Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrical Discharge Machining in Space

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The more the lone author talks, the less they say. This article badly fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV and will never meet them, not to mention WP:ASR. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia, and WP:NOT a soapbox. Mangojuicetalk 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical Discharge Machining in Space

edit

Contains only fallacious POV discussion of a supporting idea for the pseudoscience Electric Universe concept. zowie 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the discussion is fallacious in that it does not discuss other, more commonly accepted, mechanisms for the formation of the planetary features in question -- thereby failing WP:NPOV. In addition, it fails the WP:NOR and notability guidelines. zowie 20:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deficiencies can be corrected by additonial information: Specifically, alternate (commonly accepted) points of view may be presented. References obviously need to be added. Other "theories" are presented in Wikipedia as fact even without experimental reproducibility, so long as the argument is convincing (black holes, pulsars, neutron stars). So long as it's clear that it is a theory, and alternate points of view are added, I see no problem. It can be edited to be more neutrally presented. Mgmirkin 03:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In terms of scale and implication, this entry is significantly different from the regular Electrical discharge machining article and is a central tenet of the Electric Universe model, thus a full definition of the concept is necessary for the intelligent discussion of that model (this article was created due to the deficit of a sufficent article for reference in said article; the EDM article was insufficient in this regard). If necessary this could be integrated with the Electric Universe model, or portions of it used neutrally in the original EDM article, though I don't advocate that approach, as they're wholly separate concepts. I have added several fairly detailed articles by Ralph Juergens (electrical engineer) in support. And will add alternate viewpoints and attempt to edit for neutrality/balance. On another note, what is the timeline for discussion/deletion? IE, how much time does an article's author have to improve it before it is summarily deleted in reactionary fashion? I'm in the process of attempting to find additional references and flesh out the article. Mgmirkin 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update again: I have cleaned up a good portion of the article, though it may still need work. I have added a sesction discussion opposite (more traditional) points of view. I have also included references to sites with supporting arguments, and references to sites with opposing views (also put opposing viewpoint references first, so people can review the traditional view for comparison before reading the supporting views). I have also requested scholarly references from a friend. I *hope* they may be forthcoming shortly, but cannot guarantee it. If anyone know of resources for FINDING specifically topical references in scholarly publications, it would be appreciated if they could be noted. Finding ANY discussions PRO OR CON about the features and causation (rilles, Valles Marineris, Mamers Vallis, Chaos Terrain, Arachnoids) has been difficult/frusting to say the least. However, I have tried to point to some useful references pro and con, for the time being, and to better balance the article. More revision may be needed. I've tried to get to a modicum of neutrality while still laying out the theory. So, I'm hoping it's closer to meeting POV requirements/neutrality rules. I object to it being labeled "New Research", as the ideas have been around at least since Immanuel Velikovsky and Nikola Tesla's time, and definitely since Ralph Juergens proposed the Electric Sun model. It's been around, it's been discussed, this isn't a new concept, it's just a recently added one on wikipedia. If someone could find/add a few references, I'd be grateful. Mgmirkin 06:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'd also not the following from NOR: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view." As such I'll try to note the "controversy" over some of the sites referenced (specifically, thunderbolts.info is not technically regarded as a verifiable resource, despite the fact they cite laboratory experiments and even give photographic evidence to back up their claims, likewise, holoscience.com and plasmacosmology.net are regarded as pseudoscience at worst, or protoscience at best, by traditional physicists, despite those sites being authored by extremely bright plasma physicists and electrical engineers who work with similar materials and processes). This should satisfy NOR. As well as opposite viewpoints and references satisfying NPOV. Mgmirkin 06:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbolts.com is not a reliable source. JGR-Planets and similar, reputable refereed journals are reliable primary sources. I did a quick search of the ADS (What does it stand for, anyway?)[1] and found zero mentions of electrical discharge machining in a planetary context. I conclude that the subject is non-notable, original research, and/or bollocks as described above. zowie 07:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, finally a useful post! Thanks for the link to the abstracts searcher. No clue what ADS stands for tho' sorry (Astrophysics Data System, apparently, hey maybe we need a new article on THAT! Hehe, j/k, apparently we have our hands full with this one...). Oh, and methinks maybe you don't know what it is you're looking for. Or they might not know what it is they're researching or how to properly phrase it. I looked under Electrical discharge and a whole bunch of other search terms and came up with the following: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 (apologies if I accidentally duplicated any entries, it's been a grueling experience trying to decipher the astrobabble and physicsbabble; ask 10 physicists the same question and they all tell you 10 different ways of describing it using different words. Man... No wonder nobody can ever find any references. Unless you ask a plasma physicists and/or an electrical engineer, then they tend to use the same words pretty frequently: double-layering, charge separation, electric discharge machining, birkeland currents, z-pinch, anode tuft, glow discharge, and those are about the only names for 'em.).

