Talk:Wolf effect: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:18, 7 December 2006 editජපස (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,484 edits →Ian's issue with undue weight: reply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:24, 8 April 2024 edit undoBattyBot (talk \| contribs)Bots1,934,167 edits →top: Fixed WikiProject template(s) to remove page from Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters or a sub-category, plus general fixes Tag: AWB
(129 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|1=
	==Correction of Joshua Schroeder's edit==
			{{WikiProject Physics\|importance=Low}}
	Joshua, I have restored your changes on the following grounds:
			{{WikiProject Spectroscopy\|importance=Low\|comments=}}
	*According to peer-reviewed souces, the description of Wolf Effect as (a) being able to produce redshifts and blueshift
			}}
	::it's more correctly defined as a frequency shift. --] 17:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
			<!-- Don't use: {{technical}} tag -- explain below why article
	*(b) that it may produce Doppler-like shifts, appears to be accurate. There are several peer-reviewed articles on the Wolf Effect which consistently use the term "redshift", that are conveniently listed as footnotes on the article page.
			-- seems difficult to read. Articles tagged "technical" have
	::Still, frequency shift is more accurate. --] 17:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
			-- gone 2 years unfixed because complaints were not specific.
	*As you can read from the peer-reviewed articles, the Wolf Effect has actually been demonstrated in the laboratory.
			-->
	::No objection to that. -] 17:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
			{{Archive box\|
	*That the Wolf Effect will produce a redshift has been previously confirmed to you by one of the article authors, Prof. Daniel F.V. James.
			*]
	::It's a frequency shift, no doubt. But it isn't NPOV to call it a redshift without acknowledging its differences.
			}}
	*I have previously made you aware that I have confirmation from three professors of physics that they use the term 'redshift' in the context of the Wolf Effect, including ] , Prof. Emil Wolf , and Prof. Theoretical Physics, Indian Statistical Institute, Sisir Roy
			{{physics diagram requested}}
	*This is not a ] since (a) this is not '''my''' point of view (b) the information is accurate (as indicated by the numerous peer-reviewed references), and confirmed by at least three Professors of physics in the field.
	::This is ''your'' point of view. You conveniently ignored the real form of my edits which was to remove the suggestion that it provided a measure of "intrinsic" redshifts in quasars which is an argualbe POV. --] 17:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
	--] 11:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

			==Expert opinion==
	Claiming that the Wolf Effect is a redshift is a POV issue. It is a frequency shift, but it doesn't always manifest itself as a redshift in the sense of redshift in astronomy. That's why it's important to keep it NPOV and remove the insinuation of new causes. --] 17:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
			Copy of email sent out to experts in optics:
			<table cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 bgcolor=white border=1><tr><td>
			http://en.wikipedia.org/Wolf_effect

			I am trying to improve the article on the Wolf effect on Misplaced Pages above. I was wondering whether you could clarify:
	:As the article makes clear, the Wolf Effect is "a phenomenon in '''radiation physics'''". Three professors of physicists, and several peer reviewed papers, demonstrate that the term "redshift" is not only used freely and regularly in the peer reviewed papers (see my ]); and where the Wolf Effect can produce a frequency-independent distortion-free redshift (again, see peer reviewed article describing this), it DOES use the term correctly in an astronomical sense too since it produces Doppler-like redshifts. That's not my point of view, that is the point of view of the literature and scientists doing the work.

			#Can the Wolf effect be considered to be a redshift, or a new redshift mechanism?
	:Emil Wolf's original paper has been cited at least one hundreds time, and I am sure the other reference in the article have been cited too. Provide just TWO peer-reviewed paper which criticises the use of redshift as used by Wolf and James, and I'll revert to your wording. Otherwise the edit is only your Point of View.
			#Is this generally accepted, or only by a small number of researchers in optics?
	:--] 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

			Regards,
	::Since you haven't responded to my request demonstrating you understand redshift, I have no reason to respond to this request since it evinces a truly limited understanding of the rationale for describing this as a frequency shift. --] 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
			Ian Tresman</table>

	Whether I understand redshift or not, is not the issue here. You are not my judge, and I have never questioned your knowledge, depite your persistent allegations against me . What is important is that our peers do, and this amply demonstrated for the reasons given. Hence:

			Reply from Mark Bocko who demonstrated the Wolf effect in the laboratory :
	*1. I have cited credible sources, as suggested by Misplaced Pages ]
			<table cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 bgcolor=white border=1><tr><td>
	*2. That according to Misplaced Pages, the information is verifiable "Articles in Misplaced Pages should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. '''The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth'''."
			From: Mark Bocko
	*3. We have had extensive comments on the Wolf Effect before, and the consensus does not support your view.
			Subject: Re: Wolf effect and redshift

			Ian - answers below ....
	Consequently your ascertions do not appear to meet any of these criteria.<BR>
	--] 17:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

			#It is a non-kinematic spectral shift mechanism, i.e., the source can be stationary and still exhibit the spectral shift, which can be red or blue by the way. The basic mechanism is mutual interference of the light coming from different parts of an extended body. So I would say that you can consider it to be a new red-shift mechanism.
	The NPOV version of this page is the previous one. There is no reason to assume that this effect need be dynamically linked to the redshift page unless you have an agenda. Frequency shift adequately defines the effect as shown in the quote you provided on the page. Therefore revert. --] 19:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
			#The physics is completely accepted and believed, and several people have constructed sources in the laboratory that exhibit the Wolf effect. The question is however if sources with just the right properties that would lead to a red-shift exist in nature. So I do not think that anyone who worked in this area would actually suggest that the cosmological redshifts that we observe are due to the Wolf-effect and not due to an expanding universe.

			I hope this clarifies matters for you.
	After all, we can dynamically link to the redshift page by quoting the name of his article. The NPOV definition of redshift is given on the redshift page and therefore we link appropriately via Wolf's own advocacy. --] 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
			Thank you for your interest,

			Best regards,
	:In other words YOU don't think it is a redshift (because I've provided abundant peer-reviewed evidence that it is), and it does not conform to YOUR definition of redshift which you've provided on the redshift page, despite my providing 500+ peer-reviewed references which use the term otherwise.
			Mark
			</table>
			<br>
			Reply from Robert S Knox (co-worker of Mark Bocko). In their paper, Bob Knox is affiliated with the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.
			<table cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 bgcolor=white border=1><tr><td>
			From: Robert S Knox
			Subject: Re: Wolf effect and redshift

			Ian,
	::No, the definition corresponds to a frequency shift. That is the most generic definition. --] 20:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
			You wrote

			#this depends on the context. I would lean toward "mechanism." I've heard the phrase "Wolf shift" but not frequently. And of course the shift can be either red or blue.
	:I've already provided peer-reviewed references showing that more than just Prof Emil Wolf says it's a redshift, and until you provide ANY KIND OF PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE OR CITATION, your word is not according to Misplaced Pages policy.
			#I think the Wolf effect is generally accepted, because it has a mathematically sound basis and has been demonstrated (your refs. 5 and 6). However, because there are such stringent requirements placed on the source correlations that produce the effect optically, it has (thus far) limited applicability except to the demonstrations of its principle. "Acceptance" is a relative term. The number of researchers interested will be proportional to the need to apply it.

			Best wishes,
	::The verification is in the very quote you cite. --] 20:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
			Bob Knox
			</table>

			i.e. The Wolf effect is a redshift mechanism. It's application to "nature" (or astronomy) is "cautious" (as the existing article indicates). --] 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Diagram? ==

			Nope, Ian, none of the experts answered in the affirmative or described it as a "redshift mechanism". Therefore, I say we are in good standing not calling it that. Thanks for doing the legwork and quoting the responses exactly. They illustrate my ideas beautifully. --] 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
	Is there diagram that illustrates the Wolf Effect? (And while I'm leaving a comment, I find the splitting of hairs between a frequency shift and a red shift ludicrous. The red shift is a shift in frequency. What's the agenda??)

