Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reciprocal System of Theory

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reciprocal System of Theory

(William M. Connolley 12:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)) RST is psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and should not be in wikipedia. The wiki article has no mathematical content; the theory itself is vague, untestable and unfalsifiable. It is also non notable: of the google hits for it, all (except its own homepage) are wiki and wiki clones: a deeply regrettable example of wiki propagating psuedoscience.

Connolley, since you are a relative new comer to this subject and you are representative of many others who are now voting on this article, I want to address this topic of the non-notable status of the RST that you raise. Please refer to the article's talk page for the text of my remarks.

Note: the previous (august 2003) VFD vote for this page is at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reciprocal System of Theory/Old for those interested.

Summary of voting

[edit]

(William M. Connolley 19:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I've summarised the voting as its getting rather long and we have some dubious votes. If people think Sph, Excal or danmc are real (or less plausibly, the anon votes) then please modify the counts.

Delete (24):

  1. Zundark 12:56, 31 Aug 2004;
  2. FZ 13:36, 31 Aug 2004;
  3. Tim Starling 13:51, Aug 31, 2004;
  4. SimonP 16:13, Aug 31, 2004;
  5. Gwalla | Talk 16:35, 31 Aug 2004;
  6. Bishonen 18:12, 31 Aug 2004;
  7. Glengarry 19:23, 31 Aug 2004;
  8. Andrewa 21:12, 31 Aug 2004;
  9. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:58, 31 Aug 2004;
  10. Gwimpey 22:54, Aug 31, 2004;
  11. Awolf002;
  12. ping 07:49, 1 Sep 2004;
  13. Ambi 09:38, 1 Sep 2004;
  14. Michael Snow;
  15. William M. Connolley 19:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC);
  16. Nunh-huh 03:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC);
  17. Cyrius|✎ 06:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC);
  18. Stormie 06:30, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC);
  19. Davodd 12:05, Sep 2, 2004;
  20. Pjacobi 10:47, 2 Sep 2004;
  21. Rory ☺ 17:26, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Postdlf 19:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  23. CryptoDerk 20:59, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  24. Lacrimosus 22:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep (3):

  1. Infradig (andrew);
  2. Doug 07:07, 1 Sep 2004;
  3. Mike 18:01, Sep 1, 2004 (not totally sure of this one but does have some history).

Not counted (9):

(voted for keep but judged of dubious reality by WMC). These may be Anon IPs, or new users which are potential sockpuppets.

  1. Sph 17:30, 1 Sep 2004 (only edit her vote);
  2. Excal 16:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) (only 2 edits, on RST today and this page);
  3. User:danmc (dan) (only 2 edits this VFD).
  4. 211.28.24.206 (jamesrm; only 2 edits),
  5. 152.216.3.4,
  6. 205.188.116.198 (retrospectively signed as Ronald W. Satz 10:04, 2 Sep 2004),
  7. 203.166.108.209 (says he is David Halprin),
  8. 63.230.96.174 (retro signed as (User:Wsitze)
  9. 198.168.152.20 made unsigned (and hence invalid) votes to keep.

I Don't Think So!

[edit]

Who made you the voting judge here!? Many people read Wikipedia regularly who seldom if ever make a contribution, but that does not anull their eligibility to vote. If they feel inclined to express their opinion by voting, whether or not they have ever done so previously, then more power to them. You are not allowed to disenfranchise them.

Delete: 13 Keep: 10

  • Kind of funny that you forgot to sign that particular one ... still, could happen to anybody. Oh, yes, we are allowed to. People who have never made a single edit have disenfranchised themselves, whether or not they "read Wikipedia regularly". This is standard policy, Dbundy. You can't miss it if you read around a little on the site. Bishonen 19:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Yep, I see that now. Should have checked first before encouraging others to vote. Still, the Admin is cautioned to be careful to remember that we should be working with a "Rough Consensus" here. Though many voters may have a new ID and no edit history does not mean that their vote is a "bad faith" vote, if nothing else it shows interest in the preserving the article. The general policy guidline is:
If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!
The stated criterion is "evidence for the need for an article." That evidence is being demonstrated by input from all over the world in this case, and even if they can't be strictly counted as votes in the decision process, they can certainly be counted as "friend of the court" input. Remember, when "in doubt, don't delete!" Doug 20:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Regarding the unsigned votes. If you've ever had to operate a web site requiring setting up a user account and login, then you know there are always individuals who have nothing but problems with it. To boot, a "back and forth" like this can be intimidating and I can easily picture people casting a vote and leaving just as quickly without taking the time to sign up. It seems unsigned votes cannot be counted, and I can understand the reasoning for this, but please take this into consideration. This man's work, and a place on wikipedia are important to a number of people, including those who first came to Larson in the '60 and '70s and whose internet skills may be limited. -- danmc