As we can see, there is plenty of research (even one on electric dust devils lifting soil 1, hmm... Interesting! Funny how it looks like the same questions and observations being made here: 1 and here: 2) going on in the realm of electric phenomena in relation to "fulgurite" or spherule formation, relation of electrical arc formation to "channels" seen on on the Earth's surface, research regarding the electrical nature and discharges of tremendous dust devils combing the surface of Mars, lightning formation and effects on planetary bodies. Shall I go on? I don't think any of this is "new research." Portions of it have been talked about in various articles that have been published to date. I don't know their specific terminologies of how they refer to things. Frankly I'm startign to think their naming schemes are arbitrary... =o\ In any even, electrical processes on planets in the solar system have been talked about for a while. More frequently on thuderbolts.info and plasmcosmology.net and holoscience.com. But there's current technobabble in "peer reviewed" journals relating to many of the processes listed in the EDM in Space entry. They might not use the exact same terms (EDM in space), but they're definitely researching how lightning works, how it's interacting with various surfaces on earth and in space. I'm sure that if Ikept digging I'd find more specific references. I just don't know how physicists who don't uderstand plasmna physics are terming what they're talking about. 4.242.183.170 10:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) For some reason it logged me out. Go fig. I wasn't hiding! Honestly! Mgmirkin 10:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suddenly reminded of my folklore (more specific cultural anthropology) classes in college. Specifically the admonition to represent a piece of information as it is considered relative to the point of view of the one(s) conveying the knowledge. We can analyze this briefly: What information is being conveyed? Is it conveyed properly? Does it represent the body of knowledge and thoughts/feelings/meaning of that knowledge as the one conveying it understands it?

If nothing else we can consider the article in question a piece of folklore or cultural anthropology (as, really, is any article on here, it's knowledge of the people conveyed to other people).

How is the article presented? -It is presented as a theory espoused by Electric Universe propnents.

Is this actually a theory espoused by EU proponents? -According to their web sites, this is their theory. In that regard, this article is correct, this article summarizes their theories.

Are verifiable resources used regarding the article? -If you mean can we verify that this is in fact the position proferred by EU theorists, then yes, sufficient evidence has been listed to say that this is the view espoused by EU theorists.

Are we attempting to validate the underlying theory, or simply the presentation of a position? -According to Wikipedia, we're NOT concerned with truth, merely that articles presented are, NOR, NPOV and verifiable as written in the context they're intended. In this case, a theory or belief is presented as "a theory" and explained in the terms that those who share the belief "understand" it. As with Jormundgand or the axis mundi, we are not evaluating the premise, technically only that the *belief* that is espoused. The "belief" is supported by the evidence already presented in numerous links to several EU theorist sites, which appear to be internally consistent with each other. Straight from the verifiability entry: "'Verifiability' in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research ... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." So, we're not looking at whether the underlying premise or process of EDM in Space is true. We're looking for whether it is true as presented. Is it a "theory?" Yes. Is it espoused by EU theorists? Consensus of EU proponents says yes. Does it present the theory and implications of said theory in the manner and understanding that it is epoused by proponents? Yes. Does it cite "authoritative" EU theorist websites? Yes (thunderbolts.info, plasmacosmology.net holoscience.com, kronia.com).The confidence with which we can say that EU theorists believe this in the way presented is fairly high considering the volume of works published by said theorists.