			:*So when Mark Bocko writes: "you can consider it to be a new red-shift mechanism", how is that not in the affirmative? --] 20:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The agenda is, many proponents of ] think that the Wolf Effect is an explanation that eliminates the ] even though the Wolf Effect creates shifting in lines toward higher frequencies and the process doesn't conform to the standard definition of ] which is a proportional shift. --] 16:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
			:*When Bob Knox writes: "I would lean toward "mechanism." how is that not an affirmation towards "redshift mechanism" --] 20:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

			::Non-committal and not indicating that this is necessarily the standard consensus. Without an unequivocal verification of your position, I'm pretty confident we are fine with the way it is. I'm not going to entertain your POV-pushing any longer. This conversation is over as far as I'm concerned. --] 21:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
	:What ] think about the implications of this phenomenon should not influence the way it is described. Think NPOV. I've just corrected one of your edits where you introduce the idea that the "Wolf effect was..." (past tense.) It sounds as if you're scared to acknowledge that the ] is a point of view, and you want to exclude them by fiddling definitions. --] 20 January 2006, 21:21 UTC

			:::*"you can consider it to be a new red-shift mechanism" is unequivocal. That's not my point of view, that's the point of view of an expert in the field. --] 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks for your correction of grammar which I assure you was not meant to be "POV". ] is a perspective outside of the scientific mainstream. Acknowledging that sometimes takes skill and often require a lot of wrangling on these talkpages. --] 23:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

			::::But they didn't jump out and say it was one, only that one could consider it to be so. Since we have to consider whether readers will be confused by such terminology (and I venture to say that they will be), then it is best that we stick to our present description. --] 22:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
	::*Find me one peer-reviewed citation where a critic has suggested that "the Wolf Effect is an explanation that eliminates the ]".
	::*When Wolf and James write that the Wolf Effect ".. can generate arbitrarily large spectral shifts whose z numbers are '''independent of the central frequency''' of the spectral line ... just as in the case when the shift is due to the Dopper effect, the relative frequency shift z induced by this mechanism is independent of frequency and can take any value in the range -1 < z < ∞, even though the source, the medium and the observer are at rest with respect to each other " (my emphasis)
	::*This fits the definition of ] as described in the Misplaced Pages article?
	::*--] 17:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

			:::::*So "you can consider it to be a new red-shift mechanism" is not good enough, and they have to jump through hoops too. Your description does not represent the world view. --] 22:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
	Points in turn:

			::::::Just because one can do something doesn't mean one should do it. There is an ] to consider. --] 04:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::*Peer-review doesn't matter as the majority of proponents of nonstandard cosmology do not publish peer-reviewed papers. I remarked this as a point of fact about the agenda. You will notice it is not in the article, it is on the talkpage.
	:::*The problem is that Wolf and James are talking about a very narrow space for the emitted photon even though it extends through the entire spectrum for the observed photon. It's frequency dependent like any other scattering mechanism.
	:::---] 22:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

			* OK, so what we have here are credible experts (albeit private communications so not formally citable) saying ''precisely'' what I've said above: the Wolf effect is a ''frequency'' shift (can be red or blue) and is ''not'' widely considered as an explanation for cosmological redshift, which means the form of words describing it as a frequency shift which will be seen as red from our perspective and which may explain some discordant redshifts, would appear to be entirely accurate. Indeed, based on the above commentary, I would be very wary of including any reference to the plasma crowd here, because it's evident that these experts dismiss the possibility that Wolf effect might be a generic redshift mechanism and both point out that the shift can be red ''or blue'', meaning it should be described as a frequency shift. and yet, Ian, you choose to interpret that as saying the exact opposite of my reading. If anything, these two comments seem to em to amke your case even weaker, and it was not strong to begin with. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::*As far as I know, Wolf has no interest in "non-standard" cosmologies. He's a Professor of Optical Physics & Theoretical Optics . Likewise Daniel James, who is an Associate Professor of Theoretical Optical Physics and Quantum Information . They have no agenda, and whether you think I have an agenda is irrelevent.
	::::*Why do you say "frequency dependent" when they clearly write "..they are '''frequency independent''' and they can generate reshifts or blueshifts of any magnitude" (p.167) (my emphasis). Your claim appear to be the opposite of what they show in their paper(s).
	::::*--] 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

			:*How many times do I have to say it? I have NEVER considered the Wolf effect as widely held view as an explanation for cosmological redshift, and I have NEVER described it as such.
	:::::*As you well know, the Wolf Effect is often quoted by nonstandard proponents. You yourself being an example. I don't care if the people who made it up have an agenda, though their commentary about quasars and redshift "anomalies" makes me wonder if they are as "neutral" as you are implying. --] 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
			:*What is important, is that the Wolf effect is described as a new redshift mechanism (Doppler-like to be precise). This view is mainstream among those in optics, and is described as such in the literature, and in textbooks.
	:::::*They are writing in terms of individual lines. They are not writing for emission across the entire spectrum, for example. They cannot because of basic rules of optics. Many people have told you this many times, and yet you seem to be unable to understand this simple fact. --] 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
			:*And yes, the Wolf effect can be both a redshift and blueshift, but there is also a "no blueshift" condition that produces just redshifts. --] 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

			:: No, what is important is that it is a ''frequency'' shift, which is what the article says. You have not provided any compelling reason why the present text should be changed, or any credible argument why the present wording is worse than your preferred version, which several editors find problematic for various reasons. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::*You completly ignored by previous statement that you wrote "frequency dependent" when they clearly write "..they are '''frequency independent'''". I even gave you a citation (b) Your response provides no explanation. "The basic rules of optics" is an over-generalization; give me some specifics and a citation. (c) Who are these many people who have "told me so"; you're the ''only'' person, who has told me much, but substantitated with little (c) Daniel James also answered you that "the frequency shift will be the same for every line present in the spectrum of the incident light". --] 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

			:::*Yes, the Wolf effect is a frequency shift, (similar to that which could be produced by ]), and is described as such, and should be described as such first.
	:::::Ian, it is impossible for the Wolf Effect to be the same for the emission of gamma rays as it is for the emission of radiowaves by simple fact that the ] is frequency dependent. There is no material-based mechanism that has ever been proposed that is frequency-indepedent in that manner. Photon-phonon coupling is never completely frequency-independent. You can read about it in any radiative transfer text. --] 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
			:::*But the compelling reason to ''additionally'' characterize the Wolf effect as a redshift is (a) It is verifiably accurate (b) It distinguishes it from the likes of ] (c) It notes the similarity to the Doppler-like redshift (d) Experts in the field also characterise it as a redshift (e) Peer reviewed sources described it as a redshift (f) Textbooks describe it as a redshift.
			:::*Some of your criticisms are demonstrably incorrect:
			::::*You wrote: "these experts dismiss the possibility that Wolf effect might be a generic redshift mechanism"
			::::*ScienceApologist wrote: "none of the experts answered in the affirmative or described it as a "redshift mechanism"."
			::::*Yet Emil Wolf wrote: "In 1986 I predicted the existence of a new mechanism for producing redshifts .. "
			::::*Marco Marnane Capria wrote: "A New Optical Redshift Mechanism.."
			::::*Sisir Roy and S. Datta wrote: ".. this new mechanism for redshift .."
			::::*Mark Bocko (above) wrote: "I would say that you can consider it to be a new red-shift mechanism."
			:::*I have provided compelling reasons. I have also shown that the experts do indeed describe the Wolf effect a redshift mechanism. --] 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			::::: Your reasons may seem compelling from your point of view as one who has already made up their mind that it should be so, but you don't seem to have made any converts. Rather than repeating the arguments we've already heard and rejected, what say you bring better arguments? Or better still, suggest an alternate form of words that others ''can'' get behind? Your repeated insistence on a rejected form of words is disruptive. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
			Your desire for a change to the text has been rejected, Ian. Move on. --] 18:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

	::::::So when Prof. Daniel James writes that the Wolf effect may be "frequency dependent", he must be wrong. --] 14:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

			So you're basically saying that without presenting ANY verifiable evidence whatsoever, not from ANY kind of source, not ANY critical texts, that you personally merely "reject" the description, despite it being overwhelmingly verifiable from expert sources, peer reviewed sources, primary sources, and textbooks. --] 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::I think you mean "frequency independent". My ideas are that he could be referring to a few things:
	::::::::#Most spectra observations are not broadband. Usually spectral observations are confined to at most two or three order of magnitude in energy. If we talk about dozens of orders of magnitude in energy this is bound to change the analysis for photon-phonon interactions.
	::::::::#The effect could be frequency independent in that all possible frequencies are available for the emission to shift to. This is, however, observational possibility independence. There seems to be some confusion however as saying that ''z'' can take on all values could be seen as the effect being "frequency independent" since you could get any redshifted frequency. This is a different sense from what I am using frequency independence to mean.
	::::::::#James normally refers to resonance of line emission which are defined for a single type of atomic or molecular transition. In cases where we don't have line emission, it isn't clear that the effect works since it relies on the reasonance of the material and the "tuning fork" analogy maximally breaks down.
	:::::::But I don't know precisely what he means: he hasn't been clear. --] 15:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

			:Nope, we aren't saying that. --] 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	Here are the intro-paragraphs from one of the papers you link to which seem to confirm my suspicions:

			::*Just remind me of your source, which mentions the Wolf effect, on which you are basing your views? --] 11:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	''The influence of the statistical properties of random fluctuations of a light source on the spectrum of radiation Which the source generates has been a subjects of great interest in recent years. It was first shown by Wolf that, as a consequence of spatial correlations within the source, the spectrum of light is, in general, not invariant on propagation even in free space, contrary to usual beliefs. Further, it was predicted theoretically that suitable source correlations can cause redshifts or blueshifts of spectral lines . Experiments confirmed these predictions . The spectral shifts which can be induced in this way are small (effectively of the order of or smaller than the width of the line in question) and, in general, have z numbers #~ (relative frequency shifts) which are frequency dependent.''

			:::Same ones you're using, Ian. --] 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	''Because of ihe intimate connection between radiation from localized sources and scattering from media of finite extent, one may expect that spectral shifts may also be produced by scattering on static as well as time fluctuating media and this has indeed been demonstrated theoretically . Recently it was predicted that dynamic scatterers can generate arbitrarily large spectral shifts whose z numbers are independent of the central frequency of the spectral line. Such scatterers can, therefore, produce a change in the spectrum which imitates the most important feature of the Doppler effect, although the source, the scattering medium and the observer are all at rest relative to each other. In this Letter we carry this investigation a stage further, by specifying correlation functions of scattering media which give rise to such shifts. A model scattering medium is introduced with a correlation function which, in general, is spatially anisotropic. Using a recently derived expression for the spectrum of the scattered radiation (ref. , eq. (5.10) ) such scatterers are shown to produce relative frequency shifts which depend on geometrical factors only; they are frequency independent and they can generate redshifts or blueshifts of any magnitude. In the special case when the collation function is isotropic, only redshifts are produced.''

