get silly fringe papers published occasionally, but that doesn't mean they deserve coverage on wikipedia. It's also why wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources to proimary sources. This topic falls under WP:FRINGE, which means we need to ensure the mainstream view has the appropriate weight. - Parejkoj (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

From your terminology and a priori dismissal of any notion of controversy, you seem to believe that proponents of this theory do not qualify as astronomers at all. That is an idea that you will need to defend on a policy basis given the qualifiers for WP:RS I've listed above.

Helpfully, you've also managed to disqualify your own argument from the preceding comment. If the majority of astronomers are uninformed on the subject, then that majority cannot qualify as a superset of expert opinion against which to weight these sources. Rather, you'd be reducing the polemic to a disagreement between two small subsets of the astronomical community. Watchman21 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Please consult WP:FRINGE: the handful of recent publications on the topic have basically no citations, which means we need to represent their being on the fringe here. "...a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." And the "Crisis in Cosmology" conferences are almost certainly not reliable sources, though you're welcome to take that up with the WP:ARBCOM. - Parejkoj (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Both you and I agree (on a policy basis) that this is WP:FRINGE and that it should be specified as such. Note my proposition above.

The contention here is vocabulary and the use of absolute terms that tacitly deny that the authors of these sources should be considered astronomers at all. Categorical claims like this clearly fall short of scholarly standards and ultimately serve to be counter-productive. Readers will struggle to take it seriously.

Note: We can move the CCC2 seminar from 'modern discussion' to 'nonstandard cosmology' given your concern about its probity. The precedent from other articles is that sources of this type are permissible as long as the article or subsection clearly specifies that it concerns a nonstandard or minority thesis. If you're still unhappy with that, we can add the associated primary findings to the modern discussion at some point. Watchman21 (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Parejkoj. I'm sorry but we can't leave the lede statement you're protecting as it is. It is inconsistent with the WP:RS, and has an unscholarly tone that is out of place in an encyclopedic text. I note from the history two IPs and two other editors also have issue with this statement being against policy, so I am reverting your changes.Watchman21 (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020112037/http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/SeeingRedBlurb.htm to http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/SeeingRedBlurb.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect equation based on the external source

The equation given in the section "Karlsson's formula" is incorrect, it doesn't give the values quoted a few lines lower. The source [24] states that the separation between the peaks is 0.089 in log(1+z) but they are not exact multiples as suggested in this article. The stated redshifts of 0.061, 0.30, 0.60, etc. can be recovered by the equation: log₁₀(1+z)=0.089n-0.0632. I have modified the equation accordingly but I'm nort sure if this would be seen as "original" because it follows directly from the explicit values given in the source and repeated in the article. George Dishman (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)