Do you need to agree with the specifics of the theory in order for it to be a well-written article on wikipedia? -According to Wikipedia, no... As long as it's fair, balanced, NPOV, verifiable, NOR, wikipedia isn't concerned with the "truth" of a position (hence there are plenty of articles on pseudoscience that paraphrase the specific beliefs in a neutral way), nor your *opinions* about an opinion, only that it acurately represents what it claims to represent. In this case it claims to represent a theory espoused by EU theorists, and it shows that EU theorists in fact do in fact hold this viewpoint. This is no different than listing articles about the World Tree or the World Serpent, or other "beliefs." In those articles bias (Norse Myth, Greek Myth, Atheism) are noted, beliefs are spelled out, and resources showing that the belief is held, who it is held by, etc. are spelled out. Mgmirkin 12:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDM-in-space as an idea is not particularly notable:it does not have enough mindshare to qualify as notable in itself (as does, say, Celestine Prophecy or the idea of the illuminati). EDM-in-space as alleged fact or as a model of reality is not even on the radar of mainstream science and should not be treated as such in an encyclopedia.
I spot-checked the abstracts of some of the papers you referenced. Several are concerned with electrical discharge, but on much smaller scales than are described in the EDM-in-space article (from laboratory arcing through lighting-bolt-sized discharges, e.g. #2 is about dust-devil-excited lightning on Mars. Several others are concerned with origin of crater chains but do not even mention electrical discharge (e.g. #29 posits that crater chains on Phobos appear to be caused by secondary impacts due to debris thrown up from primary impact sites on Mars). None of the ones I looked at describe humongous electrical discharges as a potential mechanism for landscape formation.
Don't get me wrong -- if EDM-in-space turns out to be "interesting" scientifically (in the sense of being published as an idea in a peer-reviewed journal and explaining something that other, simpler models cannot)) then we should definitely have an article about it. But it hasn't reached that level yet. The next step for that idea would be for a proponent to write it up and get it published in JGR or a similar journal, and join the scientific debate -- only then might it be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. zowie 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. As I've said, finding spoecific references is tricky due to the myriad of wordings ivolved in uber-specific fields of research. However, Martian Dust Devils are certainly one form of EDM, albeit on a slightly smaller scale than larger bolts of lightning. But these electrical filamentary processes are at the heart of the EDM conception in the EU model. Granted, it hasn't been given extensive mindshare in primary scientific circles. But it is a fairly basica and central tent in the EU model. And in that model mindshare on EDM processes is significantly higher (it's one of the basic theoretical prcoesses behind planetary surface machining/formation; in the EU model, where its mindshare is pretty unanimous, granted the EU model is a minority opinion).

However, research in terrestrial dust devils have been going on likewise to understand the process of formation and of machining dust off the surface and INTO the air. Note the following article from Nasa: Phantoms From the Sand: Tracking Dust Devils Across Earth and Mars I'm assuming Nasa releases are considered "credible." This article draws some parallels to and mentions Martian Dust devils. It also notes the interesting finding that "Some researchers think a dust devil may need dust to sustain itself, but here we recorded a very large one that was essentially free of dust for a substantial part of its lifetime" IE, dust movement is a secondary feature, not a primary feature. IE, dust motion does not create or sustain a devil, as the "devil" can be measured and remain active even WITHOUT any dust being excavated/lifted from the surface. Like I said, plenty of active research going on, you just need to find it. ;o]