			::::*They characterise the Wolf effect as a redshift. How many quotes do I have to extract? --] 14:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	The authors here have clearly refering to relatively narrow-band spectra. Not their fault since they are mostly concerned with optical spectra anyway.

			:::::*They also characterize it as a frequency shift. And quite frankly, extracting quotes NEVER works. The issue is that the Wolf Effect is verifiably ''both'' a frequency shift and a redshift. Since redshift carries unfortunate connotations in this line, we call it a frequency shift to help the reader. --] 14:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	--] 15:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

			::::::*Yes, it is a frequency shift, no dispute. It is ALSO a redshift. That's not a connotation. It is a redshift. No one else on the planet suggests this is an "unfortunate connotations", and it is not verifiable. You don't help the reader by removing information that correctly characterizes the Wolf effect. --] 14:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Peer-reviwed image==
	I've restored the image to the article which is based on one in a peer-reviewed article. If you have a problem with it, EDIT it according to the original, or conatact the authors. --] 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

	:~~The~~ ~~image~~ is ~~included~~ is a ~~bad~~ ~~one,~~ ~~physically.~~ We ~~are~~ ~~committed~~ ~~here~~ at ~~Misplaced Pages~~ to ~~providing~~ ~~accurate~~ ~~facts~~. I'm ~~sorry~~ that ~~these~~ ~~particular~~ ~~editors~~ ~~and~~ ~~authors~~ ~~placed~~ a ~~technically~~ ~~poor~~ ~~image~~ ~~out~~ ~~there,~~ ~~but~~ it ~~doesn't~~ ~~deserve~~ ~~inclusion~~ in the ~~encyclopedia~~. --] 19:51, 20 ~~August~~ 2006 (UTC)		::::::::Saying that something is a redshift connotes a relationship with astrophysics: "The question is however if sources with just the right properties that would lead to a red-shift exist in nature. So I do not think that anyone who worked in this area would actually suggest that the cosmological redshifts that we observe are due to the Wolf-effect and not due to an expanding universe." --] 14:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

			:::::::::*Rubbish. There may be a connotation in the minds of astronomers and scientists, but not in the minds of those working in optics, and the rest of the planet. Here are some , or which 60% of the extracts do not mention an astronomical context at all. Only one out of 10 gives an astronomy-only definition, and even your Misplaced Pages entry for ] does not mention an astronomical context until the middle of the third paragraph.
	::Your arrogance is incredible, who made you the image police. Not even the courtesy of an explanation. As usual, you set yourself up as judge and jury. --] 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
			:::::::::*Now, what? Are you going to claim unreliable sources, or cherry pick some astronomy books to make your point? --] 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

			Nope, I'm going to declare this conversation over. Your point is not taken by anyone but yourself. Don't like it, start an RfC. --] 15:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Ian I just looked at your image in the paper. You reported the redshift incorrectly which is where the problem arises. Even so, this image is still not that good because what it illustrates is a theoretical construction based on a mathematical equation: not an actual observation of the Wolf Effect, so the detail shapes and amounts are necessary as there are no error bars on predictions. Anyone with a spreadsheet plotter and the ability to read algebraic formulae should be able to reproduce images of their own choosing using an appropriate VOIGT profile (though I see they use a strictly Doppler profile for somewhat dubious physical reasons). If you would like, I can make an accurate image for you. --] 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

			:*I have demonstrated that your suggestion of ''confusion'' with astronomical redshift is not supported by the sources. Any where there is a connection with astronomy, no confusion is implied. And even if there was perceived confusion, it's nothing which any editor could easily clarify.
	::::*I have no problems having my own mistakes corrected, that's where editors with good knowledge of the subject, such as yourself, excel. But I am surprised that you had not checked the original source until now.
			:*I have demonstrated that the view I wish to described is supported by the experts, reliable sources, and textbooks.
	::::*A theoretical construct, as you call it, is no problem. The Doppler shift and its equations are uncontested, and does allow us to produce an idealised representation. Likewise the Wolf effect; I am not aware of any sources which contest the Wolf effect.
			:*I am still waiting for you to provide ONE source that suggests '''any kind''' of issue regarding the Wolf effect as a redshift. --] 16:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::*Indeed, Misplaced Pages has many illustrations that are not based on actual images, and I suspect this is because idealised images are sometimes clearer than actual images. The other reason I did not choose an actual image is copyright issues.
	::::*While I have no doubt that you could construct your own image, the problem is that you are not verifiable, whereas the image from Wolf ''et al'' is.
	::::*So it seems that image is accurate, as based on a peer reviewed source, it's the caption that needs correcting. --] 09:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

			Ian, all you've demonstrated is that you don't know the difference between an editorial argument and a fact. --] 19:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Personal point of view==
	ScienceApologist, your edits are appalling, and are clearly trying to reflect your own PERSONAL point of view.
	*It's one thing to remove "spoonfeeding" on the grounds that the supporting peer-reviewed quotes are excessive, but to remove the information they support (that the Wolf effect is considered to be a new redshift mechanism), is disgusting.
	*And to remove information that the Wolf effect does not occur "in free space" as described in the text, and supported by a quote, again is disgusting.
	*Your suggestion that Wolf used the term "noncosmological" apparently refering to a controversy in the 1970s, again is YOUR FANTASTY... I provided an ACTUAL QUOTE from Wolf giving his view, which you then removed.
	--] 18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

	If ~~you~~ ~~disagree~~ ~~with~~ ~~some~~ of ~~additional~~ ~~information,~~ ~~DISCUSS~~ ~~them~~ ~~first~~ ~~before~~ ~~editing~~ ~~them~~. --] 18:43, 20 ~~August~~ 2006 (UTC)		:*My editorial argument is based on all the evidence I've presented. I'm still waiting for some substance that supports yours. --] 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

	:~~All~~ ~~this~~ ~~has~~ ~~been~~ ~~discussed above. If you want~~ to ~~move~~ on to ~~dispute~~ ~~resolution, please~~ do so. --] 19:52, 20 ~~August~~ 2006 (UTC)		::*I can bring a horse to water, but I can't make him drink. --] 03:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
			:::* Not especially helpful. Can you think of a form of words that Ian might be able to accept? Try to be a little accommodating, yes? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
			:::::I think your summary below does it brilliantly. Thanks, JzG. --] 13:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

			* Ian, repeatedly re-stating your opinion is simply not helping. To baldly call it a "new redshift mechanism" is to risk misleading; the best you have from your experts is that it ''could'' be described as such, but one of them suggests that we don't do that and supports what we actually do in the article whihc is to describe it as a ''frequency shift mechanism'' - this is more specific and thus less likely to mislead. We've also noted how it could be applied to observed discordant redshifts, which addresses anything that might be left unanswered in the frequency shift description. You are arguing for a ''less'' specific definition which has been seen by others as promoting a fringe agenda, and is also arguably factually incorrect (Wolf shift can be blue or red), and it simply isn't going to fly. So I offer you one last time: come up with an alternate form of words which ''is'' acceptable to other editors, or at least forms the basis for a debate, or please just drop it. If you can't come up with something new I'm going to archive this entire discussion out before it degenerates into yet another slugfest. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

			:*Repeatedly stating ''your'' opinion is no different to mine, with the difference that mine is supported by peer reviewed sources and expert opinion.
	Learn some bloody courtesy, and discuss things before you make changes, epsecially where EVERYTHING I added included peer-reviewed citations. You've always insisted in discussion before changes yourself, so live up to your own standards. --] 20:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
			:*I am NOT asking for a less specific definition.
			:*I agree that primarily, the Wolf effect should be described as a frequency shift, as it is now. This is accurate because the Wolf effect does not always produce a redshift.
			:*But I am saying that ''in additional'' to this description, we reflect the view of the experts and sources, and say that the Wolf effect has also been described as a redshift, or new redshift mechanism.
			:*Mark Bocko said that he "would say that you can consider it to be a new red-shift mechanism."
			:*Robert Knox said that he "would lean toward "mechanism.""
			:*Emil Wolf said that "I predicted the existing of a new mechanism for producing redshifts"
			:*And many others.
			:*There is no confusion. They call it a redshift mechanism because it is considered to be a redshift mechanism. That is unambiguous and factually accurate.
			:*Even IF there was some confusion, again that sources clarify the issue and tell us that the Wolf effect is not being offered as an alternative to the Cosmological redshift.
			:*I find no sources that even hint at any confusion or dispute. --] 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

			::* Summary: you absolutely refuse to countenance compromise. Fine, your loss, the article stays as it is. I'll archive this discussion shortly as it's evidently futile. Still, I tried. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
	==A new redshift mechanism==
	I have three references describing the Wolf effect as "a new redshift mechanism", including Wolf himself, who is a professor of optics, leader in his field, and peer reviewed too many times to mention. If anyone has some peer reviewed citations suggesting that this to be incorrect, please provide them.

