Talk:Expanding Earth/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
What NPOV?
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.
"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.
NPOV is nothing more than current dogma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.176.220 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV.
Also see: Information suppression
"Modern scientific evidence does not support this idea, rather plate tectonics is almost universally accepted as correct."
This statement is unsourced and completely ridiculous.Sophergeo (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Egyed, L., Some Remarks On Continental Drift, Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 45, Number 1, 1960
Creer, K.M., An Expanding Earth?, Nature, 205, Pages 539-544, Feb 1965
Lambeck, K., The Earth's Variable Rotation: Geophysical Causes and Consequences, Page 449, 1980
Mundy, B., A Review of the Expanding Earth, Origins, Volume 12, Number 1, Pages 41-45, 1985
Mundy, B., Expanding Earth?, Origins, Volume 15, Number 2, Pages 52-69, 1988
Noel, D., Continental Drift and Earth Expansion, Nuteeriat, Chapter 3, Pages 22-41, 1989
Herndon, J.M., Teaching Earth Dynamics: What's Wrong With Plate Tectonics Theory?, 2005
Herndon, J.M., Whole Earth Decompression Dynamics, 2005
Crawford, A.R., The Pangaean Paradox: Where Is It?, Journal of Petroleum Geology, Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages 149-160, Dec 2007Sophergeo (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- This list is long, but not particularly helpful. Glancing at a few of them, I do not always see any connection at all to expanding Earth ideas. Others are from authors that we already know support an expanding Earth - as reported in the article. Still others come from journals that may not be entirely mainstream, and therefore not a reliable source for determining what modern geologists believe. What we really need are secondary sources. For example, is the expanding Earth hypothesis mentioned in any introductory textbooks? Is it mentioned in any recent reviews of plate tectonics? If we cannot find at least one solid case where it is, then the statement that "plate tectonics is almost universally accepted as correct" would seem to be accurate. (Remember it doesn't matter which side is right, or how lousy or non-scientific the reasons for the beliefs may be. It is only a question of what beliefs are actually held.) --Art Carlson (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you only looked at a few of them then you ignored 82% of them. Ignoring 82% of the verifiable and reliable peer-reviewed sources that would help to shed light on a Wiki article does not justify information suppresssion. The last time I checked Nature and Science are mainstream. In fact, all peer-reviewed science is mainstream by virtue of it being peer-reviewed. No POV can justify suppresssion of information simply because we personally happen to disagree with those beliefs. Please see NPOV and information suppression for details.Sophergeo (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- For a lengthy discussion of this with Sophergeo, in which there are responses to his statements, please see Talk:Subduction. Unfortunately, in my conversation with him, I could not get answers to direct questions (look for conservation of mass), he did not read what I wrote, and he generally just repeated that my objections were "unsourced POV" (even when I dragged out sources) and that I was suppressing information; for that reason, he never responded to my arguments. He seems to have fundamental physical misunderstandings, saying that continuity is a "red herring" (I guess that's what they call physical laws these days) and has nothing to do with subduction (while still leaving my conservation of mass question unanswered because it is "POV"), and not understanding the difference between relative and absolute temperature (see Talk:Mantle (geology). For these reasons, my conversations with him have not been helpful. Awickert (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not attack me personally. I answered all of your questions directly. Conservation of mass is a red herring and does not justify suppression of information. According to the sources above, plate tectonics violates conservation of mass.Sophergeo (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- You answer no questions directly. If you do, then please answer the conservation of mass question: how does it conserve mass? I believe my statements are accurate about our conversation, and appropriate based on its progression. Plate tectonics does conserve mass, from a real reliable source: Reviews of Geophysics. Calling physical laws "red herrings" is a surefire way to make your views seem like fringe and POV-pushing. Awickert (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't about correct or incorrect. It's about suppression of information. It is obvious you believe the information to be incorrect as indicated by the blatant bias of the article. What is not obvious is that the NPOV policy allows information to be suppressed because you believe it to be incorrect.Sophergeo (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Me and the whole geologic community, minus 3-10 fringers, think it's incorrect. What I'm not clear about is that it seems you wish to put information on a public encyclopedia whether or not it is correct. As usual, you again ignore my questions. Until you address the fundamental concerns, what you say is WP:PSCI bogus. Awickert (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not make personal attacks. Thy do not support your case but rather simply violate more Wikipedia policies. Your characterization of peer-reviewed "questionable science" and "alternative theoretical formulations" as "pseudoscience" is yet another violation of Wikipedia policy.
- Me and the whole geologic community, minus 3-10 fringers, think it's incorrect. What I'm not clear about is that it seems you wish to put information on a public encyclopedia whether or not it is correct. As usual, you again ignore my questions. Until you address the fundamental concerns, what you say is WP:PSCI bogus. Awickert (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't about correct or incorrect. It's about suppression of information. It is obvious you believe the information to be incorrect as indicated by the blatant bias of the article. What is not obvious is that the NPOV policy allows information to be suppressed because you believe it to be incorrect.Sophergeo (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- You answer no questions directly. If you do, then please answer the conservation of mass question: how does it conserve mass? I believe my statements are accurate about our conversation, and appropriate based on its progression. Plate tectonics does conserve mass, from a real reliable source: Reviews of Geophysics. Calling physical laws "red herrings" is a surefire way to make your views seem like fringe and POV-pushing. Awickert (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not attack me personally. I answered all of your questions directly. Conservation of mass is a red herring and does not justify suppression of information. According to the sources above, plate tectonics violates conservation of mass.Sophergeo (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- For a lengthy discussion of this with Sophergeo, in which there are responses to his statements, please see Talk:Subduction. Unfortunately, in my conversation with him, I could not get answers to direct questions (look for conservation of mass), he did not read what I wrote, and he generally just repeated that my objections were "unsourced POV" (even when I dragged out sources) and that I was suppressing information; for that reason, he never responded to my arguments. He seems to have fundamental physical misunderstandings, saying that continuity is a "red herring" (I guess that's what they call physical laws these days) and has nothing to do with subduction (while still leaving my conservation of mass question unanswered because it is "POV"), and not understanding the difference between relative and absolute temperature (see Talk:Mantle (geology). For these reasons, my conversations with him have not been helpful. Awickert (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- "The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized as pseudoscience:
- Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."
- Alternative theoretical formulations: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."
- Sophergeo wrote:
- If you only looked at a few of them then you ignored 82% of them. Ignoring 82% of the verifiable and reliable peer-reviewed sources that would help to shed light on a Wiki article does not justify information suppresssion.
- It would be helpful if you would pre-select the two or three references that best support your contention that a significant proportion of practicing geologists do not accept plate tectonics. After looking at the cream of the crop we might consider playing the numbers game. However, remember that these are primary sources, and my main point is that Wikipedia should ordinarily be based on secondary sources.
- The last time I checked Nature and Science are mainstream.
- None of your references are from Science. Those from Nature were all published between 1961 and 1965, except one from 1970. Even if there was a significant minority of the mainstream that questioned plate tectonics 2 generations ago, that does not imply that there is such a minority today. Furthermore, your credibility is called into question by the fact that at least one of the articles you cite (Cox and Doell, 1961) is a refutation of expanding Earth theories.
- Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored (Huxley 1927). Meservey, R., Topological Inconsistency of Continental Drift on the Present-Sized Earth, Science, Volume 166, Number 3905, Pages 609-611, Oct 1969Sophergeo (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? Are you talking about the facts of geology or the facts about what was published when? Only the latter is relevant on this page, not the former. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- The user is not saying anything. They gave a poignant quote from Huxley, and falsified the accusation "None of your references are from Science."
- Huh? Are you talking about the facts of geology or the facts about what was published when? Only the latter is relevant on this page, not the former. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored (Huxley 1927). Meservey, R., Topological Inconsistency of Continental Drift on the Present-Sized Earth, Science, Volume 166, Number 3905, Pages 609-611, Oct 1969Sophergeo (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, all peer-reviewed science is mainstream by virtue of it being peer-reviewed.