Anywho, my main point from the prior discussion was that active research is going on in related fields. Granted mainstream science hasn't made the same connections yet. But the EU model has. This article is presented as being a EU "belief" (and it is; you can find the same stuff on all the EU sites of any import) and alternate theories/explanations are presented, thus satisfying NPOV. NOR should be satisfied simply by the fact of the Velikovsky affair, Ralph Juergens' electric Sun model, etc. The concepts have been discussed for some time. Verifiability depends on *what* you're trying to verify, and is thus subjective. If you're trying as an editor to verify the underlying claim that in fact electrical processes are causative, wikipedia says YOU are doing original research and strongly cautions against even trying to do that. However, if you are simply verifying that a belief is held by a specific group, from a cultural anthropology standpoint, there is no conflict (EU websites all say basically the same thing about discharges in space, as modeled in the lab and tested on the small scale by spark machining, creation of electrical vortexes, etc.), so the fact that the belief is held by EU theorists is easily "verified." Thus the issue of "truth" of the claim is irrelevant, since it is essentially just a belief held by the group and in that group it has nearly universal (consensus) mindshare (though the group in itself is a minority in the scientific community, in order to understand their beliefs in a proper context it is necessary to understand EDM in Space [concept] which is central to their cosmological belief system). Guess that about sums it up, eh? 4.242.183.215 09:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I need to click "remember me" when I sign in so it automatically logs me in... Man, my typing sucks lately. Too much writing at 2am... ;o] Mgmirkin 09:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Electric Universe concept advocates a minority in the scientific community is a bit of a stretch. (A) the advocates largely appear to not be scientists in the sense of following the scientific method; and (B) EU is itself complete bollocks, in the following senses:
  • it is not well enough formulated to make any quantitative physical predictions;
  • it appears to violate basic physical laws such as the conservation of energy.
I contest the characterization of EU and PC proponents as mostly being non-scientists. I just added a rather large swath of "notable" sources to the EU model. There's been research and plenty of published papers (like I said, I was merely having a problem FINDING them; now I've found a bunch, and you may have a pleasant meal composed of your words *you know what I mean*). To paraphrase... Well, more of a direct quote:
Not to be ungrateful, of course, I thank you for pushing me past my initial limitation into the realm of trying to more adequately find NOTABLE sources that say basically the same things the not-as-notable- but-still-notable- within-the-EU-model's-proponents sites say... Hope that made sense. ;o]
I think we can all move past the notability of the EU model (it appears that it DOES have mindshare and notability within the publishing and researching academic/theoretical research communities; confined thusfar mostly to the IEEE side of physics *where most of the initial ideas for PC/EU came from* than the astrophysics side) and get back to focussing on this page. Which is notable as a tenet of EU proponents. Most of the EU sites tend to say say similar things about their belief that planets in the solar system were machined in large scale electrical discharges between planets that were not in balance, or between the sun and the planets, etc. Mgmirkin 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The EU article itself survived a call for deletion only because the EU advocacy community notorious enough to be mildly notable (having appeared, for example, in Wired magazine, not because of intrinsic science value in the Electric Universe picture itself (check the archived Electric Universe concept discussions). If EDMiS depends for its own notability on the importance of EU, it is almost certainly not notable. If it is false (as it appears to be) then including it in its own article is confusing and deceptive. Certainly, the recent bits of cross-link spam that have been inserted into Rille, Chaos terrain, etc. were deceptive as they presented EDMiS as a physical theory that is challenging conventional understanding of planetology, when it is not even a serious contender. zowie 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not a serious contender in your opinion (granted, that's an opinion shared by the majority, but an opinion nonetheless). In the opinion of a goodly chunk of scientists' opinions who submitted an Open Letter to the Scientific Community, the current establishment's entrenched dogma of we're right and everyone else is wrong is conterproductive to even CONSIDERING new theories. In the opinion of those sponsoring the letter, this and potentially more explanatory theories have all but been ignored and not given equal time and mindshare, not due to merit, but simply due to entrenched dogma squashing any competing ideas. Nonetheless, research presses on in the IEEE world despite astronomers' reluctance to come to terms that they're surprised by just about everything that they see coming out of deep space observatories like Chandra, Hubble, etc. But, I guess that's neither here nor there. Mgmirkin 02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, a number of electrical engineers and plasma physicists (Wallace Thornhill, Ralph Juergens, Donald Scott and a number of others) are strong supporters (in fact are or have been its main proponents and commentators, specifically because their observations in the lab appeared to strongly correlate with observed stellar phenomena; anode glow and the sun, arc discharges and lightning, arc discharges and spherule generation in EDM in the lab) and have made quantitative and qualitative specific scientific predictions, which appear to better fit the actual data from subsequent observation than other contemporary interpretations.