			:::*For the record, neither you, nor ScienceApologist have compromised either, and have refused to describe the Wolf Effect as it is described in numerous sources. Two editors have decided that they known better than all the experts, and all the peer reviewed sources. I tried too. --] 20:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Emil Wolf himself writes:
			::::* Ian, I have offered to compromise numerous times - pretty much every comment, I think. See the number of times I've invited you to suggest a form of words which SA might be prepared to accept? SA doesn't want your text in, so it's not a surprise that he doesn't feel a need to suggest a compromise. Why should he care? Me, I am not going to start suggesting compromise forms of words because (a) I don't claim to be an expert and (b) without evidence of willingness to compromise on your part it would be a waste of time. So. You are the one who cares, how about you take the first step? I don't see it as a problem for Misplaced Pages not to have this statement in the article, it's satisfactory to me as it stands and there is no doubt that SA is perfectly content with the current article, so the ball really is in your court here, and demanding capitulation instead of proposing compromise does not really help your case. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	:"In 1986 I predicted the existing of '''a new mechanism''' for producing '''redshifts''' of spectral lines. It arises from the coherence properties of sources and from somewhat similar properties of their atmospheres. What perhaps is most remarkable is that in some cases this mechanism may be shown to completely imitate the Doppler effect, even though the source is not moving away from us. This implies that if one detects a redshift of a spectral line from an astronomical source one cannot always be certain that the shift is due to recessional motion; it could be due to the new effect, which has nothing to do with motion." See Emil Wolf, "" (2001) , ISBN 981-02-4204-2.

			:::::*The point is that ScienceApologist is demanding complete capitulation from me. That begs the question why.
	*Marco Marnane Capria of the University of Perugia, Italy, described the Wolf effect as:
			:::::*It's like suggesting that we don't call the sky "blue"; we don't have to call it blue, and we could compromise the wording. But when all the source say it's blue, WHY should we compromise. It is blue.
	:"'''A New Optical Redshift Mechanism''' .. An important discovery made in 1986 that its finder calls ''correleation-induced spectral changes'' .. by Emil Wolf, professor of optical physics at the University of Rochester, and generally appears to have been ignored or incorrectly explained. .. According to Wolf's theory, in some well-defined circumstances, one may generate "shifts of spectral lines which are indistinguishable from those that would be produced by the Doppler effect" .. those theoretical predictions were subsequently verified by experiments conducted by two of Wolf's colleagues G.M. Morris and D.Falkis" '''' (2005) edited by M. Mamone Capria, ISBN: 1-58603-462-6.
			:::::*The compromise is HOW we describe the Wolf effect as a "redshift".
			:::::*Another example. I could quibble over the Big Bang being called a "theory". I can present a fair argument that it has reached only the status of a "model", and describing it as a theory could be "confusing". If I can present NO evidence supporting that view, then why should there be a compromise on the word "theory", just because one editor thinks it might be confusing?
			:::::*As it is I can provide verifiable sources characterising the Big Bang as a model, , so at least I can provide some verifiable substance to my view.
			:::::*So I would be more than happy to make suggestions on HOW we describe the Wolf effect as a "redshift", but not using the word "redshift" is misleading, and does not represent the world view. --] 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
			::::::* We already do describe it as a frequency shift mechanism (can be red or blue, remember?) and as an explanation for some discordant redshifts. I don't see SA as demanding capitulation, simply as uninterested in your point of view. I ''am'' interested, so I'd like to see you propose a form of words which SA might find acceptable. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

			:::::::*Note that a blueshift is a negative redshift, so "redshift" does not exclude blueshifts.
	*Sisir Roy and S. Datta also note:
			:::::::*All redshifts are frequency shifts. Not all frequency shifts are redshifts (or blueshifts).
	:".. this '''new mechanism for redshift''' .. proposed by E. Wolf in the mid-eighties that has no connection with relative motion and gravitation". See S. Roy, S. Data, in '''' (2002) by Colin Ray Wilks, Richard L Amoroso, Geoffrey Hunter, Menas Kafatos; , ISBN: 1-4020-0885-6
			:::::::*Note also that describing the Wolf effect additionally as a redshift, is not my point of view. It is a verifiable point of view of the experts in the field, and numerous verifiable sources.
	(My embolding) --] 15:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
			:::::::*ScienceApologist will not entertain any description of the Wolf effect being described as a "redshift", or a "redshift mechanism". That is not only complete capitulation, it is not verifiably supported. --] 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
			::::::::* So you say, but I see no evidence that you've actually tried. How about trying? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

			Just thought now might be the time for another voice! Let me please start by saying that I support the wiki and no individual, as such I respect all of you and only ask that you all do the same :)
	'''Reporting'''

			The idea of a "negative redshift" being a blueshift, while literally true, I think is a strech. A blueshift is a blueshift, a redshift is a redshift. You don't claim that a ray of light is bent -300 degrees from normal, you say it's bent 60 degrees. To play on the doppler analogy, you have positive and negative frequency shifts, and as such I feel that the term '''frequency shift''' is best suited to define it. I do feel that if the shift is generally red that should be mentioned as well, which is what is observed in the cosmos. So perhaps we could all be happy with something like "The Wolf Effect (sometimes Wolf shift) is a frequency shift in the electromagnetic spectrum. The most commonly observed shift is red, thought it is theoritically possible for the shift to gravitaty towards the blue end of the spectrum." Of course we should spell everything properly :)
	ScienceApologist, you say that "they '''do report''' it"; The caption says that they "'''do not report''' observing". This seems to be conflicting, or badly worded? I would suggest that the caption should say that "the authors report not observing..."? --] 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

			Hopefully that'll help everyone reach consensus. I'm open to debate of course! --] 04:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
	Would still appreciation your comment. --] 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

			* Does that make it clearer? I don't know. Ian seems unwilling to even document what compromises he would accept. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	==Marginalization of this subject==

	What is not contentious is that this effect is a real effect of ]. What is contentious is that this effect has anything to do with quasars. I would appreciate an appropriate description of how marginalized this suggestion is with regards to the ]. In particular, while there are many research groups which theoretically model quasars, none of them see fit to use the Wolf Effect in their modeling. The references made by Ian were all to ] which do not themselves model quasars theoretically. As such, it is highly inappropriate to suggest that this is a reasonable mechanism for "intrinsic redshifts" (or that intrinsic redshifts exist at all). I would encourage all editors here to abide by the guidelines outlined in ], ], and ]. --] 17:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

			:Due to conservation of energy, frequency shifts over the entire 4 pi steradians will be redshifted and blueshifted in equal proportions. --] 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	:*So I'll provide references that satisfy WP:V and WP:RS that say that the Wolf effect has been considered as (a) A new redshift mechanism (b) A non-cosmological redshift (c) Of possible relevance to quasars
	:*And presumably you'll provide references that also satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, that say that the Wolf effect does not? --] 17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::* Don't start, please! If there is a disputed piece of text, bring it here, state the dispute in neutral language and sit back. You know what's going to happen otherwise. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

			==Wolf effect and redshift attribution==
	:::*Is this comment to me, or both of us? If it's to me, then I'm trying to establish a basic equality: that we BOTH abide by WP:V and WP:RS. Or do we just take it as read? --] 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
			*The new combined policy of ] on Attribution, I believe has a bearing on the discussion here. I have provided several attributed statements above, in which several scientists have described the Wolf effect as ], including ].
	::::* Oh it's both, don't worry. I am an equal opportunities grouch, grumpy and short-tempered with all sides of a dispute. Seriously, if the two of you can't shelve your personal differences sufficiently to discuss this in neutral terms, then this is going nowhere. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
			*Can someone provide an attributed source which questions the Wolf effect as a redshift in ''any'' way? --] 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

			:*This has already been discussed. There is nothing left to argue about. If you disagree, try ]. --] 18:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
	== Request for comment ==

			::*All you have to do is provide attribution supporting your position on the Wolf effect and redshift. It's that simple. --] 19:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
	] has prudently undertaken to debate on Talk rather than risk being seen as disrupting this article. He has certain edits he would like to see made, which I understand are opposed by ]. These two editors have a long history of deep differences and do not work well together. Following ], Ian is in probation and SA did not come out of that process unscathed either. I suggest that Ian begin by giving a point-by-point summary of what needs changing and why, specifically addressing SA's points above, with the very best sources he can muster. Please note that if this degenerates into a cat fight I will probably lose my patience, block all concerned and consign them to the eternal fires. Or something :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

	:~~Sounds~~ ~~quite~~ ~~reasonable~~ to me. --] 17:52, 5 ~~December~~ ~~2006~~ (UTC)		:::*Since this was already done, all you have to do is go to ]. --] 19:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