- This is an untenable position. The system does allow certified cranks to publish now and then.
- No POV can justify suppresssion of information simply because we personally happen to disagree with those beliefs. Please see NPOV and information suppression for details.
- I have not expressed my POV on expanding Earth. My arguments are based on the need for secondary sources. Unless you can cite at least one textbook or review in the last half centruy that mentions the expanding Earth hypothesis, you do not have any support for your claim that the passage in question is POV. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the textbook that no doubt will be suppressed in order to obscure the article. Biogeography in a Changing WorldSophergeo (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- That is (a) not so much a textbook as a collection of articles, (b) not written by geologists, and (c) doesn't actually have a ton of expanding Earth references. In some places, it simply says that "regardless of the mechanism". It also ignores evidence for anything before Pangaea, such as Gondwana (e.g., Collins A.S. and Pisarevsky, S.A. 2005 Amalgamating Eastern Gondwana: The evolution of the circum-Indian orogens. Earth Science Reviews, 71, 229–270). Awickert (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the textbook that no doubt will be suppressed in order to obscure the article. Biogeography in a Changing WorldSophergeo (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sophergeo wrote:
- There is a big difference between the proceedings of a symposium and a textbook widely used to introduce students (undergrad or graduate) to the commonly accepted principles of a field. Do you know of any real textbook that claims there is significant opposition to the principles of plate tectonics? --Art Carlson (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- In response to Sophergeo, that was (a) not a personal attack via the definition (it was more frustration about repetition and unresponsiveness) and (b) it is more questionable than questionable science, we've been over this, but you don't seem to want to tell any of us why it's not. I think Art Carlson's comments are good, and need to be addressed, in addition to my own. Awickert (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, none of the comments above override NPOV and justify information suppression such as we are seeing with the verifiable and reliable information posted above.Sophergeo (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- They are relevant because they question the sources and their prevalence in the literature. They also question the reputations of the journals. That is what WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, AND WP:WEIGHT are all about. Please stop the blanket accusations and address the information and responses to you. Awickert (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, none of the comments above override NPOV and justify information suppression such as we are seeing with the verifiable and reliable information posted above.Sophergeo (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- In response to Sophergeo, that was (a) not a personal attack via the definition (it was more frustration about repetition and unresponsiveness) and (b) it is more questionable than questionable science, we've been over this, but you don't seem to want to tell any of us why it's not. I think Art Carlson's comments are good, and need to be addressed, in addition to my own. Awickert (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- How exactly is information being suppressed? There is an article. What is POV about it? The fact that it is a fringe belief? Just as you say, this isn't about truth but about the verifiable fact that the literature treats expanding earth as a fringe hypothesis. As much as you'd like, you can't change that, and neither can we. What personal attacks? What has Awickert said about your character? Such grandstanding is very disruptive to a collaborative project. NJGW (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Having read about this theory within the past little while, this article is sorely lacking in information beyond that which can be used to disprove the idea, and in such is biased beyond belief. Rather than present the information as information for inquiry, it's presented as some kind of crazed theory adhered to by madmen. I really encourage somehow who has the time to clean up this article. Whether or not the idea is true, scientific inquiry should not be biased. People need to stop acting like theories are a religion and get back to thinking about more than just what we "think" we know. 60.35.15.63 (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Who is the uniformed censor ?
Someone is repeatedly taking away the info I added on the PHD Thesis by James Maxlov, and the link to an external web site which inform about the Expanding Earth theory and the work of Maxlow. James Maxlow is one of the contemporary geologists that has made a great contribution to the understanding of the theory and his scientific his work is of great importance and should be informed of in this Wiki site.
R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reo2 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC) --Reo2 (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC) --Reo2 (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are correct in that James Maxlow's work should be referenced here. The problem is that you were citing his own web site. See Wikipedia:original research. You should instead cite his book on the subject published by a third party. Also try to maintain a neutral point of vew, and keep the text in accordance with encyclopedic form. Michael Netzer (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, However there was no need for taking away the link to Maxlows web site that I had inserted under the title "External web sites", was it? Reo2--Reo2 (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- @Everyone: What third party publisher ever published Maxlow's work? As far as I can gather, Terrella Press has only ever published this one book from James Maxlow. A publisher with no history cannot be considered a reliable source, and the content cannot be considered significant enough even for an external link. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Who have taken away the answer I posted to Someguy?--Reo2 (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- No answers were posted. The website sometimes loses it if the server times out or the connection fails when you're trying to post. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- See the section Talk:Expanding Earth#Not_a_significant_alternate_view above. Vsmith (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Who have taken away the answer I posted to Someguy?--Reo2 (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Books in external links
In reference to an addition of two books. One of them (Stephen Hurrell) doesn't seem to have any credential. The other one is James Maslow (see section above). The book has a third party publisher, but, unfortunately, it's an "independient book publisher", not an academic publisher and not a publisher with a reputation for publishing accurate science books. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Stephen Hurrell is a structural engineer. James Maxlow is a PHD geologist. This not a scientific journal it's wikipedia. Besides any monkey can publish anything these days. CopyKat0t0 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's Wikipedia and we have policies and guidelines. Including one on external links, see WP:EL. I don't think those links meet our criteria for external links. You can ask at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard if you think they do, but so far you've been reverted by several editors and another, Enric Naval, has commented above. This means that you shouldn't replace them until you get consensus here. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is hardly anything in WP:EL that prevents these external links. Just the opposite:
- "Links to be considered: 4. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
- Though Maxlow and Hurrell may not be notable, they are considered knowledgeable about the subject of the article, which can be clearly seen in their work. The subject may have been dismissed scientifically but an encyclopedic entry should rise above scientific criteria. A kind reminder:
- WP:Notability (science): "A key element to understanding this guideline is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research publication, and as such Wikipedia does not usurp the usual validation processes of scientific institutions such as peer review, scientific consensus, and academic recognition."
- If you wish your request to adhere to guidelines be respected, then should you not also respect guidelines about inappropriate scientific bias? MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your comments seem more to do with using them as sources, not external links. And bias is dealt with through WP:NPOV, not notability guidelines. Raised at WP:ELN. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Doug. My comments were directed generally at the long history of this article, which more than some others, indicates a teetering between scientific/academic quardsmanship and encyclopedic considerations that should extend beyond it. Hence my citing the alluded overlap to WP:NPOV addressed in WP:Notability (science), as it supports the potential presence of scientific bias that required inclusion of the guideline statement I quoted. Specifically, I did not find cause in WP:EL guidelines to discourage the inclusion of Maxlow and Hurrell's work in external links. However, I've since seen your query, which you directed me to, in WP:ELN and that your specific concerns were answered. Hence, the question I now ask is whether there exists any objection to including Maxlow's book in a Further reading section, before we embark on adding it. MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- We should set a minim threshold for inclusion. This way we have an objetive barrier. If the list becomes too long, then we can simply set a higher threshold and then trim the list.