EU model predicted that martian dust storms would demonstrate electrical characterization, despite the atmosphere being too thin and cold to support the standard convection model, and that similar mesurements of electrical processes in dust devils would be made in the terrestrial sphere. These predictions have been confirmed, not least of all by the article noted last night written by Nasa, and a number of others that have found electrical characterization of dust devils. Phantoms From the Sand: Tracking Dust Devils Across Earth and Mars, EU model similar characterizations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Likewise tornadoes, water spouts, hurricanes, etc. are expected to also display electrical characterization 1, 2, 3, 4 as well.

Similarly, predictions were made about the so-called "volcanoes" of IO before probes imaged them. Predictions included that the "volcanoes" would demonstrate electrical characterization, would be hotter than any known volcano on earth and would exhibit features common to electrical arcing and not to volcanoes, that the "lava lakes" (large black spopts) would in fact be cool (because it's not flowing lava it's an electrically charred/machined surface), and that the "volcano(es)" would MOVE around the edges of the lava lake and NOT be stationary. Predictions 1, 2 3. Initial accounts and images "appear" to fit the predictions. Cold "lava flow," jets much larger and hotter than expected, following the pattern of the expected electrical arcing that was predictde by the model. Prometheus Plume active for 18 years? With bluish characterization? IO enveloped in Aurora. And what causes auroras? According to Birkeland: charged particles involved in an electrical interaction. Hmm... Hence we get the term "Birkeland Currents" or field-aligned currents.

It is perfectly within the EU model's capabilities to make predictive statements that are borne out (or at the very least not contradicted) by facts and observations. In some cases, predictions which the standard models DID NOT make and are only now beginning to even investigate (and find a strong correlation to what the EU already said years ago). The model allows for falsifiability by making specific predictions and then observing results to note matches and/or contradictions, and welcomes critical discussion of its predictions.

Similar research is still ongoing: Measurements of Electrical Discharges in Martian Regolith Simulant. Researchers understand the need to know the causation and structural features associated with Mars' dust devils. The information will be useful for comparison to Earthly phenomena bearing similar structure as well.

The more I look, the more research in related fields I see going on around these very self-same concepts. The only difference is that the traditional researchers don't understand the causation. The EU model purports to (due to the plasma and electrical engineering understanding of its proponents in the field) and makes very specific predictions, many of which are being anecdotally verified as we speak.

But, again, this goes back to verifiability's ambiguity. Are we trying to verify the Physics (causation) of the phenomenon the belief is based upon (that's a no-no), or the fact that the belief is held, what the belief is, and who believes it (Cultural anthropology)?

I am arguing for the latter (cultural anthropology). The belief is held. That has been substatiated repeatedly. We know who believes it. We know who the authoritative sources for the belief are (people, web sites, specific documents and claims). Even beyond that, certain features of the belief are in process of being upheld by observation (auroras on Earth and other planets, electric dust devils, tornadoes, water spouts, chondrule {or was it Chondrite?} and fulgurite formation).