			::::*Remind me, which of your citations mentions the Wolf effect and redshift? --] 19:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
	==Proposed edits==
			----
	===New redshift mechanism===
			==Detailed not technical==
	*"that has been described as a new ] mechanism" (Removed by ScienceApologist)
			''18-Oct-2007:'' I have been editing several technical articles (such as "]") to add simplified wording, but this article "]" is not too technical, just detailed in content. The article doesn't even mention "]" (or "]"). Actual overly technical articles typically have more than 3 rare terms in a sentence (such as ''], aquitard & aquiclude'') or contain several mathematical formulas; however, this article doesn't involve any of those technical issues. I have removed tag "{<nowiki/>{technical}}" and suggested writing a more detailed analysis as to why the article is troublesome.
	:*I justified the inclusion of this statement above in "]", which ScienceApologist declined to discuss. It fulfils WP:V, WP:RS. I am not aware of any sources refuting the statement. The statement is important because some people believe that the Wolf effect is not a redshift. --] 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
			Please don't tag an article as "technical" just because it contains detailed information. -] 07:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
	::Who believes that the Wolf Effect is not a redshift? Emphasizing it as a "new" redshift mechanism gives undue weight to non-mainstream proponents looking for "new" redshift mechanisms. We should exclude comment per undue weight. --] 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
			== WikiProject class rating==
	::* Don't get ahead of yourself. Let's first of all agree a set of common premises, shall we? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
			This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. ] 10:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Ian's issue with undue weight==
	Do you disagree with any of the following:
	*WP:NPOV ] tells us that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"?
	*Can you confirm that this statement is based Jimbo's which says "If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so."
	*That the recent Arbitration case upheld this description in the very first point, "" --] 19:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

	:What does this have to do with anything? --] 19:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

	:*If you recall your earlier comment, you brought up the issue of Undue weight. My comment follows on from it, and discusses Undue weight also (hence the connection), in attempt to make sure we both understand Undue Weight as described by policy, and upheld by the recent arbitration case. I stand by the question. --] 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

	* Guys, I think we need to establish some ground rules here. This is not ] Mk. II, it is a content-specific debate and we're not going to rehash those arguments. I have barely read this article, I'm about to start going through it in detail. My general principles for articles on science topics are as
	:# If a view is held by a small but prominent group of people it should be attributed by name or group.
	:# If a view directly contradicts the mainstream, that should be noted either with an overarching statement in the lead or with specific criticisms sourced from peer-reviewed journals.
	:# Anything not in a peer-reviewed journal should, in the first instance, be excluded, we'll see if that leaves us short of sources (dissenting theories with widespread coverage in non-traditional sources need very careful consideration and should be noted as not being peer-reviewed).
	:# If there are multiple competing interpretations and no settled view, we maybe have a section on "interpretations of ''foo''", otherwise we document the mainstream with a small section on notable dissenting views.
	: That's very vague and generalised, but does that model fit this case? Ian, if you think that means I am excessively biased towards the mainstream, you'll need to find someone else to mediate this discussion, or maybe get an ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

	::*I agree with that completely. I can provide both peer reviewed sources, and secondary sources (as described in ]). (I note that the advice on Science articles was taken out on 1 Dec ). Presumably ScienceApologist can provide peer reviewed sources backing-up his statement too.
	::*That the Wolf effect is described as a redshift, I have many peer reviewed sources, and can provide both the citations, and point you to the exact quote that says so. I can also make sure they are online so you can double check.
	::*As far as I know, ScienceApologist has not provided any verifiable sources describing what he calls the mainstream view on the Wolf effect.
	::*What would like from me next? --] 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

	Ian needs to disabuse himself of the notion that just because he has a source for something it necessarily belongs in the article. --] 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

	* That's as maybe, but do you agree with these premises, or do we need to work on that? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

	::Actually, I disagree with the assumption that ] viewpoints necessarily have counterpoints that are peer reviewed. In the case of the Wolf Effect, theoretical astrophysicists do not take the suggestions of intrinsic redshift seriously enough to even deign to comment on the Wolf Effect as an intrinsic redshift mechanism. This does not mean that they agree with the conclusions of Wolf and James regarding quasars. Quite the contrary. They disagree and ignore them because they do not believe the ideas are worthy of comment. The issue was, in the eyes of the community, settled decades ago. --] 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: OK, so what do you suggest as a modification to the premises? If we can't even map out ground rules for debate then progress is not going to be possible, I think. Ian is saying that the idea of this being a redshift ''is'' available in peer-reviewed sources. What say we look at those and see what they say? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::The issue isn't so much as to whether the Wolf Effect can be modeled as a redshift but rather what is the consensus of the community of scientists who model quasars and their spectra? The consensus is, currently, that quasars are powered by accretion and are distant cores of AGN subject to the three standard redshift mechanisms (Doppler, Expansion, and Gravitation). To say that X, Y, or Z researcher believes that quasar redshifts might have an intrinsic component is verifiable, but there are only two reliable sources to that effect: Wolf and James (who are generally astronomically disinclined) and Roy's group (who do not model quasar spectra). This characterizes the level of acceptance for the "Wolf Effect <-> quasar redshift" proposal. --] 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::: All sounds perfectly plausible, but what we have here is a situation where I don't actually understand the subject especially well (strictly a Carl Sagan pop-science interest in cosmology) and I need to establish a firm footing on which I can base any kind of judgement. If what you're saying is that the entire Wolf Effect is fringe, and that interpretations of it as a redshift mechanism are ''fringe'' fringe, then I need to be walked through that step by step, because I am a simple man with an electrical engineering degree and I don't "get" obscure philosophical arguments. I come back to ground zero, which is ] (something which I ''do'' understand pretty well). How about if the two of you combine to give me the Janet & John version of this subject and the dispute? I'm not averse to working on understanding it, but I really do need to start at the beginning, and I can't tell after all this warring how much of the current article is asserted by either side to be biased towards the other. Incidentally, I haven't forgotten the dispute about the graph, that needs to be addressed early on I feel. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::The Wolf Effect itself is not fringe, it's the application of the Wolf Effect to cosmology that's fringe. The Wolf Effect is included as a standard phenomena in physical optics. However, it is assumed by certain people (and for some reason Wolf and James themselves) that the Wolf Effect would be applicable to quasars. This pronouncement was made in the late 1980s and has garnered the support of fringe cosmology proponents who think that this can bring the quasars back to nearby distances. Especially excited by such an idea would be ], for example, who is stuck in his machinations of peculiarity. However, you don't even see Arp commenting on these ideas.
	::::::The basic point is that the Wolf Effect is not a "redshift mechanism" in the same sense as the main redshift mechanisms illustrated on the ] page. Can it cause shifts in frequency? Sure! Can you measure a ''z'' associated with those shifts? Absolutely. Does that make this a "redshift": only in the sense that it is a "shift" of optical light toward the color "red". In many other astrophysically important ways it is not a "redshift" in the sense that it is not important to astrophysical scenarios. This is not to say that astrophysics has "word ownership" over "redshift", only to say that redshift is being exploited by certain fringe characters (like Ian) to be due to alternative mechanisms in order to advance an obliquely related agenda. What we need to do is make sure the reader understands that no theoretical modeler of quasars considers the Wolf Effect to be an important part of the spectra models. Therefore, the Wolf Effect is not a quasar redshift mechanism. Nor is it a "redshift" mechanism in the sense of astrophysical redshift -- despite that claim being promoted by a FRINGE and not subject to critical review. --] 13:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


	Here are my additional premises (which I would tack on to the end of your premises):

	#A view is a significant minority in science topics if it is both rejected by the majority and those who reject it have published about the subject (critical review).
	#Views which are not subject to critical review should be ascribed to the adherents of such views on the pages about the views or the pages about the adherents, and such views should be completely excluded from mainstream pages.
	#Amalgamation scientific proposals (such as the Wolf Effect AND quasars) should the have noncontroversial aspects of the proposal emphasized and the controversial aspects de-emphasized. (Thus, Wolf Effect being a proposed cause for "excess" redshift in quasars would be de-emphasized on this page).
	# If a view directly contradicts the mainstream and there are no mainstream rebuttals because the mainstream has ignored the view, it is important that some NPOV description of the marginalization of this view be made. This would necessarily take the form of a ].