- I propose: for articles, publication in peer-reviewed geological journal. For books, publication in reputable academic publishers. For notable authors who publish elsewhere, only use authors that have third-party high-quality sources saying that they are notable sources of info for the topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree we need some criteria. Being discussed in at least some detail in other reliable sources should be one of them. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, please. You speak as if the present Wikipedia guidelines don't even exist. There is a good reason why the guidelines permit the inclusion of certain material that is not founded on academic and scientific standards, but rather on popular notability and relevance to a topic. We cannot commandeer this article to our own new criteria as if no such guidelines have already been written. If we need new criteria, then we should edit the structural Wikipedia guidelines and not apply a unique standard onto this article as you suggest. The criteria you speak of has already been laid down and cannot be manipulated by our whims. I am duly surprised, nay, slightly shocked, with these statements coming from editors whom I'd assume to hold the best encyclopedic interest of Wikipedia at heart. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you are being sarcastic or at least tongue in cheek. The issue is how to apply the guidelines and policies, and that will vary with the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I am at somewhat of a loss for expressing dismay at how the guidelines are being applied to this article, while trying to maintain the good nature that should govern the discussion. The subject has been cut down to an avalanche of information on why the theory is not scientifically sound, while little remains about the theory itself. Which is what this page should be about, after all. I am certainly not interested in an edit conflict and it seems to me that usurping this page to scientific standard is a serious blemish on Wikipedia. Some editors leading this charge may not realize, in their self-satisfaction at discrediting it with every edit, how entirely unbalanced it is. When someone comes here to learn about the theory, they are instead faced with what appears to be a propaganda campaign by a defensive and fearful academic front that's not able to separate an encyclopedic entry from a peer reviewed journal. So, with all due respect, "How to apply the guidelines" in this article has become "How to apply an academic science standard". And it is so blatant that I truly wonder how editors championing their hold on this entry are content with appearing to be so outwardly manipulative of the guidelines. The notion that editors who tried to present more information about the theory have given up on the edit wars, should be of little comfort for anyone who still believes in, and desires, the encyclopedic integrity of this article. I try to remain good natured in the face of all this and hope that perhaps yourself and others will put aside this imbalance of considerations, and help turn this article into what it should be. Or at least extend sincere aid to new editors who are trying to do so and are not yet familiar enough with the guidelines to do it properly. Science should have nothing to fear about a comprehensively presented entry to Expanding Earth, which holds a more notable position of regard and honor in science history than is being offered here. MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It does seem rather odd that we don't link to a geologist's book on the subject because it is published by a non-academic publishing company (vanity press maybe?), but we do link to a personal webpage of a cartoon artist who came up with some flashy cartoon graphics and managed to get noticed by that bastion of scientific publishing: "wired". Kinda funny really ... maybe that's the point. Perhaps we should add a further reading note to Maxlow's book (not a website or pub co. link) just basic bibliographic info w isbn ... and remove the absurd section promoting the comic book artist as irrelevant.Vsmith (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- My dear good fellow, Mr. VSmith: If this were a legal litigation in a court of law charging improper academic/scientific bias towards encyclopedic content, and I was the prosecutor, then I would call you as my first material witness and cite your statement above as primary evidence for the charge. The content on this entry should not hinge on acceptance by scientific consensus alone as you say, but is intended to consider its extensive notability and cultural presence also in reliable media sources. The manner in which you ridicule the non-science-consensus coverage of the theory in Wired, betrays this extreme bias which is also visible in the article. The notable comics artist has advanced the embrace and exploration of Expanding Earth into many other notable and reliable media sources (e.g. Japan Times, Coast to Coast Radio, HubPages etc..) which warrant to be covered in the article as information sources for the encyclopedic integrity of the entry. I plead with you to reconsider this approach which has already eliminated a separate Growing Earth article (in violation of Wikepdia guidelines, and which had already been approved in a deletion attempt) by merging it into this article and eliminating most of its contents. The history of this article and discussions on it either indicate innocent ignorance of Wikipedia policy meant to ensure encyclopedic integrity, or a lack of good faith by editors commandeering its content and usurping it to conform to scientific criteria. I find it difficult to believe this is being done without due concern for the platform the article is meant to serve, and articulated so blatantly in comments such as yours here. Please forgive the impassioned criticism but I cannot otherwise express how injurious this approach is to the integrity of Wikipedia as a leading and reliable information source. MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
What we should do is work to improve is the historical development of Carey's ideas (and others) as they were presented in context, before and during the tectonics revolution of the 50s-70s. Vsmith (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is a very good direction to pursue. It is important to cover the geological evidence Carey presented and that the theory was rejected due to an issue of physics, concerning a mechanism for creation of new mass, which he had little knowledge in, while his geological evidence was found to be quite sound. MichaelNetzer (talk)
- Books should "not" go in external links - they should have there own section as per WP:FURTHER - see Wikipedia:Further reading for what the inclusion criteria are - (keeping in mind that this is not yet policy and/or guideline, but is what looks like the community has so far agreed should be included). ie Canadians, The Beatles, September 11 attacks... Moxy (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's why I specified "further reading". Also need to carefully consider Bookspam. Vsmith (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've started this section with a short list of books that inform about EE from authors who are considered knowledgeable about the theory. I honestly searched for books criticizing Expanding Earth, for a balance in the list, but time is short for me right now. A couple of new books that do so would help if anyone is able to search for, and include them. Or alternately, perhaps the Literature section above it is enough to present the other side. MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I think it looks silly to have a section headed 'Literature' and one 'Further reading'. We certainly should not be listing self-published books and we don't use Amazon links. I've removed the section. Please don't add books without consensus. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is a consensus expressed to add a Further reading section citing books that cover the subject which have been discussed here. And we have already received a confirmantion from your query to add Maxlow's book as such. I must remind of the guidelines to Wikipedia:Further reading which first and foremost advise that books cited should primarily and extensively cover the subject of the article, and these books do so more than any others cited here. The guidelines are also more lenient regarding reliable sources and self-published works in a case such as this. Please read "Topical" and "Reliable" headings in FR. Can we then agree to change the "Literature" section title to "Further reading" and add the Maxlow and Shehu books without Amazon links? MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seems that we already have a 'further reading' section, which perhaps others beside me missed. I'm not sure why you are linking to the sites you are linking to, and they don't work for me. Wikipedia:Further reading which is what I think you mean is just a proposal and does not say anything about self-published works. Our guidelines on self-published works apply here, and the Maxlow and Shehu books are self-published. So no, they should not be added. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I added the "further reading" note above which as you note is redundant. I also suggested the Maxlow book as being perhaps more reliable than website spam by comic book artists - without thinking about the "self-published" nature of it, only that he (Maxlow) seems to have a relevant background -- altho' I haven't read his works or considered his background in detail. Given the "self-published" nature of some of the external links, I'd suggest they need weeding. Vsmith (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Removed self-published promotional websites from ext links and a couple of self published promotional ref links. Vsmith (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Removing these links which already gained consensus is quite beyond an assumption of good faith. It's petty, unprofessional and completely violates the spirit of Wikipedia. MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seems that we already have a 'further reading' section, which perhaps others beside me missed. I'm not sure why you are linking to the sites you are linking to, and they don't work for me. Wikipedia:Further reading which is what I think you mean is just a proposal and does not say anything about self-published works. Our guidelines on self-published works apply here, and the Maxlow and Shehu books are self-published. So no, they should not be added. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is a consensus expressed to add a Further reading section citing books that cover the subject which have been discussed here. And we have already received a confirmantion from your query to add Maxlow's book as such. I must remind of the guidelines to Wikipedia:Further reading which first and foremost advise that books cited should primarily and extensively cover the subject of the article, and these books do so more than any others cited here. The guidelines are also more lenient regarding reliable sources and self-published works in a case such as this. Please read "Topical" and "Reliable" headings in FR. Can we then agree to change the "Literature" section title to "Further reading" and add the Maxlow and Shehu books without Amazon links? MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I think it looks silly to have a section headed 'Literature' and one 'Further reading'. We certainly should not be listing self-published books and we don't use Amazon links. I've removed the section. Please don't add books without consensus. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've started this section with a short list of books that inform about EE from authors who are considered knowledgeable about the theory. I honestly searched for books criticizing Expanding Earth, for a balance in the list, but time is short for me right now. A couple of new books that do so would help if anyone is able to search for, and include them. Or alternately, perhaps the Literature section above it is enough to present the other side. MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's why I specified "further reading". Also need to carefully consider Bookspam. Vsmith (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the consensus, maybe I haven't looked carefully enough? And you are wrong about AGF. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Art Carlson began a discussion on the external links in Dec 2008. The list was trimmed down and has remained as it was for more than two years. This indicates a consensus agreement on it. Now, VSmith removes two links from the list referencing notable public interest in the theory by notable sources, immediately after my comments about the need to represent this public interest in EE, which is outside of scientific consensus, and which VSmith ridicutles. The public interest, media coverage and proliferation of discussion on EE is growing and more new reliable sources expressing this interest have been emerging for several years now. The discussions here and the article itself reveal a concerted effort to suppress this information which is of notable encyclopedic value, in favor or highlighting its rejection by scientific consensus. This violates the spirit of Wikepedia as an information source and wide-scope encyclopedia. If I am wrong about AGF, then perhaps I'm wrong about my understanding of what Wikepedia is meant to be. Perhaps it is a science journal after all and the guidelines indicating otherwise are merely a detraction. At any rate, do as you will. All efforts to represent this notable public interest in EE are being suppressed regardless of what anyone does. The article is of such little encyclopedic value as it is, that it's simply a waste of time to have to explain this so repeatedly and have it fall on such deft ears. MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Or it indicates no one cared or was paying attention. There's no consensus now in any case. You don't seem to understand our NPOV policy, but there is the noticeboard at WP:NPOVN if you want to present your case there. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: the two external links removed were [http://www.michaelnetzer.com/gu Growing Earth Consortium] - [[Michael Netzer]] et al. and [http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html Animation collection of Expanding Earth Theory] by [[Neal Adams]]. Seems we need full disclosure here. Vsmith (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- No one was concealing this information that it needs a disclosure. It only indicates the personal nature that motivates the deletion, due to my comments on your Wikipedia:NPOV violations and your ridicule above of the notable public interest in EE supported by notable comic book artists. Your deletion and "disclosure" fail to address the issue of your visible bias towards content not supported by science standards but nonetheless holds notable relevance to the topic. MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Take it to WP:NPOVN if you are unhappy. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- No one was concealing this information that it needs a disclosure. It only indicates the personal nature that motivates the deletion, due to my comments on your Wikipedia:NPOV violations and your ridicule above of the notable public interest in EE supported by notable comic book artists. Your deletion and "disclosure" fail to address the issue of your visible bias towards content not supported by science standards but nonetheless holds notable relevance to the topic. MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: the two external links removed were [http://www.michaelnetzer.com/gu Growing Earth Consortium] - [[Michael Netzer]] et al. and [http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html Animation collection of Expanding Earth Theory] by [[Neal Adams]]. Seems we need full disclosure here. Vsmith (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting reading .Moxy (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Not a significant alternate view
While an Expanding Earth is definitely an alternate view, it is an insignificant alternate view, with next to 0 acceptance, and absolutely no peer-reviewed publications in major geological journals since the plate tectonic revolution. While there are many decent debates about science out there, I think that this one is absolutely closed, and so shouldn't be part of WikiProject Alternate Views. Awickert (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you serious!? It's the only alternative view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.86.120 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am serious. First, geosynclinal theory was a vastly more significant alternate view. Second, there is currently no significant alternate view to plate tectonics and the weight of the evidence makes future views unlikely to be anything but refinements on plate tectonics. Awickert (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at this web site World Science Database for more info regarding the Expanding Earth theory and how many proponents there are. I think this theory have more scientific fondation than have the Plate tectonic theory.--Reo2 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reo, this article is not a repository or a linkfarm for everyone to ever put forth a theory of an expanding Earth. Individuals who are not notable, or whose ideas have not received significant coverage from reliable sources do not get mentioned. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The definition of "notability": "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article", it does not say anything about external links. The important thing must be if a link goes to a site with important scientific information or not. You don't seem to understand the matter in question and thus are unable to judge what is right or wrong in this case.--Reo2 (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:ELNO. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the site provides anything worth pointing our readers to. If he's not a published expert, and no one else repeats the information, the only thing left is notability. If he's a famous purveyor of Expanding Earth theories, then maybe. If he's some random guy who wrote a book, then the link stays out. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd say he is the most "famous purveyor of Expanding Earth theories" and had personal contact with Professor Sam Warren Carey from Tasmania, the father of modern Earth Expansion. Check the biography a bit down on the page on this link: http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=492 reo --Reo2 (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Um...his bibliography is a couple books from unreliable publishers, and a couple articles that don't seem to have actually been published anywhere. Has he ever been noticed by mainstream science or even the news media? You've elevated him from "random guy who wrote a book" to "random guy who wrote two books and two articles and once knew some other guy who was famous". I'll repeat, this article is not a repository for everyone who's ever written about an expanding Earth. It's about notable expanding Earth theories, as well as theories that once had a significant impact on scientific discourse. Back to the link, there's a claim that he's world famous with regard to his theories, but zero evidence is provided. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
If the crucial thing for being accepted in Wiki was to be "noticed by mainstream science" then every scientific work that is new, and hence not yet accepted by the majority or the "academic world", would never been presented here. Since I'm not English speaking it is a bit hard to produce long information texts so I will not comment here more. But Maxlow is apparently famous enough to be invited to the "36th Course of the International School of Geophysics". Se this link: http://portale.ingv.it/portale_ingv/resources/conference-archive/conferences2011/36th-course-of-the-international-school-of-geophysics/view?set_language=en--Reo2 (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reo--Reo2 (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, new scientific works are not automatically acceptable to Wikipedia. You'll find that those that are have all either received substantial coverage in the media, or don't go against the mainstream. A Wikipedia article on a new theory that has not been covered in the news, and has not been discussed in publications by other scientists, will not have an article on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not (the evil twin of Notability) for some policies. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
74.116.154.204 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC) For what it's worth, I doubt there is any serious consideration for Earth expansion. For one, SW Carey proposed annihilation for Earth, so there is no interest in pursuing that in an economy dependent upon consumption. Now, with graphite in space controlling magnetism and electricity, yes. That's applicable to the current economy in computers, etc. But to propose that this enormously strong magnetic field might actually compress a star or planet to explosion, no. Even the evident (to me) heliosphere compression doesn't rate any scientific comments.
ask for summary
Hello guys! Do you know some peer-reviewed paper (likely published after 1985) summarizing why Expanding Earth theory is wrong? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Try the sources in Talk:Expanding_Earth#sources_for_acceptance_of_theory, and my message rght above that section. Stüwe's book has a few lenghty explanations that might work for you. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Gas giant
I looked over the website, and while there are a few papers that are published in journals that relate to this there, I think that there may be an issue of undue weight (see WP:WEIGHT here, as they are in a non-geological journal that I had honestly never even heard of. The section also looks like it contains a lot of WP:SYNTHESIS: when we write at Wikipedia, we do not try to substantiate claims by citing sources for supporting evidence, but we rather need to cite sources that make those exact claims. This could be just a matter of writing; I haven't read through the papers because I'm short on time and he makes many fundamental mistakes and misrepresentations of the state of geoscience (that would be caught in any mainstream geological/geophysical journal, hence the papers are not published there), so I lost interest. But of course my opinion does not matter: the content seems appropriate for the article, but it needs some reworking to comply with the WP guidelines. Awickert (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is undue weight in my opinion. J. M. Herndon is not much more know and published than S. W. Carey, James Maxlow, Giancarlo Scalera, Klaus Vogel, Konstantin Meyl, Andrew Kugler (who are slightly or not quoted currently). Actually, it is the contrary. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ooops, I forgot Neal Adams, sorry. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've chopped the last paragraph re: neutrino measurements as rather obvious WP:SYN/WP:OR. Vsmith (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Will return to likely chop/condense some more later. Vsmith (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Redid the first part, probably still WP:UNDUE. The source is a "research notes" section in the online Current Science maintained by the Indian Academy of Sciences and rather obviously not peer reviewed. Given that and the hype on Herndens website I'd say it is simply too fringy to include. Vsmith (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the Whole-earth decompression dynamics stuff as WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and likely some SYN and OR thrown in. Present any evidence to the contrary here and discuss before re-adding. Vsmith (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing the extra legwork. Awickert (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Heh - and I see User:Kalendis has reverted, I await with anticipation discussion by said user here. Vsmith (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've put it back because it is not that Herndon's theory has undue weight or is the most "fringe", but rather that that the alternative theories presented here are clearly fringe without supporting evidence. Herndon's novel theory explains much, makes testable predictions, and numerous papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals both by Herndon and also independently by a respectable range of other authors, some of whom were cited herein. I've taken the time to read several of those papers over the past several months -- have you bothered to look at them for more than a few seconds? Just because YOU haven't heard of the theory doesn't make it "fringe"! If you truly feel that here we are left with undue weight on Herndon's theory then by all means feel free to beef up the discussions of the alternative theories! Kalendis (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK, what peer reviewed journals have published the Whole-earth decompression dynamics hypothesis? Perhaps I've missed something. Vsmith (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also what other fringe advocates are you referring to? The only one I see is Neal Adams in "Present day advocates" and I'd say Herndon's concepts could be briefly mentioned there and should perhaps be considered less fringe than Adams. The others discussed briefly were all historical figures working well before Carey and the plate tectonics revolution - so don't fit the fringe title at all. And I've been aware of Herndon's work and website for many years. Vsmith (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I've looked at the expanding-Earth papers - none of which seem to be peer-reviewed. You don't have to take my word for it, but I have a pretty good knowledge of the geophysical literature, and claims that he makes are totally at odds with direct observations that he completely ignores. Such is the way with fringe work. And yes, it is fringe: it is completely out of mainstream geology to the point that it is not even publishable in geological journals. Hence professional geologists have never heard of it. Awickert (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
While waiting, I've scaled it back to fit the hypothesis presented in the Whole-earth decompression dynamics research-notes paper without the georeactor hypothesis stuff which is separate methinks - and thus undue wt. Vsmith (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Expanding Earth versus Pangaea
I saw that my previous edit in which I wrote that Pangaea is a competing hypothesis was reverted. According to the Pangaea theory, all continents formed a supercontinent except from which there was only water on the Earth's surface, while according to this theory, no such continent ever existed. So isn't it possible to say that these two are competing hypothesis? —Kri (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- What you would need is a WP:RS which says the two are "competing hypotheses". Without such a reference, it is just WP:OR. Vsmith (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? It's a fact that's obvious by just looking at the two pages! Please tell me how it comes to be original research? —Kri (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:RS, Creationism is wrong, Evolution is correct and the former should not be presented as "a competing hypothesis" to the latter-- it would be WP:OR. Likewise, Expanding Earth has been rejected, Pangaea has been confirmed-- anything else would be OR. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, where can I see that? Is there any Wikipedia page that lists confirmed and rejected theories? —Kri (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- We do have Superseded scientific theories, although its lack of references is unhelpful. Mikenorton (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, where can I see that? Is there any Wikipedia page that lists confirmed and rejected theories? —Kri (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:RS, Creationism is wrong, Evolution is correct and the former should not be presented as "a competing hypothesis" to the latter-- it would be WP:OR. Likewise, Expanding Earth has been rejected, Pangaea has been confirmed-- anything else would be OR. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? It's a fact that's obvious by just looking at the two pages! Please tell me how it comes to be original research? —Kri (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hydritic Earth
The section Expanding Hydritic Earth was only sourced to a Russian language blog or discussion website and the Wiki article on the topic seems sourced only to self-published sites. As such, I can't see leaving it in the article so will remove. If valid refs can be produced for its relevance then it can be re-added. Vsmith (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Vladimir N. Larin, Hydridic Earth: the New Geology of Our Primordially Hydrogen Rich Planet, Polar Publishing, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1993, ISBN 0-9694506-2-1" ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Old Russian documentary (with English subtitles) about Larin's theory - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP7s0A4-alM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.235.18.128 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
External links - neutrality
Almost all link in the section "External links" are now from people, who tries to prove that earth is expanding. I think, that according to NPOV we can delete links to sites of earth-expanding sites and to G.Scalera's works. `a5b (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Wu's geodetic model
Does anyone realize that using a plate-based geodetic model is absurd to measure an expansion of Earth? Florian N (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Imaging of lithosphere fragments
This is not evidence in support of plate tectonics or against Earth expansion, because subduction is resulting from mantle flows as shown for example by the development of the Scotia Sea. Vsmith fails to understand the point that a mantle flow is resurfacing the lithosphere, in other words it forms as much fresh lithosphere than it does consume old lithosphere. Obviously the way lithosphere get buried under a mantle flow is a strong evidence of Earth expansion. Florian N (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- "subduction is resulting from mantle flows" → Most of proponents of Expanding Earth theory claim that subduction does not append (see for example fig.2 in Giancarlo Scalera, Paleogeographical reconstructions compatible with Earth dilatation, http://hdl.handle.net/2122/1496, p.822). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- does not append what? Florian N (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- typo Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Errata: Most of proponents of Expanding Earth theory claim that subduction does not happen
d. Subduction is not existing in almost all Expanding Earth theories. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)- The observations interpreted as "subduction" in plate tectonics do exist, but are interpreted as eduction, overthrusting, overduction... which are in generally better agreement with the reality of the geodynamics of these zones. The point is that subduction is synonymous to consumption of lithosphere sheets thousands km in dimension, which has no reality whatsoever. Florian N (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Handwaving. Subduction do exist in plate tectonic, and do not exist in almost all Expanding Earth theories, period. Your claim that "subduction is resulting from mantle flows" is out of scope, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE or WP:OR, and would have been deleted if the article instead the talk page. But thank you for agreeing that "subduction [...] has no reality whatsoever" according to Expanding Earth theories. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- The observations interpreted as "subduction" in plate tectonics do exist, but are interpreted as eduction, overthrusting, overduction... which are in generally better agreement with the reality of the geodynamics of these zones. The point is that subduction is synonymous to consumption of lithosphere sheets thousands km in dimension, which has no reality whatsoever. Florian N (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Other examples:
- the 5 § beginning William Carnell Erickson, S. Warren Carey Rogue Scientist from Down Under, 1985;
- the whole chapter 13 The Subduction Myth in Samuel Warren Carey, Theories of the Earth and Universe: A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences, Stanford University Press, 1988;
- Yu Chudinov;
- James Maxlow;
- http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_2.htm;
- Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- "The observations interpreted as "subduction" in plate tectonics do exist, but are interpreted as eduction, overthrusting, overduction... which are in generally better agreement with the reality of the geodynamics of these zones."
- Anybody who writes that 1) has not mastered scientific reasoning; 2) does not understand geology, or geological terminology. Overthrusting and subduction are mechanisms working on a completely different scale and in completely different settings. They don't contradict each other, they supplement each other. Woodwalkertalk 12:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- The term overthrusting by opposition to subduction is used by the geologist Andrew Kugler. Subduction happens when a sheet of lithosphere moves toward and slides under another sheet of lithosphere. Overthrusting in the terminology of Kugler is the opposite: a sheet of lithosphere moves toward and over another sheet of lithosphere. Evidence support the later and refute the former.Florian N (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Did a search on Andrew Kugler: Seems his book Subduction and Overthrusting according to Barnes and Noble is published by Lulu. Barnes and Noble sell an ebook version. Lulu.com says it is a 62 page hardcover published by Andrew Kugler. Self published or vanity press published material fails WP:RS. Reading the bits available on Barnes and Noble, seems he is saying that overthrusting is highly visible in mountain ranges therefore real wheras subduction isn't visible therefore not real ... or something akin to that. Vsmith (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all! His point is summarized as follow: If the tearing margins delimit the downthrown sheet, this has been the active sheet and the mechanism has been underthrusting (subduction). If the tearing margins delimit the upthrown sheet, this has been the active sheet and the mechanism has been overthrusting. This is the case for the Anatolian/Aegean system, the Scotia sea, the Caribbean Sea and so on...Florian N (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Er ... not really relevant what a non-WP:RS source says. Please use sources that comply with policy. Vsmith (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is a significant minority view in the context of the article. Or do you suggest that the goal is not to make a neutral article? Florian N (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- "...significant minority view..." Would seem such "minority views" need to be sourced to reliable sources rather than self published stuff. Vsmith (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is a significant minority view in the context of the article. Or do you suggest that the goal is not to make a neutral article? Florian N (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Er ... not really relevant what a non-WP:RS source says. Please use sources that comply with policy. Vsmith (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe this Kugler made up his own terminology. The word "overthrusting" is normally used for crustal scale tectonics. It plays an important role in the tectonics of fold and thrust belts ("mountain chains"). It has nothing to do with movements between the asthenosphere and lithosphere. If you're interested in learning about structural geology and its terminology, there are many good works out there. I can recommend Suppe's Structural Geology, although a bit old; Twiss & Moores (Structural Geology) or Van der Pluijm & Marshak (Earth's Structure). There is also a new book by Haakon Fossen, a recommendable author, but I haven't laid hands on the book yet.