Perhaps the article needs to be amended to say "EDM in Space (concept)" to distinguish between concept (cultural anthropology) and verified physical phenomenon (physical process). I would classify this under cultural anthropology insofar as the belief goes (it is a central tenet of a pseudo-/proto-scientific belief system, much as the axis mundi, world tree, world serpent, gods, etc are the central tenets of a religious/mythological belief). Physical confirmation of "fact" of the underlying processes is another matter entirely. I believe that verifiability and NPOV and NOR have been satisfied for the concept interpretation and am not specifically advocating for classification as verified physical fact, though it is anecdotally supported on a number of fronts. Granted, it may be walking a fine line, but I think the distinction is justifiable (cultural anthropology vs physical process; granted this is a "belief" about a physical process, but it is still a belief and a central tenet of a belief system nonetheless and should in that regard be given consideration). If necessary the article can be amended with "(concept)" and a more definitive note about the cultural anthropology of it can be inserted to distinguish it from empirical physical fact. 64.122.15.114 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDM in Space (concept) is not notable in the context of cultural anthropology. zowie 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my understading of the world notable is incorrect? From a cultural anthropology/mythology/folklore point of view, the central tenets of a belief system are the most notable part of it, or the part that should be understood first and foremost. That's pretty non-negotiable in cultural anthropology. You can't really talk about a culture without talking about its belief system and its motivations behind those beliefs. Or are you talking verifiability again? In which case, go to pretty much any of the forerunner sites of the EU model and read a few articles, they almost all talk about the same processes as being central to the model (concept). Mgmirkin 21:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't recall if I mentioned before, but have edited the article significantly since initially nominated for deletion. Have added opposing viewpoints, recently added clarification regarding cultural anthropology and that the article is regarding an aspect of EU model belief, also added that the claims have not been substatiated, but are necessary basic tenet for understanding the EU model in cultural anthropological terms. Have also noted controversy over certain sources, per Wikipedia policy when "reputability" is in dispute. And have noted opposition and alternate theories of the evolution of the same processes by non-adherents (mainstream scientists). Mgmirkin 21:44 (appx), 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And just for good measure, in case we're still wondering whether or not aspects of the EU model are being actively researched (regardless of by whom)? It appears so. There are a number of abstracts on electromagnetic field generation in the early universe, polarization of charge (charge separation) in the universe, electrical discharge within the solar system, the electrical conductivity and charging of Titan's atmosphere, research on modelling the global ionospheric electric fields to the solar wind, penetration of the interplanetary electric field to the low-latitude ionosphere during magnetic storms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

As we can see, this is an active field of research in astrophysics (the role of electricity in the universe). Many of these are questions which have been posed/proposed directly by the EU model. Though not specifically related to the EDM in Space entry, I felt inclusion was warranted due to general assailing of the EU model in general as not being notable. In fact there is a great body of research being done relating to electrical processes in the universe (not necessarily by adherents per se, but addressing the same issues of mechanisms/causation). So, anyway, there you have a bunch of research beig done on related fields... I'm sure I could find more if I took the time to look and sort through the jargon. Mgmirkin 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. It may be complete bollocks but it is, at least to some extent, sourced complete bollocks. On WP, it is not our role to evaluate theories but to record them so amyone seeking information on the topic will find it. The test of this AfD is whether this theory has, at least, some currency and it seems to have. The article needs a great deal of work to provide a NPOV. I am inclined to give it some time on the understanding that when it returns to AfD (as it surely will) it will need to be in pristine condition to survive. Meanwhile, I am putting an NPOV tag on it that should remain until all issues have been addressed (or it will come straight back here!). BlueValour 03:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know what, specifically can be done in a constructive manner to improve NPOV issues (specific examples of what's poorly worded, keeping in mind we ARE conveying the meaning of a belief system; one could easily argue that portraying a belief system requires a certain level of POV, just the POV of the belief system, portrayed neutrally)? Perhaps we can discuss specifics of conveying the group's belief neutrally? If sources are needed for specific assertions about what the group believes, I can probably track them down. Mgmirkin 02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BlueValour. I thnk that was my basic point. EDM in Space may be complete bollocks (I agree it's possible, science is by nature falsifiable). But it may also not be (recent articles have given some credence to electricity as causation rather than effect in dust devils; IE dust devils as mid-scale EDM ejecting dust from the surface 1. See talk page on EU model page for more detailed info on the issue of effect vs causation.). Wikipedia's policy appears to state that opinions about people's point of view are not notable, only sourced documents. IE, whether or not you believe in EDM is irrelevant, only that someone does, who that someone is, and what it is that they believe. I think BlueValour said it better than I did, but basically says the same thing. Jormungand from Norse mythology may be bollocks (is there really a serpent that circles the earth and bites its own tail? Probably not... But the 'norse'/vikings believed it as part of their handed down mythology. We're not verifying that Jormungand existed, merely that the norse believed he existed.). Mgmirkin 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the deletionist point of view that the underlying concept may end up proven as false. I've cleaned up much biased sentiment that was originally made subconsciously (by me, I'll admit; I'm still learning about NPOV and a fe rules), and added NPOV counter-arguments on most if not all the points outlined in evidence. I've also tried to out (state) any bias and controversy, as well as make sure the article notes what it is and is not stating (the belief is held? yes. The belief is based on sound principle? Indeterminate/contentious/irrelevant. The belief is significant to those who hold it? Yes. Citable evidence that the belief is held and those who hold it? An abundance.). I hope that somewhat clears up my stance. I'm presenting a notable central tenet of a belief system, not a physical fact. It is presented as a theory, and the theory's points outlines with examples. I've attempted to note who the autoritative sources are for the [Electric Universe] theory (thunderbolts.info, plasmacosmology.net, holoscience.com, kronia.com), and document articles where the theory is espoused by those authoritative sources (for the belief sytem). I think this all amounts to meeting notability, NPOV guidelines, but a few folks still seem contentious on the issue. Hopefully these notes have helped allay some of that contentiousness Mgmirkin 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, and any help with NPOV issues would be appreciated, while still maintaining basic premises and document integrity (IE, no wholesale deleting of the tenets and useful information, just adding sources, pro and con arguments, removing or rewording statements that appear to show bias; not that I'd think any one here would do that). Of course keep in mind that people's beliefs are by nature from a specific POV. I guess anything that it opinion about the belief (meta-opinions if you will, or opinions about opinions) can go, but the main beliefs can be cleaned up. Anyway, anyone with NPOV resolution experience is encouraged to help with documentation, and making it "pristine" as BlueValour put it, is encouraged to help clean up the wordings. Mgmirkin 23:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Haven't had time to read all specific markup at this time. Here's my general thoughts on some NPOV issues related to POV of a specific group (IE belief systems). I may respond to individual comments at a later point as I have time... I don't right now.