Votes

[edit]
  • Delete. Non-notable. The article was created by a proponent of the theory about 3 years ago, and has wasted a huge amount of people's time since then, as can be seen from the edit history and the voluminous talk archives. --Zundark 12:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It takes some significant effort to come up with a scientific theory that even I think is truly untenable, but Mr. Larson managed it lo those many years ago. This "theory" consists entirely of pseudoscientific catchphrases strung together into semantically null verbiage. Aside from this, however, the article can be deleted as non-encyclopedic original research, not citing any authoritative source. It is also poorly written, unclear, and lacking in the illustrative examples that are neccessary to an encyclopedia article on any actual scientific topic. -FZ 13:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doug and his ISUS buddies have been defending this article against NPOV since September 2001. For a fair proportion of that time, Doug has had his own way, since there are only a finite number of contributors willing to keep up the required eternal battle against him. The anti-Doug tag-team (Stephen Gilbert, Larry Sanger, Lee Daniel Crocker, Zundark, Sjc, Css, LMS, AxelBoldt, The Anome, Maveric149, Ed Poor, GWO, myself, Daniel Quinlan, Jwrosenzweig, SimonP, Tdent and William M. Connolley) has had some victories over that time, but only at a cost to those Wikipedians far out of proportion with the importance of the contents. I've long since given up hope that Doug would go away, he's been here longer than any of us and there's no sign that he's tiring. It's time for us to get rid of this unimportant pseudoscientific theory, and let everyone get on with writing articles about actual science rather than arguing with this lunatic. -- Tim Starling 13:51, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Your characterization of the history of this debate is as slanted as your scientific view. You came along and made a good-faith effort to improve the article at a time when it had become an unwieldy "tutorial," as you put it. It became a tutorial precisely because the challenge it was forced to meet at that time was to show that it wasn't psuedoscience, had a valid mathematical basis, etc., which it shouldn't have had to do, but responding to the criticism, I endeavored to meet the challenge anyway. I recognized and even praised your efforts and together we rewrote the article, which basically has stood ever since. The change that provoked this latest brouhaha was instigated by Awolf who thought we ought to remove the blatant POV from both sides and just "report" the facts, just reporting what the theory contributes. I responded sceptically at first, because I didn't think it could be done without exactly this kind of reaction, but at his urging I made an attempt and eventually drafted a strawman for his and the community's comment, that was completely neutral and invited him specifically to comment and give me his input. But he ignored it for weeks on end claiming he didn't have time, while in the meantime he spent hours and hours building up his own Wikipedia "portfolio." So, tell me Tim, how do you justify calling me a lunatic? You know what this is about because whenever you've looked into it expecting to easily find the usual crank stuff, you are surprised that it's not there. Still you stoop to call me a lunatic and jump on the bandwagon because it's the popular and easy thing to do. Shame on you, and shame on all of you who are likewise prejudiced and so willing to trample a minority POV for the same unflattering reasons. Doug 14:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable and a burden on Wikipedians. Also see previous deletion debates from September 2001 and July 2003. - SimonP 16:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable crank theory. — Gwalla | Talk 16:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete original research, unless it's possible to protect an NPOV version of the page, for instance the first version actually visible under the History tab, 6 Oct 2001 by AxelBoldt. What a nightmare. Surely it's a misdirection of resources to have all these Wikipedians tied up trying to maintain something that still, or again, looks like this after three years. I would theoretically love to have a Wikipedia article presenting (as opposed to propagating!) Larson's system, just as we have articles on Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken. These are encyclopedic topics, they're names people may well want to look up. But the state of the article listed makes me wonder if this type of material — unconventional theories of science — is even possible to present and maintain under the wiki system, considering the untiring commitment of its adherents. Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken unfortunately reinforce the point, as they're also strongly disciple-slanted, bad articles. Not bad on the scale of Reciprocal System of Theory, but bad. Suggestion: would it be possible to create a discussion page specifically for Non-mainstream science POV strongly defended by its adherents, in the hope of arriving at some form of minimum waste of time policy? Perhaps that's the crazy optimism of a relatively new user, not yet worn down by years of familiarity with these issues. Bishonen 18:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Bishonen's points. I will change my vote if the article is rewritten to present the most important piece of information: that the RST is promoted by a tiny group, is believed to be pseudoscience by essentially all who are aware of it, and isn't used for practical purposes in science or engineering. Detailed information on what the theory actually says should come in at a distant second place. The current article totally misses the point. It seems to me that the most notable thing about the RST is that it's an example of how easily you can promote an crank idea on Google by inserting it (and fighting about it for years) in a collaborative online encyclopedia --Glengarry 19:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chronic nonsense and pseudoinformation that has resisted all attempts to fix it, no evidence that it will ever be a useful article. IMO Immanuel Velikovsky, Erich von Daniken, Time Cube and even David Rohl are not in this league at all, at least these articles give some verifiable information. Andrewa 21:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • No, no, I didn't think I said they were. This league is some league. Bishonen 22:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • being pseudoscience is not a reason to delete because pseudoscience has important social effects. However, this seems like patent nonsense, delete and protect the page from recreation. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. My brain hurts. Gwimpey 22:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some cranky people call it pseudoscience and some rude people label anyone as a lunatic just for being associated with it, but it is scientifically based on a set of postulates, and uses logic to deduce testable results. So none of those style criticisms should apply. I would be happy to see it revert however to the version before the current one which contains a long string of negatives mainly, if that would satisfy people. Infradig (andrew)
