Talk:Cold Big Bang

I understand the supression of the bibliographic source information is censorship. US Journal: Progress in Physics, vol. 2, april, 2011 [ISSN: 1555-5534 (print) and ISSN: 1555-5615 (online), registered in US Congress Library is not a reliable source? Now, the other Cold Big Bang turns out to be mainstream... But Assis' must be deleted! Carolingfield (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The Library of Congress is just a registry. I can go to Lulu.com, upload a photo of my cat and pay them $50, and they'll stick an ISBN on it and send one to the Library of Congress. That doesn't make me a reliable source, and it doesn't mean there can be a wikipedia article about my cat. Here is how Assis's article can become notable. (a) Some cosmologists read it and think it's interesting. (b) Those cosmologists write their own articles, and say "Among the theories we're looking at is Assis 2011 ..." There you go, now you can have a Wikipedia article where sources other than Assis himself have something to say. That's how Assis's article might someday be different than the cat-photos I uploaded to Lulu. But right now, in April 2011, it's not there yet. (My personal opinion is that it will never get there, but my opinion is no more notable than yours or Assis's.) Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 19:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is also possible that reliable sources already exist. Can you find any, Carolingfield? It would make a big difference if you could go into the literature, or the science media, etc., and find evidence that journalists and scholars are actually discussing Assis. I checked, but I didn't see anything. What do you see? Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You should respect a scientific, serious work. Maybe you can raise scientific objections within the Assis' work, instead of comparing it to Lulu's cat. You are still arguing that the source must be supressed. Why Wikipedia does not have an Article on Lulu's cat (Lulu.com), but has one about Progress in Physics? Carolingfield (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In which section of US Congress is the Journal registered? Bullshit section, or Physics section? Lulu's cat section? Carolingfield (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you did a lot of contributions to Wikipedia Bm gub2... Zero. I can find one: Deletion of reliable scientific information registered withis US Congress Library. I see your concerns within the Wiki: You lost your password, showing you are not so engaged with this terrific Encyclopedia. Carolingfield (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have an article on Lulu.com. It doesn't have an article on each thing that gets uploaded there. Likewise, it has an article on Progress in Physics itself---note that five or six independent sources have written about the existence of the journal---but not about every paper that gets uploaded there. Rather than talking about the journal, please talk about the documentation of the theory itself. Are there any secondary sources that talk about the theory?

Regarding my WP involvement, most of my contributions were under the username User:Bm_gub. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 20:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia! Maybe you should learn another language, french, germany etc.. Carolingfield (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I repeat the question: are there any WP:RS reliable, secondary sources---i.e. citations in journal articles, articles in major newspapers and magazines, etc.---that tell us that this article is more notable than my cat photos? Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Attacking the character of another user in response to a dispute about article content is not acceptable. We are discussing whether the material you have been trying to add is consistent with Wikipedia's editorial policies. Having editorial policies is not the same thing as censorship, and who Bm_gub is or what other contributions they have made is utterly irrelevant. Using such a tactic instead of responding to the points raised about the material itself suggests that you have run out of valid arguments to support your position. If you would care to you may pursue some form of dispute resolution such as a request for comment, but the ad hominem slurs and the edit warring have got to stop. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the content may be putted within the Wikipedia, since I understand the source is valid. If the Progress in Physics is not accepted as a valid source, ok, the question is solved. I will not put any further strain in this discussion, since my point is the validity of the bibliographic source as the one in which the Assis article is availble. Sorry if the Journal is not a valid source within the english Wikipedia. Is the source valid or not as a bibliographic source, i.e., the source cannot be valid within english Wikipedia? Carolingfield (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.110.42 (talk)

There are several overlapping guidelines: WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE. A single paper, without citations, no matter what the journal, is almost never considered a reliable source. The only verifiable fact about such a paper is that its own author thinks it's true---and worse so for PTEP/Apeiron/etc. for which not even a real referee is involved. That fact may be notable in, e.g., the biography of a notable scientist (see for example Ruggero Santilli for a PTEP example) where a statement like "Santilli wrote a paper on X" is a notable, verifiable statement about Santilli; that doesn't mean it's a notable, verifiable fact about X. But such "hearsay" facts are not notable, encyclopedic, or desirable in actual science articles. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 05:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Cold Big Bang is notable. There was not any article on the subject until Carolingfield. There are papers on the subject. Assis' is one of them. The notability is about the subject and the freedom to be informed about the current status of this subject within the Physics. Again, we are back to the question of the validity of the Assis' paper as a bibliographic source. Regarding the peer-review process, sir Bm gub2, Can you prove the paper was not peer-reviewed or it is just your personal opinion. The fact is that your personal opinion conflicts with the information within the Progress in Physics Journal information: "All submissions will be read by one of the Editors, then forwarded to invited experts, whose professional field is close to the submission. Decision about the submission will be produced by the Editors, according to the recommendations obtained from the side of the reviewers. If an article is accepted for publication, the author must complete the following steps...". Or, are you saying PIP is lying? Carolingfield (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.110.42 (talk)