I've been trying to clean up the NPOV issues over the last week, by putting in alternate explanations, taking out some of the more obvious biased statments which may have been initially worded too strongly in favor, attempting to add citations pro and con. I'll admit I'm still new here, but learning as much as I can about protocol as possible to get up to speed. Apologies on any foibles in the meanwhile. Constructive criticism is appreciated, constructive edits toward neutrality appreciated as well. Mgmirkin 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Copied from my comments on Talk page.)[reply]

But, also, remember that this is presented as one of the central beliefs of a group/culture, so in some way, any "belief will be from the POV of that culture/group." Same gows when discussing the beliefs of any religion, pseudo-religion, scientific group, fringe group. When presenting the tenets of their belief system you are presenting their POV. In this case specifically getting at the heart of their cosmological view of the structure and nature of the universe. In some regards, POV should be accepting of presentation of a group's beliefs, so long as the presentation of those beliefs is neutral. If that hasn't yet been achieved here, let's discuss and come to concensus on how to better word things to be neutral POV, while still presenting the views in their entirety. What is wikipedia precedent on presenting a specific group's views? Obviously a belief us understanding from the POV of that group. How does that fit within the general POV / NPOV debate? Say for instance norse mythology's Jormungand (world serpent), this is their method of explaining a certain aspect of their cosmology. It's from their cultural POV. Yet, Wikipedia still allows it, yes? If so, why? Why is that POV acceptable but EU POV is not? Is this bias on the deletionists part? Playing favorites of one belief system over the other? Why should one groups' POV be promoted over another's? That in and of itself is not NPOV by way of selective suppression of information. Mgmirkin 23:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Copied from my comments on Talk page.)[reply]