  • Okay, the argument is two-fold: non-notable and current form not acceptable, if I see it right. I tried for a few days to help out when this page appeared on the 'Cleanup' page. I found that this would need a lot of work, and so the non-notable argument clinches it for me. Please, save us all that work and delete! I hope Infradig can tone down his words, and recognize that Wikipedia does contain pseudoscience when it is notable (see phlogiston), even when it is already disproved. Awolf002 00:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Doug (a gentle and kind man, and eminently reasonable) gets called a lunatic and I say that's rude, and I get asked to tone down my words? As for the other's comments, well my 2 yro daughter has a word: cranky-pants, that aptly describes them to me. Infradig (andrew) 01:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Fine, let's all be careful with our words! Still, this article does not seem to be worth the effort. Awolf002 01:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You made that clear on the RST page a while back by offering to help then doing nothing. Also, I think phlogiston a bad choice example of a pseudo science, it was just speculative science that was eventually proved wrong in the normal course of events. The RST on the other hand makes scientific predictions based on it's methods that have long been testable (eg. in 1959 it predicted high red-shift explosive galaxy scale objects... laughed at at the time but jump to the 1960's and the discovery of quasars; again in 1959 it predicted an accelerating expansion of the universe... laughed at but jump to the 1990's and the discovery of dark energy). So I reject vehemently the pseudo-science tag. So how can a theory that made those two predictions (huge scientific discoveries each in their own right) be non-notable? There should have been headlines at the time saying, "Sorry, we were wrong and Larson was right after all. Let's see what else he has to say.". Infradig (andrew) 02:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I got involved in more interesting topics to use my limited time on, sorry. As I said, looking once more at it, I feel it's not notable enough for all this. Awolf002 03:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Infradig (andrew) 06:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'd like to challenge the validity of even holding this vote. For starters, William Connolly has come along after years of work by a number of people, and has contributed nothing. After just 16 hours from his first comment on Talk:Reciprocal_System_of_Theory he listed for VfD! What was his actual reason? He misconstrued a comment I made about Wikipedia not allowing ISUS to say precisely what the RST was (which people say they actually want), into the idea that ISUS wouldn't reveal what it was about (like it was some secret a la Scientology or some such cult). I'd like to remind people that the deletion guidelines state "To request that a page (or image) be permanently deleted, the request made on VfD, ... must be made in good faith." As far as i'm concerned the debate is now posioned and needs to be let rest for some period of time. It was listed for an invalid reason and no-one has come up with a specfic charge that can be substantiated. The page should be left for that time or else reverted and the status quo continue.
    • (William M. Connolley 19:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)) It doesn't look like anyone is taking the above challenge very sreiously, but for the record: my reasons for listing are those at the top. Infradig misrepresents me above: see the article talk page. This vote remains valid.
  • Keep Connolley is just resurrecting the same old non-issues that have long since been dealt with. He says, the RST is psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and should not be in wikipedia. However, that's the POV to which pages and pages of rebuttle have gone unanswered for years. Now, he brings it up again, sorry that just won't wash at this late date unless he wants to provide support for such a gratuitous charge. Then he says, The wiki article has no mathematical content. Since when has this been a requirement for an article? The old charge, long ago met, was that the RST itself 'has no mathematical content,' which was not only shown to be untrue, but simply an absurd POV to boot. Next, he says, the theory itself is vague, untestable and unfalsifiable. This too has been soundly refuted in the long history of this debate. However, by this standard, even string theory, the most popular physical theory extant, would also fail to make the grade. Finally, he asserts that the RST is 'non-notable,' by citing the Google hits. But think how ridiculous this statement is when Larson's publications are in every university library in the country and in many of those in foreign countries as well. When Larson was alive, he was invited to address audiences at university campuses, and even had a small group of NASA scientists taking his work seriously (some are still around and have an active interest in his work.) But all this aside, the man's work has been selling for 65 years, and is a historical fact, even though many Wikipedians who fancy themselves scientists have their own hidden agendas (POV) that drives them to distraction over it, not because no one would ever want to look it up to see what it's about, but because they disagree with the content of the theory, which shouldn't play any part in the article because it's purely and unabashedly their POV. Obviously, what they want in the article is their own POV, not the report of what the darn thing is and how and where and why it differs from current theory. As they freely admit above, if anything, just state that the "RST is promoted by a tiny group, is believed to be pseudoscience by essentially all who are aware of it, and isn't used for practical purposes in science or engineering." All of which has nothing to do with the RST itself, but only a POV evaluation of its current status, which is totally irrelevant with regard to its merits, which also is irrelevant by the way, but is nevertheless cited as sufficient cause as well, almost in the same breath! The point is, ladies and gentlemen, the RST is real, it's serious, it's historical, and it's soundly scientific, much more so than many popular theories given ample coverage in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, since arguments to the contrary can be easily refuted, the tactics have now turned to the issue of "resources." Since when has this been used as justification for deletion? If you can't make a case for claims of false science, untestability, no mathematical content, original research, non-encyclopedic, non-notable, etc, then by all means make a case for not having time to make the case! You cannot delete this article because you disagree with the premise of the Reciprocal System. While it's true that the purpose of Wikipedia is to report the existence of notable people, places and things; to explain historical events and the milestones of mankind's experience, it isn't appointed as the watchdog or arbiter of the value of the ideas, the works of men, or the issues of science. If it happened that a man challenged the very foundations of physical science, and he did so in an honest, straightforward way, presenting his rationale in his life's work, and that work is in the Library of Congress and in countless libraries of the world, and challenges the world's assumptions regarding the properties of space and time that are at the very heart of its scientific endeavor and the perplexity, and the present untenable predicament that it now finds itself in, then it certainly deserves to be reported in a few measly kilobytes of space in the Wikipedia, which is full of thousands of articles that are simply frivolous by comparison. Doug 07:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is merely using Wikipedia as a platform for debate. The topic may be worth a brief description along with other alternative theories. Incidentally am I right in thinking that the author uses Newtonian mathematics to try and disprove Newton's Theories? ping 07:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. No, you're not right. Is that surprising among someone expressing an opinion here? The mathematics of gravity in the RST are substantively in agreement (with corrections for dark energy) with both Special Relativity and General Relativity, except 1) the effects are instantaneous, and 2) there are no gravitational waves to propogate. Infradig (andrew) 09:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, original research. Non-notable tripe. Ambi 09:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually most of the vanity/original research part was deleted back in July 2003. This article is mostly about Dewey B. Larson's work. Larson is pretty much immune to allegations of sock puppetry, due to the fact that he died in 1989. -- Tim Starling 12:55, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • Which brings up a good point. This article has already passed VfD. How many times must we go through this, everytime a new editor comes along who has the common, uninformed POV? Doug
        • Don't worry Doug, just this one last time. The consensus so far is in favour of deletion, so it looks like in the future we'll be able to delete any reposts without going through this time-consuming process. -- Tim Starling 13:52, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with Andrew and Doug

Keep agree with Andrew and Doug


Keep at least until Gravity Probe B's findings on Gravity waves/frame-drag. jamesrm

  • Keep even if it means reverting to the last version which seemed to have at least some kind of consensus. Larson is a name that people, maybe not everyone, will want to look up. Why the subject matter is referred to as non-encyclopedic is beyond me.-- User:danmc (dan)
  • Keep You guys are railroading proponents here. You obviously are more interested in eliminating the article for other than Wikipedia related reasons. Don't change Wikipedia into "Wikedpedia" to satisfy your own unjust prejudices. If you don't have time to verify and establish your charges, then cease and desist. Excal 16:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I won't enter into any general debate with Doug, but speak to a couple of points he makes about the physical book, which might be taken to prove notability. I don't doubt that Larson's work is in university libraries, just that library presence proves anything. As Geogre (a librarian) pointed out, with many striking examples, on VfD a while back, university libraries are omnivorous. As for the Library of Congress, it's a feather in the cap of every single book published in the US (as well as most books published elsewhere). Please see the LC mission statement here: "The Library of Congress is the only library in the world that collects universally." Even the "more recent" edition of Larson's work mentioned in Reciprocal System of Theory is several decades old, yet Doug states that it's "been selling for 65 years". If the book's still in print and/or selling, how is it that Amazon and B&N don't stock it or even link to any second-hand retailers? Bishonen 16:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • If you asked the average wikipedia user (which, in the final analysis, is who the wiki is for) what is more important in determining encyclopedic value, google returns or the fact that the work is in university libraries across across the country, what do you thing they would say? I realize they may not be as informed as Bishonen , but, please, surely it carries some weight. Finally, Bishonen's last statements are patently false. Larson's books were published between 1959 and 1995. A quick check at Amazon and BN shows some twenty-five books available from second hand dealers, and I can tell you for fact that ISUS continues to sell the books new. Please, if you are going to make these kinds of statements, at least be fair and get the information correct. -- User:danmc
  • I was talking about Larson's The structure of the physical universe, the book mentioned in Reciprocal System of Theory, but I agree that his other books, nine in all available second-hand from Amazon and B&N associates, should have been mentioned too. I just didn't know about them (so much for being so well informed). Also Nothing but motion, available second-hand, was probably the new title of The structure of the physical universe (? new title not given in Reciprocal System of Theory, but it is in three volumes) when it was republished in 1979. However, none of Larson's books remain in print, according to the usual sources. But we'd all be better and more easily informed if you gave some links for your claims. Bishonen 21:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep Larson was a contemporary of Linus Pauling. Pauling choose the mainstream. Larson worked in industry and had some real problems to solve. His solution to the theoretical calculation of physical properties was accurate and simple. This successful work lead him to a theory which makes many more predictions and clarifications. Those who feel it is not worth being included in Wikipedia are clearly not aware of the non-controversial achivements Larson made even if they don't like the non-mainstream flavour of the Reciprocal System of Theory. Either that or Wikipedia just wants to be part of the mainstream establishment. Sph 17:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

    • Brand new user, this vote is his/her only edit. Bishonen 16:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep The Reciprocal System is a unified, general theory and is certainly verifiable by observation and experiment. There is a lot of useful mathematics in Larson's Basic Properties of Matter. In contrast, most of the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics is useless. P.S.: I'm a Ph.D. engineer, member of AAAS, and listed in American Men and Women of Science, and Marquis Who's Who in the World Ronald W. Satz 10:04, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. My GUT instinct is that this isn't notable, since the theory was published however many years ago and has drawn no significant attention from science or society (either would do, I have no biases against articles covering "pseudoscience" if it's notable). Inclusion in Wikipedia should reflect some degree of notability, however small, not be a vehicle to achieve it. --Michael Snow 17:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment - Then you should change your vote. Any author who after so many years, and writing on such an esoteric subject as space, time, motion and the nature of reality, including quantitative volumes, as well as qualitative ones, dealing with everything from the nature of radiation, matter, and energy, and grappling with the fundamental issues of science, philosophy and the current predicament and perplexity of quantum mechanics, relativity, and cosmology, as well as calculating atomic weights, molecular bond lengths, periodic order of elements, the explanation of physical constants and so on, and that too in the most dry and unimpassioned manner, AND, inspite of all this, still sells those books at the tune of hundreds of dollars worth per month without the usual channels of textbooks and popular science promotions, has to qualify as "reflecting some degree of notability, however small." Doug 18:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • One thing I would like to add to this. After reading the remarks posted here, as well as in the archive, one would get the idea that science is some sort of popularity contest. If one gets multitudes of google returns one can be in an encyclopedia, no doubt Brittany Spears deserves to be in an encyclopedia more than anyone if that is our gauge, but pretty soon we will have to replace the nineteenth president of the United States, Rutherford Hayes, with "pond scum" which is the clear winner in this case. I am exaggerating (but true!) for illustration purposes, but everyone here knows that science is not a popularity contest. What is, is, when it comes to science. And any man who could accomplish even just 10% of what Doug writes above (which of us is up to the task?) should be given some consideration, and not simply be labeled some pseudo-scientific crackpot spouting patent nonsense. If anyone here were to actually take the time to <>read some of this man's body of work, I could guarantee, whether or not you agreed or disagreed with his conclusions, such arrogant remarks wouldn't be so quick to fall. (And, yes, I am real, for what it's worth) --danmc
      • Which of us is up to writing it? Sheesh, I'm not even up to reading it. Bishonen 21:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • But, User:63.206.94.4 you are not logged in, or have experience with dealing with such articles. Sockpuppets are by their nature dishonest, so anyone who looks like one can be discounted. You are also not allowed to vote twice.Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree with you, when it comes to what should be in Wikipedia and what should not. Science is both about finding "truth" and finding "consensus," which obviously is a popularity contest, as you put it. That's why theories are notable even when wrong or disputed. However, in this "contest of ideas," as reported in the beginning, RST has not crossed over that "threshold" in my mind. (PS: I believe 'danmc' just forgot to log in. Don't go overboard, guys) Awolf002 20:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Just because a majority of people think theory "X" to be correct, doesn't make it so. In fact, it doesn't even necessarily increase the probability that it is correct since there could be some part of the basic foundation that everyone has left unexamined or misinterpreted (most often times by consensus!). Consensus used to be that the world was flat, that the sun orbited the Earth, but that didn't make it so. Science uses/needs/finds/consensus when it doesn't have all the facts, a perfectly valid approach. Two heads are better than one, as they say. But no amount of consensus can overcome an experimental fact or observation that flies in its face. This is what I meant when I said science isn't a popularity contest. --danmc
    • That's just it 'danmc'. Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed journal, where experimental data and theories can clash and research is vetted! And most of the other Keep votes seem to even think that having an article here would make or brake RST. Sorry, but it's really not such a grave choice. If RST is not notable by its place in the scientific community or scientific history, then it should not be kept. And that's what I think. Awolf002 03:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree, this is not a peer reviewed journal environment, nor should it be. But isn't that exactly the character of every call for deletion of the RS article on grounds that its pseudo-science, and patent nonsense? It seems to me the only real basis for deletion, according to the guidelines, that can be leveraged is whether the RS is notable enough for inclusion, or the article is not NPOV enough. I was just addressing the fact that is seems like patent nonsense to me to base the former on a popularity contest (yes, I realize that's my POV), but please explain to me how the prediction of quasars, before they were discovered by observation, can be considered non-notable? As far NPOV, deletion is not the answer, editing is. --danmc
  • Keep I vote with Doug and Andrew to keep the article. Why? I've read the POV article guidelines. I've read through the entire article history in its discussion pages. I believe that the conclusions reached by Larson have sound basis in logic. The consequences of Larson's 1959 system of theory are still finding agreement today with new observation and experiment. What is remarkable is that these agreements are NOT due to a an ad-hoc reinterpretation or reconstruction of his theory. If the format of the article is not within the guidelines, or if there is indeed some kind of bias evidenced, then that would be another story. Mike 18:01, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Another likely sockpuppet, only edits to this vfd debate. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Mike has been a contributor to the RST page for quite some time and is well entitled to vote. Infradig (andrew) 22:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Ah yes, not a new sockpuppet at least, though his contribution to the wider project is doubtful. Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Larson's work certainly merits an encylopedia entry. Pseudo-science or not, the RST is certainly notable. I think it'd be extremely unfair to remove a record of Larson's contribution to science. For example, Larson's book, "The Case Against the Nuclear Atom": reviewed in science journal "Chemical Engineering" by Issac Asimov: "As an iconoclastic work, Larson’s book is refreshing. The scientific community requires stirring up now and then; cherished assumptions must be questioned and the foundations of science must be strenuously inspected for possible cracks. It is not a popular service and Mr. Larson will probably not be thanked for doing this for nuclear physics, though he does it in a reasonably quiet and tolerant manner and with a display of a good knowledge of the field." BTW, I resent being called a "sockpuppet" Dunc. I've had an interest in the RST for over 12 years. Yes, there is a current lack of mathematical expression for the theory. However, since Larson's passing, the theory has been undergoing slow development, in earnest, by a number of unpaid researchers. The main focus of that development is to produce a mathematical model. I do not know what evidence needs to be presented, in defense of the RST, that would make the article worthy of Wikipedia. It's true, Larson's work is currently somewhat esoteric. However, I believe that recent, unrelated research into discretized, models of space-time, some employing 3D time, serves to reinforce the viability of the type of model postulated by Larson. I could find at least 6 different RST books, by Larson, available on amazon.com. In addition, there's Quaternion Organon - George Hamner, Pari Spolter's book Gravitational Force of the Sun references Larson, A Ph.D dissertation by Arnold D. Studtmann (Approved by the National Graduate School, June 10, 1979), and some references in some "New Age" books called "The Ra Material" by Carla Rueckert and Dr. Don Elkins. Mike 04:50, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep As the editorialist John Campbell said a number of years ago, the only thing one has to know about any given discipline to know whether it is Science or not is whether or not it can make accurate predictions. Current mainstream theory does not, and has not for about 50 years. On the other hand, RST, and Larsen, have consistently done so since his first publication. RST is exactly what Einstein was looking for, and couldn't derive himself. If he were still alive, there would be no question about the acceptance and viability of RST. W. Sitze -- Now logged in - Wsitze
  • Comment - I've come into the voting rather late in the game and I hope this is a proper procedure to add to the discussion. I am George Hamner. I am familier with Wikipedia since Doug went to all the trouble to register our system of theory with this most valuable volunteer service.
I have a degree in Physics, but have made a career in business. I discovered Larson's RST in 1997 while doing the research for my Book "Quaternion Organon," published in 2001. After having spent a lifetime following all the advanced theories of my undergraduate degree, and thinking that superstring theory was finally the answer in the mid-1980s, I stumbled across Larson's RST, and broke through to the clarity of the dual universe RST system. If you will read the later articles of the journal, "Reciprocity," you will discover that the mathematical foundations not covered in Larson's original work have been laid.
Removing the Reciprocal System of Theory from Wikipedia will deny a breakthrough of understanding from an entire generation of aspiring young physicists. I certainly vote to keep whatever version that the Board of Directors of the ISUS society believes best explains the theory.
  • Delete - non-notable pseudoscience. Ban the sockpuppets. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • When we are unable to defend an article against a coterie of "believers" determined to subvert our policy of NPOV, it is better that we delete that article. This is, in my estimation, not the only instance in which we have such a problem.... - Nunh-huh 03:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. Except NPOV-violation is not the charge. It was listed for delete because an editor thought that ISUS was a secret cult attempting to use Wikipedia to subvert and brainwash the masses by not publishing what it actually believes. Strange but true. Infradig (andrew) 04:04, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • This is not a court: there are no charges. I have simply stated my opinion and voted. The fact that you felt compelled to comment on that is indicative of the problem. -- Nunh-huh 04:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry to get your back up. I feel there are charges, it certainly looks like a court with jury. Since the VfD listing was prompted by a misinterpreted remark by me I feel kind of responsible for what's going on here. Also, since you raised the subject of peoples comments being indicative of something, the pro-delete crowd have made 14 comments in reply to peoples votes, while the antis have made 11 (by my rough estimation). Infradig (andrew) 04:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable pseudoscience using Wikipedia for self-promotion (quite successfully, judging by Google). —Stormie 06:30, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless we can make it into a completely different article. This is really bogus physics, you can learn more about it in the USENET archives. But as bogus, it's famouse. See also Gary Larsonian Physics -- Pjacobi 10:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it survives this vote, it needs a DISPUTED tag on it. Davodd 12:05, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote to keep the article on RST for a multitude of reasons. I started writing letters to Dewey Larson in 1968 and continued until 1990. During those years I attended 7 annual conferences on the reciprocalSystem of theory. I met manty university academics, who advocated RST, many holding doctorates and/or professorships. here was not one kook amongst the attendees. Larson was interviewed at great length on his theory, which is published on the RS web pages. There are many marthematical papers that produce valid results. These would not be suitable in Wikipedia, since they woukld appear ,meaningless to the untrained eye. One must read the many publications by Larson both as books and papers in the ISUS journal called Reciprocity. Those readers amongst the nay-sayers for RST being in Wikipedia, are just showing their ignorance. I wouldt not have kept my association with RST and its advocates for 36 years and travelled from Australia to USA for the conferences, had there been even a smidgen of kookiness about it. My name is David Halprin, and I am nobody's fool.
  • Since Tim Starling is a PhD student in quantum computation perhaps he would like to pose a real question about the substance of RST. I assume Tim that being a physicist, you are familiar enough with the special theory of relativity (STR) to see the compatability of RST with STR and be able to see that RST offers new insights into it. Then again, maybe you are in awe of your profesors too much. Sph 17:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) And yes, I do exist as a male entity distinct from all others in this discussion. I don't have time to waste on writing frivolous entries into Wiki, so yes this is my second post. I wouldn't be bothering if I thought this was not important. Until yesterday I was impressed with Wikipedia and I have used it a lot for other topics. If this is the way real science gets treated, Wiki it is as bad as the academic establishment that has supressed RST for decades.
    • This sockpuppet was 16:27, 2 Sep 2004 User:Sph, special:contributions/Sph only edits to this debate. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I posed questions about the substance of RST back in July-August 2003. See talk page archives 3, 4 and 5. I tried hard to mete out a compromise, but Doug just waited until I lost interest then re-established his point of view. I'm aware of K.V.K Nehru's work linking RST and SR, in fact I made some edits to that area of the article: [1], [2]. However I'm no longer interested in discussing the substance of RST. Doug is not interested in compromise, so my hand is forced. -- Tim Starling 02:40, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • Tim, This is one more, totally false, allegation. I not only have compromised, I have gone to great lengths to accomodate you and others like you. In fact, that's why the article is up for deletion now, because I attempted to rewrite the artcle that you abandoned, in spite of my compromises, to suit the criticism of Awolf. Nevertheless, I am still willing to compromise, to great lengths. To prove it right here and now, I challenge you to write a short, NPOV RST article that I promise that I will not edit, but will only make suggestions for on the article's talk page. Now, let's see who is willing to compromise and who is not. Doug 13:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The sock-puppetry would be enough on its own; the non-notability would be enough on its own. With their powers combined: delete this rubbish.—Rory ☺ 17:26, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep. Delete. Nothing more for me really to say that hasn't already been said. Postdlf 19:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. CryptoDerk 20:59, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Empathise w/ Gwimpey. Delete Lacrimosus 22:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: This vote is now 43 kb. Why on earth is this fight taking place? The information here is not sufficiently settled to be in an encyclopedia. The only part that could be in would be something like this: "Reciprocal System of Theory is the name of a work by Dewey Larson that proposes a highly controversial physical theory. External link: The site of people who follow it." Other than that, any article is either forced to endorse or deny the underlying theories, which offends two camps that cannot budge. We're far better off not acting as an organ in the battle. Geogre 01:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • At last someone with something sensible to say. Why flog a dead horse? I'll certainly admit defeat on this vote. Infradig (andrew) 01:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Compromise Challenge

[edit]

Just to make sure it's not lost in the pile of comments above, I am highlighting here my challenge to Tim, and by extension to all other opponents, to compromise:

Nevertheless, I am still willing to compromise, to great lengths. To prove it right here and now, I challenge you to write a short, NPOV, RST article that I promise that I will not edit directly, but will only make suggestions for on the article's talk page. Now, let's see who is willing to compromise and who is not.

Typically, this offer too will be rejected, not because the Wikipedia guidlines are so important, but because this is not an article about a computer club, or the inventor of the thermos bottle, but about the nature of reality. Physics has actually become more like the religion of the dark ages, enforced by the "priests" of the establishment who strive to protect the sanctity of the canonical doctrine, which explains the cries of "rubbish", "psuedoscience", "mumbo-jumbo", ad nauseum, from those who, like the priests in Galileo's day, refused to look through the telescope. However, we cannot argue against the point that Wikipedia is not the place to establish the validity of any theory, and do not wish to do so. We concede that it is the place to record the notable events, people, places, and things of human experience and history.

Regardless, whether some hate the idea or not, however, it is a fact that Larson did live, he did publish a new system of physical theory, many people are interested in his work, they have organized themselves as a legal entity, which has existed for more than thirty years, they have held conferences, published a journal, established a website, established a discussion forum, and are in the process of building their own "Wikipedia," called the RST Wiki to help educate the public as to what the RST is all about.

In my mind, such events constitute as much notability as many, many others that enjoy the privilege of a Wikipedia article, "the free encyclopedia." The only difference is that the hostility engendered by the scientific ideas of the work itself invokes so much opposition that it is impossible for proponents to "report" on this development in any unchallenged fashion. Therefore, those who have worked so hard to get it established, now see it about to be "banned" from even a mention in this major online history and account of human endeavors. To prevent this, we are offering to let the opponents write the account in its entirety, and offering to not edit that account in any direct manner, in order to seek some degree of equitable treatment in this biased environment. What say ye?

We have fine articles on the dynamic theory of gravity, Gene Ray's Time Cube, plasma cosmology and cold fusion, and I hope they all stay. What you have to understand is that by going back on our mid-2003 compromise during late 2003, you lost your last ally here. I argued to keep the article in 2003, both publicly and privately. You can call me a liar all you like, claim that you never went back on any compromise, but it doesn't help you because no-one else cares. It's unfortunate when inclusion is determined by the personality of the proponent, but that is the grim reality of Wikipedia politics. -- Tim Starling 05:15, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
So now the issue has changed again? Now, after all this, it comes down to my attempt to edit the article? I assume that you mean by the "mid-2003 compromise," the VfD in which all but the main article were deleted. So, "by going back" on it, you mean what exactly? That I edited the main article from time to time? How can you construe that as if it were a covenant-breaking breach of confidence? There was never any agreement entered into that I would never attempt to edit the article again, what are you trying to say? If you look at the article, it's substantially the same as the mid-2003 article. Any attempt I made to edit it was summarily reverted for the most part, even though the article always remained intact as far as your edits are concerted. I never attempted to take them out at any time, but notwithstanding this, and more to the point, never at any time did you or anyone else mention that these efforts constituted "going back on our mid-2003 compromise." As for the page that was current when Connelly listed the article VfD (which is completely new), that article was first drafted at the behest of Awolf002 who was disconerted with the POV in the "compromise" article. To quote him:
After reading this current discussion, I'm not sure if there is anything to help it but to make sure we want the same thing: NPOV!
That started me, relunctantly (see the talk page), down the road to completely redraft the article. After some false starts, I wrote the following to Awolf002:
Trying to explain what it is (the RST) in terms of its results from a factual standpoint by definition is controversial, even in a general way, because, as I stated above, it is not a new theory, but a new program of physics. Maybe, if we rewrite it along those lines to begin with, we can avoid the comparisons with current theory altogether by emphazising that its results are self-contained - that is they are theoretical conclusions reached by applying the new approach.
Then I showed exactly what my idea was by drafting a strawman along those lines, which sat for more than a month without comment, even though I asked Awolf002 for his comments, even on his talk page, but to no avail. Since no one was saying anything about it, I decided to replace the article with the stawman to test the waters so to speak and that is what brought us to this point. You make me out to be a no-compromising, unreliable, trouble maker whom you finally have on the ropes here, but that's not what the record shows. I've put a lot of good-faith effort into trying to meet all the many and varied demands placed upon me, jumping to accommodate one criticism after another in an effort to satisfy a seemingly unending stream of challengers. But the list is so long, by the time the next one comes along, no one remembers the earlier ones, forcing me to start repeating arguments long since settled.
That's why I thought the new approach, describing the RST not as a new physical theory, but as it really is, a new system of physical theory, would permit me to avoid the POV and other issues that can't be avoided otherwise. Notice how the strawman (I reverted the article) reports what the RST is without resorting to comparative results with current theory. Even in the section "RST and the Foundations of Modern Physics," the emphasis is on the difference in the concept of a "fixed background," not on comparative results. So Tim, I've tried to write an acceptable RST article in good faith. Having failed at that, I've asked you to consider writing it without any interference from me, since that, heretofore, has resulted in such a strenuous struggle. But, if I am understanding what you are saying here, you are telling me that it's too late? That notwithstanding any other considerations, you will not do it because I have committed an unpardonable sin? Well, as you admit, and I have learned, it's not so much the so-called "consensus" that matters, it's the politics of the consensus view that determines things here in the long run, something that we all know can be as tyrranical as any dictator, if not more so. I guess I'll just have to take comfort in the knowledge that Wikipedia is not some all mighty arbiter of truth, but, in the final analysis, is only a few machines whirring quietly in some dark room, albeit a very dark room. Doug 18:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC
P.S. I've expounded somewhat on the viability of the new approach for ending this controversy without deleting the article, in the non-notable argument on the article's talk page here.


Previous deletion debate, July 2003

[edit]

(UPDATE: Scalar motion, Gravitational motion were deleted. -戴&#30505sv 04:57, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC))

CORRECTION: you're confusing deleted with emptied. The author of the articles emptied a few of the articles as some sort of statement, but they are not deleted. A deleted page is denoted by a "edit this page" link (typically red instead of blue/purple). I added them back to VfD. The consensus seems to be: remove them all but the main article, Reciprocal System of Theory, but we're just waiting for someone to pull the switch. Daniel Quinlan 05:34, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
Keep all:
  1. Keep despite RST itself being patent nonsense, rationale at Talk:RST. Kat 18:50, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  2. Doug, the author of the articles, believes they should be kept in Wikipedia (see below)
Delete all:
  1. Daniel Quinlan wants all deleted: "Reciprocal System of Theory" has only 258 hits on Google, #1 is Wikipedia.
Keep main, delete rest:
  1. Stan recommended deletion of all but the main article.
  2. Robert Merkel recommended deletion of all but one article.
  3. User:Tim Starling -- keep the main article
  4. M123 all but one article should be deleted, the remaining article should be shorter and factual; wikipedia is not free webspace to lobby for a cause (as far as I know)
  5. Tb thinks there could be one RST page; the others should go. Especially things like Scalar motion and Gravitational motion which are likely to be very confusing to people who don't know it's all bunkum.
  6. Someone else - delete all articles but one, and be sure that one is clearly labeled with the NPOV equivalent of hooey. -- Someone else 07:08, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  7. Jwrosenzweig - keep the main article, delete the rest. The main article, once it's corrected for NPOV and has a good "critics of RST" section added, will be a nice way of demonstrating this particular belief for what it is--ambitious but scientifically unsound.
  8. Jake Nelson - Keep the main, delete the rest.
  9. Eloquence - Keep main, delete rest.
  10. mav - Keep the main RST article (in the shorter form Tim worked on), delete the rest
Other opinions and non-votes:
  1. Vicki Rosenzweig previously recommended deletion of Scalar motion, no opinion expressed on the others
  2. Marshman 18:43, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC) - Best way to cover these is to provide debunking information
  3. I have deleted the text of the Scalar Motion and Gravitational Motion articles, so they can be deleted without further ado. If you want to delete the whole shebang, please feel free to do so. I don't care anymore. Doug 16:48, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

General comments

[edit]

Stevertigo, I reverted most of your changes to the RST articles. The pages other than the main article still need to be deleted. You seem to have confused "deleted" with "empty". The current RST page is also the work of much work, compromise, and huge amounts of discussion, adding material from the other pages that are to be deleted is a really bad idea. Unless you want to be sucked into the black hole, you might want to wait for Tim Starling and Doug to resolve any irregularities caused by the forthcoming deletions. Just a suggestion... :-) Daniel Quinlan 05:44, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Oh ok. I was just going by the date more than anything -- it seemed like a beefy issue, that substantial editing had taken place, and that it had all been on VFd for more than a week, and that the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of condensing the material, which it seemed was done. I know youre the one who put it all up for vfd in the first place -- so forgive me if I take your stand on the issue with a grain of salt. ;) VFD is for a specific purpose -- it does appear that the issue has passed the VFD test, judging by the compliance of the original author and the antipathy of the community toward outright removal. 戴&#30505sv 19:17, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC) (comment copied to Wikipedia:VFD:RST theory)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reciprocal_System_of_Theory&oldid=357567685"