The old Cold big bang theory, the one due to Layzer, is notable. This is demonstrated, according to Wikipedia policy, by citing mainstream references that cite and discuss Layzer's work. There are no references whatsoever that cite or discuss Assis's work. That's the major problem. Its presence in PTEP would not have been a problem if secondary sources existed. But they don't. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 06:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Bm gub2 said: "The only verifiable fact about such a paper is that its own author thinks it's true---and worse so for PTEP/Apeiron/etc. for which not even a real referee is involved." Again: Regarding the peer-review process, Bm gub2, can you prove the paper was not peer-reviewed or it is just your personal opinion? The fact is that your personal opinion conflicts with the information within the Progress in Physics Journal information: "All submissions will be read by one of the Editors, then forwarded to invited experts, whose professional field is close to the submission. Decision about the submission will be produced by the Editors, according to the recommendations obtained from the side of the reviewers. If an article is accepted for publication, the author must complete the following steps...". Or, are you saying PIP is lying? The referees' opinions do not count? Carolingfield (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.110.42 (talk)

Bm gub2 said: "The only verifiable fact about such a paper is that its own author thinks it's true---and worse so for PTEP/Apeiron/etc. for which not even a real referee is involved." Again: Regarding the peer-review process, Bm gub2, can you prove the paper was not peer-reviewed or it is just your personal opinion? The fact is that your personal opinion conflicts with the information within the Progress in Physics Journal information: "All submissions will be read by one of the Editors, then forwarded to invited experts, whose professional field is close to the submission. Decision about the submission will be produced by the Editors, according to the recommendations obtained from the side of the reviewers. If an article is accepted for publication, the author must complete the following steps...". Or, are you saying PIP is lying? The referees' opinions do not count? Carolingfield (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Listen, Carol, there is no blanket prohibition of using Progress in Physics in Wikipedia. It is my *opinion* that PTEP publishes nothing but fringe crap that would be rejected anywhere else. Is Assis 2011 an exception? I don't care *now*. If it's an exception to the rule, we will find out in a few years if someone cites it. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Carol, from your edit summary at Cosmology it sounds like you misinterpreted my statement "I don't care" above. Let me clarify: As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a paper that has never been cited/noticed/commented on is unacceptable no matter whether it is, or is not, "fringe crap". Therefore, I don't care whether it is fringe crap or is not fringe crap---either way, due to its obscurity and the lack of independent attention to it, it is not a reliable source. Please leave it off Wikipedia until its reliability has been established by independent third parties. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear, Bm gub2, we can reach a consensus. We can avoid the explanation regarding the Assis' work, but I insist that the source can be available within Cold Big Bang and Cosmology Wikipedia English articles. Consider the insertion of ^[1]

. Just it. Is it fine for you? Let's keep our minds open and respect this bibliographic source, just the information about the source? Carolingfield (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I don't want that in there in any form. It's an utterly non-notable article, in a send-us-your-rejected-stuff journal, that hasn't been vetted by the scientific community; linking to it would suggest that it's a reliable source that Wikipedia editors think the average reader should follow up on. It's not. If you want scientists to notice this article, go talk about it at conferences and see what they think. If you want the public to notice this article, post it on your blog. Wikipedia will be ready to report on it after that process has generated notability and independent sources. This is not an advertising site that you can use to promote things you wrote or things you like. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 05:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I wish to repeat: if you think I'm wrong, try to convince me. Has the article in fact been cited scientifically? Was Assis on the front page of "O Dia"? Is there something in the WP:RS and WP:NN guidelines you think I should be considering? Etc. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 06:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Be happy... I wish you every success in your endeavour. No consensus. Discussion is closed for me. Carolingfield (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.208.210 (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bm_gub2, the content should not be discussed because there are no secondary sources discussing it, only one primary source. This is according to the usual guidelines WP:RS, WP:NOTE. I deleted it again.

Carolingfield, I suggest you write a google knol on the topic or something. I do think this topic shouldn't be discussed on wikipedia, I do not think it shouldn't be discussed ever by anyone anywhere. :-) --Steve (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Has gone on quite long enough. I've added an edit notice to the page and semi-protected it for a month in an effort to stem the tide of spamming and IP sockpuppets. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610170334/http://www.cosmosportal.org/articles/view/138894/ to http://www.cosmosportal.org/articles/view/138894/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

why is Christof Wetterich's theoretical approach not mentioned? s. https://io9.gizmodo.com/new-theory-suggests-the-universe-emerged-from-a-long-c-1515199150 also crap like armando assis' stuff? some big-bang-religious warfare going on? --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The article mentions a (presumably typical) hot Big Bang model, but then goes on to mention two "low temperature" models, Lemaitre's and Layzer's. Presumably, these are both "cold". Since Lemaitre's was the first BB model, was the mainstream development then cold-hot-cold? Or was Laimaitre's model modified from cold to hot somehow? Very confusing. Suggest the article be clarified in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.48.159 (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)