For what it's worth, despite the large number of links above, there appear to be no scientific articles in refereed journals that address the fundamental thesis being presented: that large landforms on extraterrestrial bodies were formed rapidly by electrical discharge rather than by impact. That makes the idea speculative at best, and places it under WP:NOT ("for ideas that someone made up in school one day"). Worse, the overuse of marginally relevant links is a kind of snow job -- someone who doesn't take the time to sort through the references and/or who doesn't have the experience or patience to read the papers themselves might think that they lend authority, when in fact they do not (they are irrelevant to the premise of the article).
NPOV has very specific limits -- it has to, in any document that purports to present truth. For example, in Sun we don't discuss the idea that the Sun's photosphere is made of iron, although that idea has very vocal advocates on the internet. That's because the photosphere is known to be made mostly of hydrogen and helium.
Presenting a specific group's views as such is all well and good, but it's not at all clear that Electric Universe advocates are a large enough group to be notable in themselves. EDMiS has the "feel" of a vanity page - it is about someone's pet idea that is not notable beyond the fact that the author felt like writing about it. zowie 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reservations, but I respectfully submit that the original authors of the Open Letter to the Science Community would disagree. The majority if not all of the original signers are notable physicists aligned with notable institutions, some of whom you will note work in plasma physics research institutions, and have been identified with either Plasma Cosmology or the Electric Universe affiliation. Though not specifically mentioning PC or EU by name (due to their lightning-rod / witch hunt generating features), it's basically a note of disgust by members of the scientific and academic community about how closed-minded the peer review and funding system has become, effectively locking out alternate theories from even receving said funding or peer review. I know what you're thinking before you even say it: not notable, not the smoking gun you think it is, and so what. Am I right? My only point is that there is mindshare outside of "standard cosmology" and it is NOT strictly crackpots, laymen and people who have never been into a laboratory in their life. Fact of the matter is that PC and EU were initially given life BY people in the academic and research community who saw flaws in the "standard model" and saw parallels in existing research in the lab.
To be frank, to these folks it appears that there is more good research in astrophysics going on at the IEEE conferences and in plasma research labs than in the astrophysics community 1. So, I suppose I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. There is mindshare for EU / PC even within the scientific community. It may be minority and squeezed out of journals, but it's there & research on related subjects is going on in related field, even as we speak. This isn't something some midleschooler thought up one day in class. This is stuff that plasma physicists have been thinking up for years. Since you're into notability: 1 2 3 it appears they've reproduced coronal ejections/solar flares in the plasma physics labs. And guess what, they look a lot like other stellar plasma phenomena. We've even managed to figure out how to prevent them (though whether the technique/technology for prevention would be possible to implement on the solar scale is dubious at best). Like I said, more and more research, more and more mounting evidence, and a stagnant astrophysics community that seems to not quite get it yet. But the day is coming.
So, what have we learned today? Probably nothing directly related to this article. *sigh* since it seems apparent that rather than attempting to fix POV issues on the belief system, we seem to keep chasing our tails about the EU model in general and mindshare of the paradigm as a whole. As we can see, creative mindshare (perhaps I should instead say "the minds that generated the PC / EU models") do not come from the layperson. They were generally proposed by plasma physicists and engineers who saw striking similarities to stellar phenomena in the lab. The fact that there is popular support from the layman isn't extraordinarily relevant. There is support within the physics community as well and active research that appears to validate some tenets of the EU / PC models. Granted it's anecdotal, and not a complete picture from any one source yet. Still... we seem to keep getting away from this article (granted they're related). We seem to be coming at this from opposite sides. You from the "nobody has proven the whole picture, so we can't publish any piece of it, despite the fact that we're merely presenting the views of one group/culture in the context of that culture." I'm coming at it from: "We know who the players are promoting the belief system, we kow the general theory, now let's discuss specifics of major tenets of their belief system." Isee little difference in cultural anthropological terms between one belif system and another, so long as they're presented neutrally. World tree, jormungand, the Virgin Mary, EDM in Space, black holes, peculiar beliefs of scientologists, etc. They're all just the beliefs. Some are based on myth, some on science, some on historical allusion, etc. But they're the beliefs held by a specific group, and used frequently by that group in their cosmology. People who wish to better understand the tenets of a belief system should have resources avaialble for better understanding who believes what, and why they believe it. Neutral to who believes it, or who supports/opposes it (lest you become non NPOV by suppression of sources of information relating to beliefs; let's not censor based on person feelings. I don't believe in Christian teachings, but I'm also not going to try deleting info about them that others may wish to better understand for posterity's sake). My 2c for the day. Mgmirkin 03:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per zowie's research above, article fails WP:V, specifically, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." --Satori Son 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electrical_Discharge_Machining_in_Space&oldid=1084276653"