	--] 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


	:Let me just give my two cents worth. This is all ScienceApologist's opinion, and effectively original research.
	:*Wiki policy on NPOV tells in the introductory sentences that we should be (a) representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a '''reliable source'''. (b) NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"
	:*] tells us that "The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs." If there are criticisms of the Wolf effect by the "community", by all means present some reliable sources describing them, otherwise we just have ScienceApologist's word for it.
	:*ScienceApologist tells us that "the Wolf Effect is not a "redshift mechanism", but is not prepared to provide ANY verifiable reliable sources for this. I have provided sources that say that it is. You don't need to understand the subject, only Wiki policy, to know which view should be presented in the article... ScienceApologist's view, or the view of peer reviewed scientists? Personally, I don't know who is right, but I know which is verifiable. --] 14:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	:*I will also point out that the recent upheld these principles. --] 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	There is no such thing as "original research" when it comes to new ground for editorial decisions. A neutral treatment of this subject will let readers know that parts of it are outside the scientific mainstream and that there are no theoretical cosmologists who use the Wolf Effect in their modeling of the redshift. A neutral treatment of this subject will not unduly weight the opinions of those who do not model quasars or work in astrophysics about those subjects. A neutral article will be honest about the fact that the Wolf Effect is not discussed in the peer review literature critically. A neutral article will not treat the Wolf Effect as a recognized redshift mechanism that can explain the astronomical observations of redshift. A neutral article will describe the frequency shift associated with the Wolf Effect, will ascribe to the fringe minority the opinions of the fringe minority, and will make appropriate marginalization and mention of such marginalization to the reader. Anything short of this is in violation of the guidelines, policies, and principles set-forth. If Ian disagrees with any of these points, then we need to work this out because as far as I'm concerned these ideals are non-negotiable. --] 14:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	: Cool it!
	: Ian, SA has a right to state his opinion. You can disagree, but that won't stop him stating it and it's useless to try. SA, Ian also has a right to state his opinion. Try not to hector each other, and try to stick to the subject at issue, which in this case is what constitutes a basis for discussion. Also, I think the both of you may fairly assume that it is not necessary to quote ] the whole time, since we all three know it inside out; the issue has always been in interpreting it in specific circumstances, not the wording itself.
	: So, I said above that my base premises were
	:# If a view is held by a small but prominent group of people it should be attributed by name or group.
	:# If a view directly contradicts the mainstream, that should be noted either with an overarching statement in the lead or with specific criticisms sourced from peer-reviewed journals.
	:# Anything not in a peer-reviewed journal should, in the first instance, be excluded, we'll see if that leaves us short of sources (dissenting theories with widespread coverage in non-traditional sources need very careful consideration and should be noted as not being peer-reviewed).
	:# If there are multiple competing interpretations and no settled view, we maybe have a section on "interpretations of ''foo''", otherwise we document the mainstream with a small section on notable dissenting views.
	: SA seeks to modify them, but I do not unconditionally accept his wording.
	:# ''A view is a significant minority in science topics if it is both rejected by the majority and those who reject it have published about the subject (critical review).'' - that sounds fair, can we all agree on that?
	:# ''Views which are not subject to critical review should be ascribed to the adherents of such views on the pages about the views or the pages about the adherents, and such views should be completely excluded from mainstream pages.'' That is a bit hard-line. Such views ''may'' be included if there is a consensus that they are interesting, for example if they have caught the public imagination. Flat-earthers are mentioned i the article on earth, it seems, despite it being an absurd theory. As long as we make it plain that the theory lacks critical review, and we don't give it excessive coverage, it's not an absolute that the view can't be included. But clearly bizarre notions that have not caught the public imagination and not been covered outside of their own closed circle, we probably should not cover in articles on related, more mainstream subjects.
	:#''Amalgamation scientific proposals (such as the Wolf Effect AND quasars) should the have noncontroversial aspects of the proposal emphasized and the controversial aspects de-emphasized. (Thus, Wolf Effect being a proposed cause for "excess" redshift in quasars would be de-emphasized on this page).'' Um. What we're talking about here is novel syntheses, isn't it? A novel synthesis is essentially a discrete theory, for the purposes of this argument, and is unlikely to qualify for mention unless it has been widely disseminated as a distinct entity. We don't publish original research, from any source.
	:# ''If a view directly contradicts the mainstream and there are no mainstream rebuttals because the mainstream has ignored the view, it is important that some NPOV description of the marginalization of this view be made. This would necessarily take the form of a ].'' And here we have the nub of the problem. Fundamentally, I agree. In practice, if we could only find a reliable source to say that such-and-such a theory is twaddle, we would be on much stronger ground. How do we, without original research, distinguish between new ideas not yet brought to the notice of the establishment, and ideas that the establishment has seen, understood and dismissed? This is where critical reviews in the journals can be really handy - a literature review which notes and explicitly dismisses a fringe theory is what we should be looking for. I am very uneasy, despite my innate scepticism for the proponents of fringe theories, of venturing into that territory without pretty strong backing from several expert editors. Which is why I have said from the beginning that what this article needs ''most'' is more eyes. Can't one or other of you write to the journals and start a debate on the letters pages that we can cite? That would be an imaginitive solution :-)
	: Anyway, we need to explore the premises for debate, and "I want it in" versus "I want it out" is not going to cut it, since both ''could'' be justified by ''some'' interpretation of policy. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::The journals aren't likely to accept any papers that attempt to resurrect the dead ideas of decades ago. --] 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	:*I agree with everything, except the last point.
	:*An alternative theory does NOT ''contradict'' a mainstream theory, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Observations ''may'' be consistent with two different theories. It certainly isn't for editors to speculate on whether the popularity of one theory implies the disdain of the other (it doesn't even logically follow).
	:*I had already invited one of the authors of one of the papers (Prof Dan James) to comment as an expert in the field, which he did, but ScienceApologist disagreed with him.
	:*I had already suggested that ScienceApologist write to journals to make his point that refuting a minority is easy, but he suggested it was "a waste of my time to submit a paper to peer review refuting a bunch of amateurish drivel".
	:*Another editor has commented on the Wolf effect, which also noted that it is a redshift,
	:*I've never resorted to "I want it in". I've always started with peer reviewed sources, and have attempted to describe them. ScienceApologist on the other hand continues to provide personal reasons for not including an item, and has rarely provided a source. --] 16:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	::Peer review sources are not going to be available for a claim that quasars might not be at cosmological distances which ''definitely contradicts the mainstream model''. Observations are manifestly not consistent with this proposal. --] 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	*"Extragalactic astronomers do not spend much time studying alternative redshift theories". I think that is closer to the truth, and hardly implies a consensus dismissing any aspect of the Wolf effect. --] 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	**Because they don't bother with such fringe machinations. --] 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	I do not know anything specific about the Wolf effect, but I can apply my expertise on general extragalactic astronomy. Generally, the standard explanation for QSO redshifts is that they are located at large distances. They appear to have high redshifts because they are moving with the expansion of the universe. Alternative redshift explanations, such as the Wolf effect, are generally not studied by mainstream professional astronomers. Would an advanced astronomy textbook (Binney & Merrifield's Galactic Astronomy, or Peebles's Observational Cosmology) be an acceptable reference to demonstrate the mainstream astronomy viewpoint on QSO redshifts? (Part of the problem is that the cosmological interpretation of redshifts is so widely accepted that no one writes papers on it anymore. Scientific journals would treat this as "common knowledge" and would not require any references.) ] 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	:There is no dispute about quasar redshifts, and the Wolf effect has not been used to suggest that "quasars might not be at cosmological distances" (unless ScienceApologist has a source verifying his statement). What some researchers of the ] have said is in the last quote of the article:

	::"we note the possibility that correlation-induced spectral shifts may contribute to the shifts observed in the spectra of some astronomical objects such as quasars"

	:James also writes:
	::".. our results do demonstrate the plausibility of the existence of extra-galactic objects with discordant redshifts due to well established physical phenomena.

	::"It should be emphasized that our theory is based entirely on established principles of optics: no hypothetical new physics was introduced. Furthermore, certain aspects of the underlying phenomenon, the Wolf effect, have been tested extensively in the laboratory." --] 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	I am not following this conversation, so I will just say this: The article gives undue wait to a minority point of view. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the conventional interpretation of redshifts for this article to meet Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. I will now step out of the conversation. ] 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	:I'm not quite with you. Do you mean the entire article is a minority point of view, or which specific points? --] 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	::Since Dr. Submm has stepped out of the conversation, allow me to step in. The specific points that are from a minority POV are the points in the article about quasars. --] 22:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	:::That quasars might not be at cosmological distances? --] 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	::::Or that quasars have intrinsic redshift components. --] 22:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	* Round we go again. Circular arguments, guys. So, go back to good old-fashioned treeware. It sounds to me as if this was briefly discussed in the sources when it was first mooted? If so we can cite the treeware. It's rare, in my experience, for the world of science to dismiss something which is espoused by a prominent adherent, with no discussion whatsoever. Remember Eric Laithwaite and his silly idea about gyroscopes? Discussed, dismissed, but I'm sure some references were generated along the way. You have, I believe, access to university libraries? Or JSTOR? Let's be creative here. Just because it was done and dusted ages ago does not mean we can't verify ''somehow'' what went on back then, surely? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	::This particular effect was not precisely discussed and neither were "intrinsic redshifts" in the normal sense. Arp proposed "intrinsic redshifts" as a tandem to ], so perhaps we can use the tired light rebuttals in this article (even though the Wolf Effect is manifestly not tired light). No one paid attention to the points raised. If you do a citation search on the Wolf/James/Roy articles you find no reference to the points considered regarding quasars and the Wolf Effect. These proposals bascially came too late for anyone to take notice except the fringe champions.

	::What we can find reference to is the consensus opinion regarding quasars. It is absolutely true that if the models scientists currently use to model quasars are correct, the Wolf Effect is not a major component in quasars spectra.