- The word "overduction" won't be recognized by geologists or geophysicists. "Eduction", at least, is an old, obsolete hypothesis by Dixon & Farrar (1980); a model to explain the occurrence of blueschists. But even if you consider that old model to have some value, I could point to the fact that blueschist terrains are rather rare. The total volume of material is far from enough to explain where subducted lithosphere goes. Blueschists (and eclogites) are an exception, they don't represent the normal process. Woodwalkertalk 03:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes he extended the classical terminology, but that this the one that must be used in the context of this article, because to my knowledge, there are no terminology to describe the opposite of subduction? Is there? Thanx for the book suggestion but my shelf is already full of geology books.
- Same case than for Kugler. Chudinov used this terminology to describe the geodynamic of some arcs on the margin of the Siberian craton. It is clearly not the general case, but is limited to the Pacific region in earlier epochs. Florian N (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- That would suggest that Chudinov is rather a fringe source if he uses the terminology of other fringe sources - or was he the originator of the terminology? As for "opposite of subduction" ... what reliable source says there is such? Vsmith (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Chudinov used the term at least since 1985. But his work being in Russian, it is possible that the translation was made using the term of Dixon & Farrar (1980) which are not fringe! How do you understand the "opposite of subduction"?Florian N (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- This comes down to basic encyclopedic writing skills, but I'll explain. The magical word here is point of view (POV). POV is a characteristic all information (like the information in an article) has. Which terminology to use depends on the POV of the article. Since Wikipedia tries to be an objective encyclopedia, we use the terminology of the most objective and trustworthy sources possible, aka the sources written by the people that study the subject professionally. In this case the broader subject is the Earth, and the ones studying the Earth are geologists and geophysicists. So the POV of this article is the geologist's POV. That means you have to use terminology as used in geology, not terminology as used by fringe proponents.
- I know Wikipedia's guidelines suck and don't explain these things very clearly (instead they erroneously follow the idea of 'neutrality'). But if you read carefully, this stuff is explained in the details of the guidelines, although in a different way. Woodwalkertalk 02:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Chudinov is a geologist. So the terminology used by Chudinov is that used by a geologist. Or is the fact that he is Russian that makes you believe that he is a fringe proponent? Anyway, the point is, what are his arguments? Are they valid? And to verify it, there is no other way than reading the references. And for those who do not have access to them, trust the one who read them! Florian N (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I did not write that terminology needs to be used by a geologist to become valid, I wrote geologists (plural), by which I mean the geological community. I cannot help it if one Russian geologist used words in a different way than other geologists. There are thousands of geologists. I am a geologist too. Does that make everything I say or write valid content? Of course not.
- My source for terminology is usually Neuendorf, Mehl & Jackson's Glossary of Geology. It is by far the largest geological dictionary I know, but there are more out there. Woodwalkertalk 18:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Chudinov is a geologist. So the terminology used by Chudinov is that used by a geologist. Or is the fact that he is Russian that makes you believe that he is a fringe proponent? Anyway, the point is, what are his arguments? Are they valid? And to verify it, there is no other way than reading the references. And for those who do not have access to them, trust the one who read them! Florian N (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Chudinov used the term at least since 1985. But his work being in Russian, it is possible that the translation was made using the term of Dixon & Farrar (1980) which are not fringe! How do you understand the "opposite of subduction"?Florian N (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- That would suggest that Chudinov is rather a fringe source if he uses the terminology of other fringe sources - or was he the originator of the terminology? As for "opposite of subduction" ... what reliable source says there is such? Vsmith (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all! His point is summarized as follow: If the tearing margins delimit the downthrown sheet, this has been the active sheet and the mechanism has been underthrusting (subduction). If the tearing margins delimit the upthrown sheet, this has been the active sheet and the mechanism has been overthrusting. This is the case for the Anatolian/Aegean system, the Scotia sea, the Caribbean Sea and so on...Florian N (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Did a search on Andrew Kugler: Seems his book Subduction and Overthrusting according to Barnes and Noble is published by Lulu. Barnes and Noble sell an ebook version. Lulu.com says it is a 62 page hardcover published by Andrew Kugler. Self published or vanity press published material fails WP:RS. Reading the bits available on Barnes and Noble, seems he is saying that overthrusting is highly visible in mountain ranges therefore real wheras subduction isn't visible therefore not real ... or something akin to that. Vsmith (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- The term overthrusting by opposition to subduction is used by the geologist Andrew Kugler. Subduction happens when a sheet of lithosphere moves toward and slides under another sheet of lithosphere. Overthrusting in the terminology of Kugler is the opposite: a sheet of lithosphere moves toward and over another sheet of lithosphere. Evidence support the later and refute the former.Florian N (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- does not append what? Florian N (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Florian
I just googled on Florian expanding Earth and got almost half a million hits, most of them on forums such as RationalSkepticism. Assuming that Florian N is the same person, it becomes obvious to me that this person is (1) not accepting/understanding any arguments and (2) is never going to accept WP:NPOV on this issue. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- And now a personal attack. On what basis do you claim that I cannot understand any arguments or that I'm never going to accept WP:NPOV. Something tell me that you have a problem with WP:NPOV on this issue, as you revert systematically arguments without justification.Florian N (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is an assumption and personal attack that should be frowned upon by all editors regardless of their position on this article. Watching this page over the last few years, I'm surprised at the extent that some editors, who seem to want to uphold the scientific consensus view, are willing to ignore the most basic issues of representation of the evidence. There is a big difference between the encyclopedic reasoning for stating the scientific consensus - and extending that reasoning into misrepresenting or omitting other significant geological evidence that this article is about. This type of transparent misrepresentation of reliably sourced content in Wikipedia is damaging both to the encyclopedia and to the integrity of the scientific community. It can cause readers to question the motivations of editors who are mainstream science adherents, yet repeatedly exhibit intolerance for encyclopedic and scienctific tenets. The "best" theory in science, was never intended to extinguish the knowledge gained from other also plausible theories (though not necessarily considered "the best" by the consensus) in order to buttress a feigned unanimity of the consensus. MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- What "personal attack"? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are trying to discredit my contributions by painting me as fringe instead of discussing the contents of the arguments. This is a classical attack of the messenger. Not pretty pretty, and suggesting that you have a kind of agenda. Again, what are your motivations? Florian N (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- "it becomes obvious to me that this person is (1) not accepting/understanding any arguments..." does not address content and looks like a demeaning statement of a personal nature that misrepresents the discussion because "this person" did accept some arguments made here (e.g. RS and some EE proponents dismissing subduction) - "...and (2) is never going to accept WP:NPOV on this issue" seems like a derogatory assumption also of a personal nature that you can have no true knowledge about. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- I just read that forum page. I can see Florian N making tendentious advocacy of Expanding Earth, and hand-waving away evidence that is contrary to his points. Considering his actions here, I think that this behavior is very relevant. His behavior in the French wikipedia seems to follow the same lines. If he is a real-life tendentious advocate in other parts of the internet, and he comes here and starts behaving in the same way, we can only assume that he intends to use wikipedia as a soapbox to continue his advocacy. You can't ask people to become blind and deaf and not see what is right in front of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- "hand-waving away evidence that is contrary to his points" Hand-waving, is ignoring arguments. I clearly never did that. I systematically supported my position with strong arguments and references. But Hand-waving evidence supporting the theory is without any doubt what has been done in the forum and here. Sorry, but this behavior leads nowhere. Florian N (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I just read that forum page. I can see Florian N making tendentious advocacy of Expanding Earth, and hand-waving away evidence that is contrary to his points. Considering his actions here, I think that this behavior is very relevant. His behavior in the French wikipedia seems to follow the same lines. If he is a real-life tendentious advocate in other parts of the internet, and he comes here and starts behaving in the same way, we can only assume that he intends to use wikipedia as a soapbox to continue his advocacy. You can't ask people to become blind and deaf and not see what is right in front of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- What "personal attack"? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is an assumption and personal attack that should be frowned upon by all editors regardless of their position on this article. Watching this page over the last few years, I'm surprised at the extent that some editors, who seem to want to uphold the scientific consensus view, are willing to ignore the most basic issues of representation of the evidence. There is a big difference between the encyclopedic reasoning for stating the scientific consensus - and extending that reasoning into misrepresenting or omitting other significant geological evidence that this article is about. This type of transparent misrepresentation of reliably sourced content in Wikipedia is damaging both to the encyclopedia and to the integrity of the scientific community. It can cause readers to question the motivations of editors who are mainstream science adherents, yet repeatedly exhibit intolerance for encyclopedic and scienctific tenets. The "best" theory in science, was never intended to extinguish the knowledge gained from other also plausible theories (though not necessarily considered "the best" by the consensus) in order to buttress a feigned unanimity of the consensus. MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Errr, yesterday I left on your userpage the problems with two of the sources that you were using. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- I just read it. See my reply Florian N (talk). This is a complicated subject that is polluted by a lot of individuals that have never worked on it (proponents as opponents). It is asked to read the arguments presented in the references before judging their quality.Florian N (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are asking to read the sources, and decide by ourselves which arguments are more convincing. And then pick those arguments as true, even if they are published in very-low-quality sources or in sources that are decades old and probably outdated. That's called "original research" and it's not allowed in wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I just read it. See my reply Florian N (talk). This is a complicated subject that is polluted by a lot of individuals that have never worked on it (proponents as opponents). It is asked to read the arguments presented in the references before judging their quality.Florian N (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
And an equally disputed editor on the French Wikipedia: Expansion terrestre. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Editor War 31 August 2013
Fama Clamosa (talk) started an editor war by reverting my contributions to a version by Woudloper (talk), which was already a reversion of earlier contributions I made. Fama Clamosa (talk) seems to team with Vsmith (talk) to systematically revert my contributions without valid justification. It seems that these individuals have an issue with the topic of this page and do not accept valid reference to balanced views. Florian N (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure that this one will be easily solved giving the last events. AndyTheGrump (talk), on what basis do the scientific references I added are promoting a fringe theory? Have you ever read the basic scientific references describing this theory like for example - Carey, S W, (1975) The expanding earth - an essay rewew Earth-Science Review, 11 p105-143 - (see pdf here). I remind everyone that this article is supposed to give a balanced view of the status of this theory, while at this time it is only trying to discredit it and label it as pseudoscience or fringe. Florian N (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Have I read that? No. Do I need to read it to determine whether the theory is fringe or not? No. The theory is clearly 'fringe' in that it is rejected by the scientific mainstream - which is how Wikipedia:Fringe theories determines such things. It isn't up to Wikipedia contributors to decide whether a theory is 'right' or not - instead, we look at how mainstream science represents them, and write our articles accordingly. If you wish Wikipedia to represent the expanding Earth theory differently, you will have to convince the scientific community to do so first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have asked for input regarding this matter at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Expanding Earth theory. Hopefully some outside input may clarify the situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- For the pseudoscience label, see Robert Muir Wood, Is the Earth getting bigger?, New Scientist, 1979-02-08, p 387; Robert Muir Wood, Geological cul de sac, New Scientist, 1988-06-30, p. 85. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- For the pseudoscience label, see Robert Muir Wood, Is the Earth getting bigger?, New Scientist, 1979-02-08, p 387; Robert Muir Wood, Geological cul de sac, New Scientist, 1988-06-30, p. 85. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- (reply to the original comment in this section) You made a single edit with many change, therefore:
- hardly readable
- hardly revertable part by part
- and which included some dubious claims like
- "Plate tectonics models predict a large oceanic Tethys in Permian time which is not supported by paleontological and geological data, the later supporting Earth expansion."
- "Iapetus Ocean: geological, paleontological, geomagnetic evidences that North America and Africa/Europe were not separated by a vast ocean"
- That's why I asked you to redo your edit by smaller parts. But you didn't, and engaged yourself in an edit war where your violated R3R rule. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- To include RS aspects and geological evidence for Expanding Earth Theory in this article does not violate WP:Fringe because the 3 primary concerns of WP:Fringe are: (1) not to make the theory more notable than it is. EE is a very notable theory as it was a leading theory for Earth sciences just before Plate Tectonics was adopted. In that sense there must be fair representation of that notability and geological evidence still on display today by scholarly and academic sources; through (2nd concern) reliable sources, which there exists plenty of; and (3rd concern) not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. In this case, the article is not about a mainstream idea but rather about the Expanding Earth Theory itself. This should be the one article that the scientific knowledge which led to formulating such a notable theory should be displayed.
- I also believe there is a mistaken assumption regarding the absolute need for scientific validity of some Wikipedia content, or that sometimes undue weight is given to scientific validity where it's not called for to validate a theory in order to accurately represent it based on reliable sources, such as in this subject. WP: Notability (science) states: "A key element to understanding this guideline is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research publication, and as such Wikipedia does not usurp the usual validation processes of scientific institutions such as peer review, scientific consensus, and academic recognition. Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Wikipedia editors. Inclusion or exclusion is therefore not a judgement on the validity, importance or accuracy of a scientific contribution, but simply a reflection of the quality and quantity of responses it received inside and outside the scientific community."
- Both the quality and quantity of responses to Expanding Earth inside and outside the scientific community are massive relative to what's generally considered fringe theories - and what is currently included in the article. MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Including supposed evidence without including the mainstream rejection of said claims would be undue and a violation of fringe guidelines, IRWolfie- (talk)
- No one is suggesting what you say. As it is, the article is almost entirely about rejection of the theory. Edits that present EE's RS evidence is always removed and no effort is made to balance the article so the reader can understand what exactly is being rejected. Elements from at least Carey's and Scalera's academic papers should be included so the reader understands what the theory is based on. No one is suggesting to remove mainstream rebuttals to it. Also, your language, "supposed evidence" betrays a non-neutral POV because the evidence is scientific and scholarly. Even mainstream scientists refrain from using such language. That they believe this evidence is "better explained" by Plate Tectonics, does not diminish from the value of the evidence relative to this theory. For that reason a rebuttal by mainstream sources should be included. But when the approach to it is "supposed evidence" which is always removed from the article, then we're missing the entire point of the encyclopedia which was never intended to be exclusively a referendum on scientific validity. This also betrays the scientific method because the "best explanation" was never intended by science to become the "only fact". The "best explanation" should not be the only one, especially in an article about "another explanation" which does have some scientific and academic merit, even though the consensus believes another explanation is "better". Wikipedia is a "sum knowledge" encyclopedia, not a narrow review of mainstream science. MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- But there are no recent sources to satisfy WP:RS that present evidence for the Expanding Earth theory.I'm not sure what specific sources set off the latest round of edit wars, but in my years of watching this article, the suggested additions have always been from primary sources, self-published sources, or journals that do not exercise peer review. Nothing that would qualify as a reliable secondary source. When the reliable sources that cover a topic present a monolithic viewpoint, so will Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'll add something. I fully agree that the basis of the rejection of the theory must be provided to inform the reader. But at the same time, objective critics must be provided to those rejection criteria when they exist! Most of the edits I made were all about that. If you do not do that, then you misinform the reader and this violates the NPO. For example, Wu et al GRL paper is presented as a rejection of the Expanding Earth theory, but their methodology is flawed because they use plates to model the horizontal motions of the lithosphere. This is a typical case of circular reasoning. Also, as pointed by MichaelNetzer, the article does not present any of the evidence that led geologists to consider this theory. This is another clear violation of the NPOV as it looks as if this theory has never been supported by any scientific data. Florian N (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- "but their methodology is flawed because they use plates to model the horizontal motions of the lithosphere" But you didn't provide any reliable source for this claim. The claim was challenged, and it was removed. At this point you should have provided a source for this statement, either in the talk page, or when re-inserting the edit. Instead, you reverted the claim back several times, with no source. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- The source is the paper itself. It is written in plain p2: "ITRF2008 origin drift components and a mean solid Earth expansion rate are estimated and resolved simultaneously with rigid plate motions.[...] The sum of the next three terms is the site velocity in the CE frame r_i caused by radial expansion, plate motion, PDMT loading and GIA. R_ is the constant mean radial expansion rate of the solid Earth." The problem is that in the expanding earth model, the measured horizontal velocity of the lithosphere is not related to plate like motions, but to the asymmetrical nature of the growth (see this simplified explicative scheme [1]). So all the horizontal velocity data that are precious for the measurement of the growth are actually excluded and diverted into a plate model. Mixing a plate model with a free radius does not make an expanding earth model! Florian N (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- There some things that are not in the source: the conclusion that the model is not adequate for falsifying Expanding earth. The intermediate steps that are followed to reach the conclusion: "the measured horizontal velocity ... is not related to ..., but to the ... So all ... are actually excluded and diverted. Mixing ... with ... does not make..." --Enric Naval (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- The source is the paper itself. It is written in plain p2: "ITRF2008 origin drift components and a mean solid Earth expansion rate are estimated and resolved simultaneously with rigid plate motions.[...] The sum of the next three terms is the site velocity in the CE frame r_i caused by radial expansion, plate motion, PDMT loading and GIA. R_ is the constant mean radial expansion rate of the solid Earth." The problem is that in the expanding earth model, the measured horizontal velocity of the lithosphere is not related to plate like motions, but to the asymmetrical nature of the growth (see this simplified explicative scheme [1]). So all the horizontal velocity data that are precious for the measurement of the growth are actually excluded and diverted into a plate model. Mixing a plate model with a free radius does not make an expanding earth model! Florian N (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- "but their methodology is flawed because they use plates to model the horizontal motions of the lithosphere" But you didn't provide any reliable source for this claim. The claim was challenged, and it was removed. At this point you should have provided a source for this statement, either in the talk page, or when re-inserting the edit. Instead, you reverted the claim back several times, with no source. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'll add something. I fully agree that the basis of the rejection of the theory must be provided to inform the reader. But at the same time, objective critics must be provided to those rejection criteria when they exist! Most of the edits I made were all about that. If you do not do that, then you misinform the reader and this violates the NPO. For example, Wu et al GRL paper is presented as a rejection of the Expanding Earth theory, but their methodology is flawed because they use plates to model the horizontal motions of the lithosphere. This is a typical case of circular reasoning. Also, as pointed by MichaelNetzer, the article does not present any of the evidence that led geologists to consider this theory. This is another clear violation of the NPOV as it looks as if this theory has never been supported by any scientific data. Florian N (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- But there are no recent sources to satisfy WP:RS that present evidence for the Expanding Earth theory.I'm not sure what specific sources set off the latest round of edit wars, but in my years of watching this article, the suggested additions have always been from primary sources, self-published sources, or journals that do not exercise peer review. Nothing that would qualify as a reliable secondary source. When the reliable sources that cover a topic present a monolithic viewpoint, so will Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- No one is suggesting what you say. As it is, the article is almost entirely about rejection of the theory. Edits that present EE's RS evidence is always removed and no effort is made to balance the article so the reader can understand what exactly is being rejected. Elements from at least Carey's and Scalera's academic papers should be included so the reader understands what the theory is based on. No one is suggesting to remove mainstream rebuttals to it. Also, your language, "supposed evidence" betrays a non-neutral POV because the evidence is scientific and scholarly. Even mainstream scientists refrain from using such language. That they believe this evidence is "better explained" by Plate Tectonics, does not diminish from the value of the evidence relative to this theory. For that reason a rebuttal by mainstream sources should be included. But when the approach to it is "supposed evidence" which is always removed from the article, then we're missing the entire point of the encyclopedia which was never intended to be exclusively a referendum on scientific validity. This also betrays the scientific method because the "best explanation" was never intended by science to become the "only fact". The "best explanation" should not be the only one, especially in an article about "another explanation" which does have some scientific and academic merit, even though the consensus believes another explanation is "better". Wikipedia is a "sum knowledge" encyclopedia, not a narrow review of mainstream science. MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Including supposed evidence without including the mainstream rejection of said claims would be undue and a violation of fringe guidelines, IRWolfie- (talk)
![[1]](http://nachon.free.fr/images/GPS-horizontal.jpg){kind=link}
- The other editors are also at fault, mind you. They should have made a brief post in the talk page, explaining point-by-point the problems with your edits. This centers the debate on the content and not on the editors, and it could have reduced the drama. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Russian geologist Yu Chudinov
Anyone have access to the book Eduction Concept of the Earth's Expansion Theory: Main Grounds, Paleomagnetic and Geodetic Evidences, Metallogenic Consequences by Chudinov and published in 2001 by CRC Press? The article includes a ref to it under Scientific consensus supporting: "However, the methodology employed has been criticised by the Russian geologist Yu Chudinov." re: paleomagnetic data and Earth radius. 'twould be nice to know the specifics of the criticism and perhaps a bit about Chudinov's work. Vsmith (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have the book. Do you want a scan of the related pages? Florian N (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Murky stuff, but it is available on Google books --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, murky indeed. Geosynclines and eduction of oceanic crust from oceanic trenches ... Any peer review of this stuff? Vsmith (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- One of the references are mentioned on page 53, but the following pages are not part of my preview. My guess is that the debate stagnated in the 1980s (I can't find younger references) and only the small group of persistent advocates comment on each other's work since. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, murky indeed. Geosynclines and eduction of oceanic crust from oceanic trenches ... Any peer review of this stuff? Vsmith (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
"... but the following pages are not part of my preview." More specifically relevant, I see that Chudinov's criticism of the validity of the Ward minimum scatter method (used by McElhinny, Taylor and Stevenson's 1978 paper in Nature, and the same methodology which Schmidt and Clark (1980) are thought to have vindicated, or partially vindicated) is given in full in the version of the preview available as of today (pp. 68-72). I agree with Vsmith that it would be nice to lay out the details of the criticism - as well as do some fact-checking of these against Ward's original work, and present some additional background on the history of the use of paleomagnetic data in relation to the EE hypothesis. I also agree with him that some additional background regarding Chudinov's work would be helpful.
Regarding Fama Clamosa's "guess" that the debate stagnated in the 1980s - there's surely some truth to that. Arguably, the contact between the EE hypothesis - always a minority viewpoint - and the mainstream geoscience community - largely occurred between the late-1950s and the late-1980s. I recall, for example, that the occasional presence of this hypothesis in the pages of Nature - in the form of original papers, commentaries and notices - literally spans the years from 1957 to 1988. Therefore, also arguably, the sources most relevant to determining the "scientific community's" understanding of this hypothesis naturally fall mainly within this time period.
The suggestion that typically more recent expansion proponents are merely commenting on one another's work doesn't apply very well to Chudinov's work in particular. A fair number of the references to works of other expansion proponents in his bibliography are taken up in two sentences in the first few pages of his book, in which contributors to the expansion theory are merely listed. The substantive parts of his work, including the chapter on paleomagnetism and his "eduction" thesis are developed in relation to material from the general scientific literature, overwhelmingly. Hhohtaio (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am unable to ascertain what your specific proposal for this article is and what reliable source you have. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The main issue here, as hinted by Vsmith, is whether mention of Chudinov's criticism of the methodology originated by M. Ward (1963, 1966), and utilized by McElhinny, Taylor and Stevenson (1978), should be retained in the article - particularly whether it meets notability and reliability criteria. To that end, I propose that a careful comparison be made between Ward's method as described by Ward and Ward's method as described by Chudinov, upon which the latter author's geometrical interpretation disputing its validity is based, to _ascertain_ whether the criticism is reliable in this respect.Hhohtaio (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)