	::--] 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	'''Evidence (Treeware)'''
	*Wolf's original paper (treeware), "" (1987) Nature 326: 363—365." implicitly discussed the ''possibility'' of the Wolf effect being a non-cosmological (as per the title of the paper), and he specifically mentions that "It seems plausible that the mechanism discussed in this article may be responsible for some of the so far unexplained features of quasar spectra,"
	*No one paid attention? The Smithsonian/NASA ADS Astronomy Abstract Service bibliographic record for Wolf's paper shows 102 citations (treeware). My maths isn't brilliant, but rounding down 102 to zero, is not a statistical trick I'm familiar with.
	*Leaving aside textbooks on optics, we find astronomy textbooks (treeware) that mention the Wolf effect in 2002 , in 2000 , and in 2002 .
	*The last book by Jayant Narlikar's "" includes the Wolf effect on page 507, and is a text book used at:
	:*University of Wisconsin,
	:*Berkeley University,
	:*MTU's course on Galactic Astrophysics
	:*Columbia University's course on Physical Cosmology,
	:*Rice University's course on Astrophysics
	:*The Institute for Astronomy at the University of Hawaii, course on Cosmology
	:*University of Virginia Department of Astronomy, course on Extragalactic Astronomy
	:*University of California's Physics Booklist: Recommendations,
	:*Duke University's course, Introduction to Astrophysics,
	:*Plus many more.
	*So the evidence seems to show that Wolf's original peer reviewed paper on the Wolf effect and non-cosmological and quasar association, was cited over 100 times, and the Wolf effect is mentioned in astronomy text books, and suggested for use in current University courses. --] 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

	'''Solutions'''
	*To ensure there is balance, we can begin any contentious information with, for example:
	:*In additional to the generally accepted cause of ], the Wolf effect is consider a new mechanism...
	:*Contrary to the generally accepted model of ], the Wolf effect has been proposed as...
	*This provides (a) balance (b) makes it clear what the consensus view is, (c) Is factually accurate. (d) Allows the reader to find out more about the consensus in as much detail as is described elsewhere.
	*And likewise in the articles on ] and ], we can say that "The ] has been considered a new mechanism by physics researchers working in optics, describing it as a "non-cosmological redshift", with possible application to ] spectra". --] 09:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

	::Disagree with nearly every piece of evidence Ian has put forth. I'll note that Ian's major problem is that he is a bean-counter, not a researcher. "102 references!" he declares, but doesn't read a single one. Perhaps Ian has forgotten that in order to serve as a reference, the work cited needs to actually deal with the subject at hand.

	::The solutions Ian outlines are wholly unacceptable. The Wolf Effect is ''not'' considered a new mechanism by those who model quasars. The Wolf Effect has not been "proposed" in a formal sense for quasar modeling. And I'm just about ready to remove the Wolf Effect mentioned in the redshift article due to undue weight. --] 13:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:24, 8 April 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spectroscopy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SpectroscopyWikipedia:WikiProject SpectroscopyTemplate:WikiProject SpectroscopySpectroscopy

Archives

2005 – 2006

It is requested that a physics diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Misplaced Pages:Requested images.

Expert opinion

Copy of email sent out to experts in optics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wolf_effect

I am trying to improve the article on the Wolf effect on Misplaced Pages above. I was wondering whether you could clarify:

Can the Wolf effect be considered to be a redshift, or a new redshift mechanism?
Is this generally accepted, or only by a small number of researchers in optics?

Regards,

Ian Tresman

Reply from Mark Bocko who demonstrated the Wolf effect in the laboratory :

From: Mark Bocko Subject: Re: Wolf effect and redshift

Ian - answers below ....

It is a non-kinematic spectral shift mechanism, i.e., the source can be stationary and still exhibit the spectral shift, which can be red or blue by the way. The basic mechanism is mutual interference of the light coming from different parts of an extended body. So I would say that you can consider it to be a new red-shift mechanism.
The physics is completely accepted and believed, and several people have constructed sources in the laboratory that exhibit the Wolf effect. The question is however if sources with just the right properties that would lead to a red-shift exist in nature. So I do not think that anyone who worked in this area would actually suggest that the cosmological redshifts that we observe are due to the Wolf-effect and not due to an expanding universe.

I hope this clarifies matters for you. Thank you for your interest,

Best regards, Mark

Reply from Robert S Knox (co-worker of Mark Bocko). In their paper, Bob Knox is affiliated with the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.

From: Robert S Knox Subject: Re: Wolf effect and redshift

Ian, You wrote

this depends on the context. I would lean toward "mechanism." I've heard the phrase "Wolf shift" but not frequently. And of course the shift can be either red or blue.
I think the Wolf effect is generally accepted, because it has a mathematically sound basis and has been demonstrated (your refs. 5 and 6). However, because there are such stringent requirements placed on the source correlations that produce the effect optically, it has (thus far) limited applicability except to the demonstrations of its principle. "Acceptance" is a relative term. The number of researchers interested will be proportional to the need to apply it.

Best wishes, Bob Knox

i.e. The Wolf effect is a redshift mechanism. It's application to "nature" (or astronomy) is "cautious" (as the existing article indicates). --Iantresman 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Ian, none of the experts answered in the affirmative or described it as a "redshift mechanism". Therefore, I say we are in good standing not calling it that. Thanks for doing the legwork and quoting the responses exactly. They illustrate my ideas beautifully. --ScienceApologist 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So when Mark Bocko writes: "you can consider it to be a new red-shift mechanism", how is that not in the affirmative? --Iantresman 20:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
When Bob Knox writes: "I would lean toward "mechanism." how is that not an affirmation towards "redshift mechanism" --Iantresman 20:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-committal and not indicating that this is necessarily the standard consensus. Without an unequivocal verification of your position, I'm pretty confident we are fine with the way it is. I'm not going to entertain your POV-pushing any longer. This conversation is over as far as I'm concerned. --ScienceApologist 21:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"you can consider it to be a new red-shift mechanism" is unequivocal. That's not my point of view, that's the point of view of an expert in the field. --Iantresman 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But they didn't jump out and say it was one, only that one could consider it to be so. Since we have to consider whether readers will be confused by such terminology (and I venture to say that they will be), then it is best that we stick to our present description. --ScienceApologist 22:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So "you can consider it to be a new red-shift mechanism" is not good enough, and they have to jump through hoops too. Your description does not represent the world view. --Iantresman 22:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because one can do something doesn't mean one should do it. There is an encyclopedia to consider. --ScienceApologist 04:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what we have here are credible experts (albeit private communications so not formally citable) saying precisely what I've said above: the Wolf effect is a frequency shift (can be red or blue) and is not widely considered as an explanation for cosmological redshift, which means the form of words describing it as a frequency shift which will be seen as red from our perspective and which may explain some discordant redshifts, would appear to be entirely accurate. Indeed, based on the above commentary, I would be very wary of including any reference to the plasma crowd here, because it's evident that these experts dismiss the possibility that Wolf effect might be a generic redshift mechanism and both point out that the shift can be red or blue, meaning it should be described as a frequency shift. and yet, Ian, you choose to interpret that as saying the exact opposite of my reading. If anything, these two comments seem to em to amke your case even weaker, and it was not strong to begin with. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it? I have NEVER considered the Wolf effect as widely held view as an explanation for cosmological redshift, and I have NEVER described it as such.
What is important, is that the Wolf effect is described as a new redshift mechanism (Doppler-like to be precise). This view is mainstream among those in optics, and is described as such in the literature, and in textbooks.
And yes, the Wolf effect can be both a redshift and blueshift, but there is also a "no blueshift" condition that produces just redshifts. --Iantresman 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No, what is important is that it is a frequency shift, which is what the article says. You have not provided any compelling reason why the present text should be changed, or any credible argument why the present wording is worse than your preferred version, which several editors find problematic for various reasons. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Wolf effect is a frequency shift, (similar to that which could be produced by Brillouin scattering), and is described as such, and should be described as such first.
But the compelling reason to additionally characterize the Wolf effect as a redshift is (a) It is verifiably accurate (b) It distinguishes it from the likes of Brillouin scattering (c) It notes the similarity to the Doppler-like redshift (d) Experts in the field also characterise it as a redshift (e) Peer reviewed sources described it as a redshift (f) Textbooks describe it as a redshift.
Some of your criticisms are demonstrably incorrect:

You wrote: "these experts dismiss the possibility that Wolf effect might be a generic redshift mechanism"
ScienceApologist wrote: "none of the experts answered in the affirmative or described it as a "redshift mechanism"."
Yet Emil Wolf wrote: "In 1986 I predicted the existence of a new mechanism for producing redshifts .. "
Marco Marnane Capria wrote: "A New Optical Redshift Mechanism.."
Sisir Roy and S. Datta wrote: ".. this new mechanism for redshift .."
Mark Bocko (above) wrote: "I would say that you can consider it to be a new red-shift mechanism."

I have provided compelling reasons. I have also shown that the experts do indeed describe the Wolf effect a redshift mechanism. --Iantresman 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your reasons may seem compelling from your point of view as one who has already made up their mind that it should be so, but you don't seem to have made any converts. Rather than repeating the arguments we've already heard and rejected, what say you bring better arguments? Or better still, suggest an alternate form of words that others can get behind? Your repeated insistence on a rejected form of words is disruptive. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your desire for a change to the text has been rejected, Ian. Move on. --ScienceApologist 18:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're basically saying that without presenting ANY verifiable evidence whatsoever, not from ANY kind of source, not ANY critical texts, that you personally merely "reject" the description, despite it being overwhelmingly verifiable from expert sources, peer reviewed sources, primary sources, and textbooks. --Iantresman 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, we aren't saying that. --ScienceApologist 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just remind me of your source, which mentions the Wolf effect, on which you are basing your views? --Iantresman 11:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Same ones you're using, Ian. --ScienceApologist 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

They characterise the Wolf effect as a redshift. How many quotes do I have to extract? --Iantresman 14:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

They also characterize it as a frequency shift. And quite frankly, extracting quotes NEVER works. The issue is that the Wolf Effect is verifiably both a frequency shift and a redshift. Since redshift carries unfortunate connotations in this line, we call it a frequency shift to help the reader. --ScienceApologist 14:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a frequency shift, no dispute. It is ALSO a redshift. That's not a connotation. It is a redshift. No one else on the planet suggests this is an "unfortunate connotations", and it is not verifiable. You don't help the reader by removing information that correctly characterizes the Wolf effect. --Iantresman 14:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying that something is a redshift connotes a relationship with astrophysics: "The question is however if sources with just the right properties that would lead to a red-shift exist in nature. So I do not think that anyone who worked in this area would actually suggest that the cosmological redshifts that we observe are due to the Wolf-effect and not due to an expanding universe." --ScienceApologist 14:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. There may be a connotation in the minds of astronomers and scientists, but not in the minds of those working in optics, and the rest of the planet. Here are some definitions of redshift, or which 60% of the extracts do not mention an astronomical context at all. Only one out of 10 gives an astronomy-only definition, and even your Misplaced Pages entry for Redshift does not mention an astronomical context until the middle of the third paragraph.
Now, what? Are you going to claim unreliable sources, or cherry pick some astronomy books to make your point? --Iantresman 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm going to declare this conversation over. Your point is not taken by anyone but yourself. Don't like it, start an RfC. --ScienceApologist 15:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have demonstrated that your suggestion of confusion with astronomical redshift is not supported by the sources. Any where there is a connection with astronomy, no confusion is implied. And even if there was perceived confusion, it's nothing which any editor could easily clarify.
I have demonstrated that the view I wish to described is supported by the experts, reliable sources, and textbooks.
I am still waiting for you to provide ONE source that suggests any kind of issue regarding the Wolf effect as a redshift. --Iantresman 16:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian, all you've demonstrated is that you don't know the difference between an editorial argument and a fact. --ScienceApologist 19:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My editorial argument is based on all the evidence I've presented. I'm still waiting for some substance that supports yours. --Iantresman 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can bring a horse to water, but I can't make him drink. --ScienceApologist 03:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not especially helpful. Can you think of a form of words that Ian might be able to accept? Try to be a little accommodating, yes? Guy (Help!) 12:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your summary below does it brilliantly. Thanks, JzG. --ScienceApologist 13:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian, repeatedly re-stating your opinion is simply not helping. To baldly call it a "new redshift mechanism" is to risk misleading; the best you have from your experts is that it could be described as such, but one of them suggests that we don't do that and supports what we actually do in the article whihc is to describe it as a frequency shift mechanism - this is more specific and thus less likely to mislead. We've also noted how it could be applied to observed discordant redshifts, which addresses anything that might be left unanswered in the frequency shift description. You are arguing for a less specific definition which has been seen by others as promoting a fringe agenda, and is also arguably factually incorrect (Wolf shift can be blue or red), and it simply isn't going to fly. So I offer you one last time: come up with an alternate form of words which is acceptable to other editors, or at least forms the basis for a debate, or please just drop it. If you can't come up with something new I'm going to archive this entire discussion out before it degenerates into yet another slugfest. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeatedly stating your opinion is no different to mine, with the difference that mine is supported by peer reviewed sources and expert opinion.
I am NOT asking for a less specific definition.
I agree that primarily, the Wolf effect should be described as a frequency shift, as it is now. This is accurate because the Wolf effect does not always produce a redshift.
But I am saying that in additional to this description, we reflect the view of the experts and sources, and say that the Wolf effect has also been described as a redshift, or new redshift mechanism.
Mark Bocko said that he "would say that you can consider it to be a new red-shift mechanism."
Robert Knox said that he "would lean toward "mechanism.""
Emil Wolf said that "I predicted the existing of a new mechanism for producing redshifts"
And many others.
There is no confusion. They call it a redshift mechanism because it is considered to be a redshift mechanism. That is unambiguous and factually accurate.
Even IF there was some confusion, again that sources clarify the issue and tell us that the Wolf effect is not being offered as an alternative to the Cosmological redshift.
I find no sources that even hint at any confusion or dispute. --Iantresman 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary: you absolutely refuse to countenance compromise. Fine, your loss, the article stays as it is. I'll archive this discussion shortly as it's evidently futile. Still, I tried. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, neither you, nor ScienceApologist have compromised either, and have refused to describe the Wolf Effect as it is described in numerous sources. Two editors have decided that they known better than all the experts, and all the peer reviewed sources. I tried too. --Iantresman 20:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I have offered to compromise numerous times - pretty much every comment, I think. See the number of times I've invited you to suggest a form of words which SA might be prepared to accept? SA doesn't want your text in, so it's not a surprise that he doesn't feel a need to suggest a compromise. Why should he care? Me, I am not going to start suggesting compromise forms of words because (a) I don't claim to be an expert and (b) without evidence of willingness to compromise on your part it would be a waste of time. So. You are the one who cares, how about you take the first step? I don't see it as a problem for Misplaced Pages not to have this statement in the article, it's satisfactory to me as it stands and there is no doubt that SA is perfectly content with the current article, so the ball really is in your court here, and demanding capitulation instead of proposing compromise does not really help your case. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that ScienceApologist is demanding complete capitulation from me. That begs the question why.
It's like suggesting that we don't call the sky "blue"; we don't have to call it blue, and we could compromise the wording. But when all the source say it's blue, WHY should we compromise. It is blue.
The compromise is HOW we describe the Wolf effect as a "redshift".
Another example. I could quibble over the Big Bang being called a "theory". I can present a fair argument that it has reached only the status of a "model", and describing it as a theory could be "confusing". If I can present NO evidence supporting that view, then why should there be a compromise on the word "theory", just because one editor thinks it might be confusing?
As it is I can provide verifiable sources characterising the Big Bang as a model, , so at least I can provide some verifiable substance to my view.
So I would be more than happy to make suggestions on HOW we describe the Wolf effect as a "redshift", but not using the word "redshift" is misleading, and does not represent the world view. --Iantresman 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We already do describe it as a frequency shift mechanism (can be red or blue, remember?) and as an explanation for some discordant redshifts. I don't see SA as demanding capitulation, simply as uninterested in your point of view. I am interested, so I'd like to see you propose a form of words which SA might find acceptable. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that a blueshift is a negative redshift, so "redshift" does not exclude blueshifts.
All redshifts are frequency shifts. Not all frequency shifts are redshifts (or blueshifts).
Note also that describing the Wolf effect additionally as a redshift, is not my point of view. It is a verifiable point of view of the experts in the field, and numerous verifiable sources.
ScienceApologist will not entertain any description of the Wolf effect being described as a "redshift", or a "redshift mechanism". That is not only complete capitulation, it is not verifiably supported. --Iantresman 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So you say, but I see no evidence that you've actually tried. How about trying? Guy (Help!) 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just thought now might be the time for another voice! Let me please start by saying that I support the wiki and no individual, as such I respect all of you and only ask that you all do the same :)

The idea of a "negative redshift" being a blueshift, while literally true, I think is a strech. A blueshift is a blueshift, a redshift is a redshift. You don't claim that a ray of light is bent -300 degrees from normal, you say it's bent 60 degrees. To play on the doppler analogy, you have positive and negative frequency shifts, and as such I feel that the term frequency shift is best suited to define it. I do feel that if the shift is generally red that should be mentioned as well, which is what is observed in the cosmos. So perhaps we could all be happy with something like "The Wolf Effect (sometimes Wolf shift) is a frequency shift in the electromagnetic spectrum. The most commonly observed shift is red, thought it is theoritically possible for the shift to gravitaty towards the blue end of the spectrum." Of course we should spell everything properly :)

Hopefully that'll help everyone reach consensus. I'm open to debate of course! --Robert Stone, Jr. 04:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that make it clearer? I don't know. Ian seems unwilling to even document what compromises he would accept. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to conservation of energy, frequency shifts over the entire 4 pi steradians will be redshifted and blueshifted in equal proportions. --ScienceApologist 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wolf effect and redshift attribution

The new combined policy of WP:A on Attribution, I believe has a bearing on the discussion here. I have provided several attributed statements above, in which several scientists have described the Wolf effect as a new redshift mechanism, including peer reviewed papers and books.
Can someone provide an attributed source which questions the Wolf effect as a redshift in any way? --Iantresman 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. There is nothing left to argue about. If you disagree, try dispute resolution. --ScienceApologist 18:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is provide attribution supporting your position on the Wolf effect and redshift. It's that simple. --Iantresman 19:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this was already done, all you have to do is go to dispute resolution. --ScienceApologist 19:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Remind me, which of your citations mentions the Wolf effect and redshift? --Iantresman 19:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Detailed not technical

18-Oct-2007: I have been editing several technical articles (such as "Discrete Fourier transform") to add simplified wording, but this article "Wolf Effect" is not too technical, just detailed in content. The article doesn't even mention "interference" (or "astrophysics"). Actual overly technical articles typically have more than 3 rare terms in a sentence (such as aquifer, aquitard & aquiclude) or contain several mathematical formulas; however, this article doesn't involve any of those technical issues. I have removed tag "{{technical}}" and suggested writing a more detailed analysis as to why the article is troublesome. Please don't tag an article as "technical" just because it contains detailed information. -Wikid77 07:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories: