Physics Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

ScienceApologist, I have reported you for what amounts to personal attacks on Eric Lerner, by attempting to discredit him in contravention of Wikipedia's official policy on No personal attacks. --Iantresman 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator's comments to ScienceApologist can be found here --Iantresman 11:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unforunate that Ian has continued in his old habits of supporting vexatious litigation against me. Fortunately, the evidence is all there that Ian's advocacy is based in his own personal vendetta and has no basis in fact. --ScienceApologist 12:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Shell, has continued the discussion on her personal Talk page, where she has given ScienceApologist a 24-hour ban. --Iantresman 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked SA, and am cautioning Iantresman on misusing WP processes to gain advantage in simple content disputes. Inflated claims, questionable evidence, all amount to bad faith wikilawyering. The community has very little tolrance for vexatious litigation, especially coming from someone with a history of disruption. Iantresman's gloating posts in this section trying to discredit a fellow editor are not in the spirit of dispute resolution, and a far greater infraction that anything found in his opponent's recent edit history. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist is clearly conducting something of a Jihad against Plasma Cosmology, which he seems to perceive has threatening his cherished ideas

--Soupdragon42 17:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The two paragraphs Lerner would like to see included are not appropriate from either a verifiable or biographical standpoint. The popular science magazines a person has been published in and the conferences one has attended are not relevant to a thoughtful biography and are subject issues regarding notability in my estimation. I see much of this as an appeal to self-aggrandizement rather than a neutral description of a person's credentials.

2) The debate at Princeton was reported in the Princeton Weekly Bulliten and was covered by the campus press. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the archives of this at this time. I would be curious to know whether Eric learned what error bars meant in the meantime (he tends to leave them out of his papers). That is, however, peripheral to the article at hand.

3) Van Allen's book jacket quote might be better included in the section than mentions Eric wrote the book since it is not a criticism. Unfortunately, since Van Allen is dead, we cannot get his opinion on what he thinks of the book now that COBE, WMAP, etc. have come out.

4) I don't think Eric should edit the article itself anymore and I'm not convinced that if protection is removed he won't just go ahead and begin his old process of reverting without discussion. There's too many implications of a conflict of interest.

--ScienceApologist 11:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the information is appropriate from a biographical point of view for a couple of reasons:

• It has already been suggested by yourself that (a) criticisms from "a public debate" (at Princeton) (b) from someone's blog, are suitable for the biography. In which case, the attendance of a recognised scientific meeting would seem to be at least as notable.
• Since Lerner's credibility has been questioned on more than one occassion, both in these discussion pages, and in the article, then the attendance, invitation and presenteation at scientific meetings becomes relevant.
• I also note that others have suggested than Lerner is a pseudoscientist (or worse)[1], and you yourself have suggested that his field of work may be considered pseudoscientific. And since one of the criticisms of pseudoscientists is that they do not present their work to the scientific community, again, this becomes relevent, and demonstrates that Lerner is at least attempting to engage with the scientific community.

As for verification, that is a secondary issue which I'm sure we can meet.

--Iantresman 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Scarpa business? It does seem technically inaccurate to say that the invitation came "from" Scarpa or whatever form of words is used. On the other hand, it doesn't seem controversial that Scarpa was involved in some way - perhaps even tee'd it up - and I don't currently understand why anyone would try to hide this. I assume that Mr Lerner considers Scarpa to be a reputable colleague. While the page is protected, and you're working through larger issues, is there a more accurate form of words on that point which both "sides" would be happy with? We may as well clear up anything like that that we can.

By the way, just to be clear if I was ambiguous earlier, one reason why I am not willing to unprotect the page at this point is that I don't think the subject of the page should be editing it himself in the circumstances except to correct clear errors. I've normally got nothing against notable wikipedians doing a bit of uncontroversial expansion of their bios, but obviously that is not what is at stake here. I think the proper way is for Mr Lerner to use the talk page to make suggestions. With Iantresman here, there's at least someone who will tend to be sympathetic ... so it's not a huge disadvantage in the debate. But there's no agreement at the moment for it to happen that way. Metamagician3000 14:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources say that he was a "visting astronomer"[2] [3]. Sources also say he was invited by Riccardo Scarpa [4], but it is unlikely that this would have been unilaterially, and as Lerner himself indicates, it would have gone through a selection board who I guess would have approved the recommendation.
• As for the relevance of Scarpa's interest in MOdified Newtonian Dynamics,[5] and being a critic of the Big Bang, I can see why ScienceApologist wants to include it, but (a) it is not relevant to Lerner (b) it is suggesting that it MIGHT be relevant. I have no doubt that colleagues invite one another to do talks because there is a professional association, because one's work supports another, or for whatever reason. But I don't know of any other scientist biography where motives are suggested or implied.
• Personally, I think all mention of Scarpa should be relegated to footnote as I don't think it is significant enough to include an introductory paragraphy about someone else.
• I would he happy for Metamagician3000 to decide what is important, and then we can word it accordingly.

--Iantresman 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) I’m fine with other people than me doing the editing. But I strongly object to SA’s continuous attacks on me. I still think he should be blocked from editing my page given his obvious hostility to me.

2) The only point that has enough importance to include in a bio is that I WAS a Visiting Astronomer at ESO in February 2006. Who made the proposal to the selection committee is a level of detail that it wholly inappropriate. SA’s only motivation for mentioning Scarpa, as is clear from the discussion page, is to say that this was a case of somebody inviting me on a personal visit. We’ve already clarified that this is not what happened. So Scarpa is far too much of a detail to include. The current formulation is totally inadequate, since it puts the emphasis on who is inviting, as if that were the important point in the lead paragraph, not that I was a Visiting Astronomer. In addition, the whole thing is not important enough to go in the lead paragraph.

3) SA is totally inconsistent in saying that where I lectured is too detailed, but who suggested my name to a selection committee is relevant. Since I hold “heretical” views and am not affiliated with a university, the short paragraphs on where I have presented my work and where it has been reported give the reader some idea of the extent to which my ideas are discussed, and why, indeed there should be a wiki entry on me in the first place.

4) I agree with the point about the Chicago Tribune. I will look up who wrote the review and it should be cited to him.Elerner 15:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll await SA's response. Some of those points (e.g. re the Chicago Tribune) sound reasonable on their face but let's see what SA says. Presumably everyone agrees that Mr Lerner is, in fact, not supported by mainstream science and that the article needs to continue to make that completely clear. I don't think any changes which blur that point would be acceptable.

I think we do that in the very first sentence, the Lerner is "the most prominent advocates of the non-mainstream plasma cosmology". --Iantresman 22:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, folks, I'm not prepared to make any changes while the page is protected unless they are readily and clearly agreed. I should also make clear that I don't have the time or patience to play the role of mediator much longer, insofar as that is what I'm doing, but my suggestion is still that you all try mediation. There are some good mediators around, and the material being produced here at the moment would be useful for that process. That would also be better than running straight to ArbCom, at least in my opinion. As far as personal attacks go, it would be good if all parties could avoid any insults or sarcastic comments. I have no idea what has been said in the past, though I've noticed a sarcastic comment or two here on the talk page. I'm not eager to hand out blocks except for the most egregious behaviour, so I'm not here as a policeman or something, especially without knowing all the past rights and wrongs. Just everyone try to be polite and respectful, okay? It'll look better if you end up in ArbCom soon. Metamagician3000 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This battle is part of one of the oldest wars on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist, Elerner and Iantresman are all veterans of every form of dispute resolution Wikipedia offers. I'm not criticizing mediation, just offering Metamagician3000 a seemingly missing point of information. Art LaPella 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'e right that I have no real knowledge of the history, only that there is one. OTOH, ArbCom should be a last resort and is supposed to deal only with conduct, not content. SA says he is amenable to mediation. I still think it's worth a try, at least for this article. Metamagician3000 05:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am amendable to mediation.

Arrogant, dismissive, and emotion-ridden

It is clear to me that what Eric is trying to do on this page is "legitimize" himself inasmuch as he is marginalized in the scientific community and his ideas are considered poorly considered/fringe/out-and-out bad science. So Eric (and Ian) advocate for this page to conform to a perspective that heaps accolades in the form of "Eric lectured here, Eric talked at this conference" to lend him a level of legitimacy that is meant to confuse readers into thinking he isn't as poorly considered/fringe/out-and-out bad scientist as the general consensus in the community seems to paint him.

In terms of the "Scarpa" controversy: It was Eric who included the "honorific" that he was a "visiting astronomer". I think that this need not be mentioned in the article as it is merely an attempt by Eric to gain more legitimacy. "Oh look, I was invited to be a visiting astronomer at ESO." It is true that Eric was invited to be a visiting astronomer at ESO, but so are dozens of other astronomers. If we started reported where each astronomer was invited on their pages, we would end up with laundry lists everywhere. This kind of advocacy is called appeal to authority and it casts a pall on Eric's attempts to gain legitimacy through self-aggradizing Wikipedia articles. This is why it is interesting that Eric and Ian don't want to see the connection to Scarpa listed on the page. It's okay to say that Eric was invited to ESO but it's not okay to say that he was invited at the request of a fellow Big Bang critic. This is because it again marginalizes Eric in the community, but Eric is verifiably marginalized in the community so their desire not to see this in the article stems from their desire to legitimize Eric.

Interestingly, none of the other visitors to ESO at the same time as Eric was there have written Wikipedia articles about themselves. Of course, they may not be as notable as Eric Lerner, but we have to ask ourselves: "Why is Eric notable?" He is notable because he positions himself in the unique position as being against the scientific consensus on the Big Bang. That means that his notability is derived from his marginalization. Trying to position him otherwise is definitely a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. This is why autobiography issues come into play and it is also why we need to be very careful what we include in the article. Much of what Eric wants to see here are ways for him to legitimize himself and perhaps drum-up support for his plasma physics endeavors. This is what I think is problematic about the edits.

It would be good if we found who wrote the review for the Chicago tribune if we could list whether said reviewer is in the scientific community, does astrophysical research, or has anything more than a passing familiarity with the subject of Eric's book. Please let us know when you find out who wrote the review.

--ScienceApologist 23:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ScienceApologist, if the article was about anyone else other than Eric Lerner, it's contents probably wouldn't get a second look. But because Eric's work is not mainstream, you (and others) automatically assume that EVERYTHING he researches, MUST be bordering on pseudoscience, and rather than consider he is trying to follow the scientific method, you PRESUME he is trying to "legitimize" himself and "appeal to authority" for all the wrong reasons. This is PURE unsubstantiated speculation.
• One day ScienceApologist, I hope you are able to present your work to scientific conferences, and you get invited to observatories too... presumably to legitimize your work, and appeal to the acceptance of authority (your peers) too. Of course you'll claim it's entirely based on merit, whereas Eric wins writing awards (which you removed) for his work because... ?
• This is double standards. On the one hand criticising certain people for not following the scientific method, and when someone does because they just might have a theory worthy of consideration... you knock them for having the audacity of "associating with 'proper' scientists".
• I feel this bias against non-mainstream people subjects, affects your editing judgement. This is demonstrated by your consideration of Eric's work as pseudoscience, labelling Plasma cosmology as pseudoscience, and Arp's work as "Pathological", incredibly with no evidence, and no sources.
• It's unfortunately that HUNDREDS of other scientists and engineers appear to disagree with you,[6], but you'd never know this from your account. --Iantresman 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I did not spend much time here until I was asked to come and check up on the article. What I found was Eric filling the article with positive accolades and statements that praised his work while the criticisms amounted to little more than off-handed comments. This is neither a neutral nor a verifiable description of his position vis-a-vis the scientific community. It was Eric who wanted to include his position as a "visiting astronomer". It was Eric who wrote prose that listed all the different lectures he gave and conferences he attended. It was Eric who wrote down the sum of positive reviews received for his book listed by the publisher. This was all done in attempt to paint him as something he isn't: an accepted, legitimate, and respected researcher in the field of cosmology. I am merely trying to make sure that Eric's verified marginalization in the community is given the appropriate treatment so that readers are not confused into thinking that he has more legitimacy than he actually has. All of my contributions have been verifiable and straightforward. I have been trying to remove the bias Eric and you keep inserting which is to insinuate that he is more accepted than he actually is.

You are absolutely right that the scientific community has a double standard. The scientific community is a closed-shop, arrogant, dismissive, and emotion-ridden group of mostly white men who marginalize, criticize, deride, and spitefully ignore those who don't live up to very arbitrary standards for inclusion. But that's not for Wikipedia to fix. Wikipedia just reports what exists, it is not out to change the scientific community or anything else except, possibly, where people go to get information on the internet.

--ScienceApologist 00:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some things never change. I see ScienceApologist (Antagonist more like) continues to wage his holy war agaisnt all alternative theories. He seems to be somewhat terrified of the emerging plasma paradigm in particular, and his attacks still have the whiff of a witchcraft trial about them!

--Soupdragon42 17:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw come on, we all know this isn't about WP:Summary style. That policy might apply if there were subarticles about each detail of Lerner's article, and the subarticle contained the reference - but even that would be pushing it. The relevant policy is of course Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. And the unstated issue is whether guys like Lerner are so awful that the end justifies the means. And there's no way to debate that if we have to pretend this is about things like summary style. Art LaPella (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's think about this: no cosmologist who has reviewed his work from Arno Penzias to Paul Davies to Sean Carroll to Rocky Kolb to Ned Wright gave it a favorable review and plasma cosmology is indeed derided by these people and has no profile in the mainstream journals. I think it is a perfectly fair characterization and don't see why people would be complaining. We have the citations to prove it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then use them; it's a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons violation otherwise (well, the references are in the same article, but there should be a big one right by a zinger like "derided".) And it isn't "summary style". Art LaPella (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it a BLP violation if it is the truth and is verified? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it again and it isn't exactly a BLP violation; it's his "non-standard cosmology" that's derided, not him - so maybe it is OK that the rest of the article supports it. "Summary style" started me typing too fast! Art LaPella (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the issue. Yeah, I'd agree that a defamation statement to the tune of "The rest of the cosmological community thinks Eric Lerner is an evil, evil man" would be a BLP violation. I think that we do offer a proper characterization of his ideas, however. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the hack job and snide remarks? I thought the article was finally looking orderly, presentable, NPOV and thorough. Then this happens... What gives? And no explanation in the Talk section first? Poor form. ABlake (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with putting in the Riccardo Scarpa information. It's verifiable and relevant. ABlake (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I looked back and incorporated some of SA's changes, but kept some of the info that was schwacked. If there are concerns about specific points of the current version, discuss them here and seek consensus prior to making huge changes. ABlake (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there are three issues:

1. No patents should be mentioned. Anyone can get a patent. That is not noteworthy for inclusion in any article.
2. The details of Lerner's ideas are not verifiable to secondary sources. Therefore, not having received independent review, they do not belong in the article. Likewise, the list of papers he has published is problematic because they have not received sufficient citation to warrant Wikipedia linking to them.
3. The lead needs to be more clear that his Big Bang ideas are totally rejected by the community.

Since none of these concerns were addressed in ABlake's reversion, I'm reverting back.

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources for plasma cosmology being "derided" by the cosmological community, and for the reviews of TBBNH from professional cosmologists being generally "icy", you need to cite them. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to NOR, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The use of the loaded words "derided" and "icy" constitutes an original interpretation unless you can source them directly. The correct words to use in an encyclopedia are neutral terms such as "unfavorably" and "critically". Otherwise it is injecting the POV of the editor. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. ABlake (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose alternative wordings, please do so. I think derided and icy are nice words to describe the situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I just did. "Unfavorably" and "critically" may not be as sexy as "derided" and "icy", but they are appropriate for an encyclopedia. In case those are too boring, another neutral but accurate term is "negatively". ABlake (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with criticism and unfavorable. I changed it. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try again. "Connected to this, Lerner wrote a popular science book, The Big Bang Never Happened (1991) which criticized the research and theories regarding the Big Bang, but generally received unfavorable reviews from professional cosmologists." How's that? I really am trying to work with you on this. ABlake (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Every professional cosmologist who reviewd the book panned it completely. Try my version on for size. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On point 1, I had already removed the patent info in my revision merely on your advice, although I can't find a policy on mentioning patents. My opinion is that the desalination patent is not really helpful to the article, but the application is because it details Lerner's proposals on fusion and the DPF. On point 2, I looked over NOR and found no requirement for secondary sources as you suggest. According to the policy, reliable and verifiable primary sources are allowed, and the ideas were sourced adequately. Which details were you referring to specifically? Which papers or articles were not reviewed before publishing? You've got to back up your arguments and opinions with facts. Sufficient citation? Where is that requirement described? Who determines how much is sufficient anyway? I understood the standard to be NPOV, V, and NOR. Correct me if I'm wrong. On point 3, we can add a few words that mention the opinion of the scientific community. From my POV, my revision of your revision was fine as it was. I'm inclined to revert back, but will refrain for the time being. Is there anything else? ABlake (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric's papers are of interest only if they have high citation rates. Eric doesn't have high citation rates. We should not be functioning as a CV mechanism for Eric to advertise his expertise to the world. No articles that Eric published are worth referencing unless they are directly about content. More than that, Eric's peculiar ideas about the universe are not notable enough to include in this encyclopedia unless they have received outside notice. See WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WP:FRINGE as requested. You seem to have mistaken the subject of this article. This article is about Eric Lerner, a person, and not about plasma cosmology or any other science topic, therefore there is no requirement for number of citations of his work. Please re-read WP:FRINGE. Lerner's papers are not appropriate for inclusion on the Big Bang article because of the low citation rates, but this is not a science article, so your arguments are not applicable. Try again. ABlake (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If (as I believe to be the case) his notability depends on his WP:FRINGE theories, then WP:FRINGE applies to this article, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arthur. From what I can tell, Lerner's notability came initially from the publishing of his book, but has grown beyond that in his recent fusion work as well as continued cosmology work. In fact, his Google presentation on his fusion work was viewed over 20,000 times (yes, I was one of those) and was discussed at Slashdot and other forums, so your notability concern should be resolved. Having looked over the WP:FRINGE policy once again, I am unable to find any evidence to support your conclusion, even if Lerner's entire notability was based on a fringe theory. I probably just overlooked it, three times. The way I see it, Eric Lerner is not a fringe theory, so applying the WP:FRINGE policy to a biographical article is not warranted. But again, I'll ask you to show me the error of my ways. As I understand it, my version held up to the standards of BLP, NPOV, V, and NOR, and answered most of ScienceApologist's concerns. What am I missing here? ABlake (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric's book is an explanation of a fringe theory. Therefore WP:FRINGE definitely applies here. Fringe theory guidelines applies whenever a fringe theory is mentioned no matter if it is in a devoted article to the fringe theory, a mainstream article, or a biographical article. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a relevant quote from WP:FRINGE that I believe answers your notability concern, "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." So, even if you are right in your assumption, in this context, the section on the reception of Lerner's book establishes his notability. Since ScienceApologist was the contributor of much of that information, you can thank him for it. ABlake (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Eric is not in question. The way we report on Eric is governed, however, by what outside sources say about him. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On point 1, "No patents should be mentioned. Anyone can get a patent. That is not noteworthy for inclusion in any article," I'm still unclear of the source of this assertion. Anyone can get a PhD too, or a Nobel Prize (according to ScienceApologist), so why would we mention those things in a Wikipedia article? In Lerner's case, his desalination patent is verifiable and is a part of his professional activities. The patent application is also verifiable and relevant and does a good job illustrating his fusion ideas. So that's why I'm inclined to include it too, although I can see a point that it isn't issued yet, and anyone can file for a patent and ultimately not receive it. Is there a policy on inclusion of patent information? If not, there is no reason to exclude it. If there is, then Thomas Edison's page will need some serious work. ABlake (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel awards are a form of peer review and are world-class. PhD vary from ivy-league to honary awards to mail-order from unaccredited places. Patents on the other hand are different. They are more or less self-published primary sources in that given enough money a patent will be published irrespective of the quality, technical or commercial viability. There isn't so much a peer review performed but a mechanical search for existing art. We should record patents as we do any other self-published material in that if it is subsequently used commercially or cited by a 3rd party (of which Edisons have) then it is notable enough.

Has that happened for this patent ?. If it has then it should stay. If it hasn't then it's dross.Ttiotsw (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ttiotsw. That actually made sense. In this case, there has not been subsequent citation of the patent or the application. Your explanation should be written out in a policy somewhere to clear up misunderstandings like this more easily. According to your explanation, I assume that Lerner's other papers which were published in reviewed publications (such as IEEE)are essentially not self-published and can be included, even if they are not cited in other publications. Is that right? ABlake (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't just include papers just because they were published. There has to be a reason. Since Eric's papers are not very popular and add nothing to the content of the article that can be reliably sourced to secondary sources, they don't belong listed. We can list papers that explain Eric's point-of-view from Eric's point-of-view if that point-of-view is relevant to the encyclopedia. Most of what Eric believes, though, is so fringe as to warrant exclusion due to lack of prominence within the field. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not for laundry-listing publications just because they were written. As you say, we can list papers that explain his point of view if it is relevant to the encyclopedia. Let me be specific in order to save pointless reverts, because I think we may be arguing about different things. The middle section of my version, entitled Professional Activities, which was broken down into three parts, contained useful information on his activities that would be good for someone who was looking for info on Eric Lerner to know. It was properly referenced with notable stuff. Perhaps you are arguing against having the section below that, entitled Partial List of Papers and Articles. If so, then I can see how that is like a laundry list of articles that is there merely because he wrote them. If that is the case, then I can see a reason to delete that section. However, I think you should add back the section on Professional Activities as I had it. As it is, you've thrown out the baby with the bath water. ABlake (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposition you make that someone research Eric Lerner should know about each of his idiosyncratic beliefs regarding his professional activities. A broad paint-brush is more worthwhile than an overly-detailed exposition. After all, if there is no counterpoint, no secondary oversight, on these ideas, they really haven't received the outside notice required for us to describe them so completely in Wikipedia. I am arguing against both the list of papers and articles and the detailed information contained in the professsional activies section. Eric has some very specific ideas, but until those ideas are noticed by others, Wikipedia should not be reporting about them. What has been noticed by others is Eric's company, his Big Bang denialism, his political activities, and his education. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "scientific work" as written before was problematic because it is arguable that Eric is a legitimate scientist. Let's leave the judgement out of it and just call it professional work. Also, the description of Eric's ideas went far too much in detail and used his writings too much as a source. Since few of the details of Eric's proposals receive any outside notice, allowing him to use Wikipedia as a soapbox is unacceptable. Along the same lines, I think it is highly inappropriate to list papers that are not recognized by the mainstream community as having any worth and have not received comment, citation, or consideration but instead have been outrightly ignored. Eric can use his own webpage to promote himself, we don't have to do it for him. Wikipedia, as I said above, is not supposed to publish CVs. It's supposed to offer an encyclopedic report on a notable subject. The current version of the article does this. Please explain any problems with the current version now. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is about describing a subject, not promoting it. Describing Eric's beliefs and activities is different than promoting them, and the language used for the different purposes is different. Promotion uses charged words, whereas describing used neutral (boring) words. Describing Eric's point of view is appropriate for this setting. Saying it is the best or worst view is promotional. I agree with your statement that we should leave the judgement out of this. Exactly. That's what NPOV is all about. Eric is the proponent of a fringe theory. Got it. So explain what his fringe theory is, provide refs, and move on. I'm not saying he's right or wrong. I don't care. But it doesn't make sense to me to have an article on someone that doesn't describe who they are, what they've done, or why they are notable. Leaving out the middle section on his Scientific Activities (cosmology, fusion stuff, and other) is a disservice to anyone who comes to this page. Describe, yes. Promote, no. ABlake (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Describing Eric's beliefs that haven't been reviewed by others is essentially promoting them since we cannot offer counters to them that are not original research. Only notable views of Eric are worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. Most of the ideas he has are not verified by outside parties and so an article that describes those would essentially act as a coatrack for displaying his ideas. I am satisified with the way the article describes his fringe theory and moves on. I'll also note that you continue to refer to his activities as "scientific" which is itself quasi-promotional. It is clear that Eric is ostracized, his ideas marginalized, and his plans poorly considered by the mainstream. That means that Wikipedia must be careful only to include ideas that have been directly commented on by others since we are not a soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we'll call it Professional Activities. That's pretty neutral and accurate. I think your interpretation of the coatrack idea is misapplied in this case. Describing his ideas briefly, with proper referencing, is not taking away from or overshadowing anything. You keep saying "essentially", like "essentially promoting" and "essentially act(ing) as a coatrack", but that is only your perception, and it is in reality your POV. As a concrete example, I can't see how this would be a promotional statement:

"Lerner has proposed non-mainstream alternative mechanisms to explain quasars, structure formation,[12] the microwave background,[13] and the origin of light elements[14], all based on his plasma cosmology approach."

A promotional version of that same line would look something like this:

"Lerner's revolutionary explanations of quasars, structure formation, the microwave background, and the origin of light elements are so overwhelmingly accurate that no professional cosmologist has dared to refute him."

Describing neutrally is not promoting, and I fail to grasp how you can fail to grasp that. And it blows me away how you can seriously propose using the words "icy" and "derided", and not see those as loaded words, and then turn around and say that the word "scientific" is quasi-promotional. I'm completely amazed by the utter incongruity of reasoning. I am even more amazed that you can do so well editing other articles, and yet be so completely biased on this one. You treat Lerner with all the contempt of a scorned lover. You claim he is ostracized, but that is not the case. The material that you are trying to leave out demonstrates that. Your claims that you say come from the scientific community are really the projections of your own POV, and you don't see it! I'm not claiming that he is the MVP of the scientific world, but he is also not as "derided" as you seem to believe. The majority of scientists think he is wrong, or more realistically don't even care, but that is the reality of the situation, and to insinuate more than that is POV pushing.

Additionally, you once again claim that "Wikipedia must be careful only to include ideas that have been directly commented on by others since we are not a soapbox," but this is a biography page, not a WP:FRINGE science page. We are not advocating his ideas, only (briefly) describing them, as illustrated above. The papers in the example were published in the peer-reviewed IEEE Transac­tions on Plasma Science, which is a reliable, non-self-published source. So, if the example meets all of the requirements of Wiki policy, only your personal fears and POV are impeding its inclusion. You have "essentially" hijacked the article, and I don't think that is right. ABlake (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Eric Lerner#Cosmology, "filaments" is piped to the disambiguation page filament (astronomy). Should that be [[Birkeland current|filaments]]? Art LaPella (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the filaments in question were borrowed by Eric from the steady staters and he and other plasma dreamers associate them with Birkeland currents for reasons that only they truly understand. The entire bit stinks of original research, which is why I'm advocating for its removal. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that (1) the source, although propaganda, is reliable enough to indicate the association (2) having been associated with LaRouche is no contentious; and (3) the change from "negative information" to "contentious" in WP:BLP was made without consensus. However, I'm willing to wait to restore it until a better source can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, extremist sources are considered to be unreliable sources in any context other than a discussion of the sources themselves, or the authors thereof. Thus, an extreme political propaganda site is not considered to be a reliable source for the purpose of making a claim that a person not involved in the operation of the site is associated with a highly controversial political figure. The use of the term "contentious material" in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material is necessary to avoid the use of Wikipedia as a forum to harm living people by making many unsourced or inadequately sourced claims that, while not intrinsically negative, might nonetheless be reasonably regarded as injurious to the reputations of the subjects of our biographies. For instance, while Wikipedia does not assert that homosexuality is negative, unsourced assertions of homosexuality can and will be forced out of articles per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. John254 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the Lyndon LaRouche information is a perfect example of the lengths and depths to which ScienceApologist will go to dig up and include any and all potentially negative information on the subject of this article, while at the same time enforcing a strict limitation to any and all potentially positive information. The duplicity of his standards is appalling. He has continually berated and belittled the subject, assumed to speak for the scientific community at large, and just now warned me on my personal talk page not to edit this article any more, which I view as an aggressive ad hominem attack in order to shut down my legitimate participation. He has been warned about this type of aggressive editing behavior before, but he is now clearly at it again. I hereby formally offer a complaint. ABlake (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after looking closely at the reference and the quote, I have to withdraw points (1) and (2) above. Unless the case number for the actual lawsuit can be produced, in which case an unreliable secondary source is permitted to support a reliable primary source, there's not sufficient material to support the contention. Even then, there may not be adequate source for the relevance of the contention to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a primary source existed, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well_known_public_figures expressly prohibits the use contemplated:

Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them.

John254 16:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That particular clause doesn't apply, as Eric isn't well-known. In fact, a quick Google search found two other "Lerner"'s reliably associated with LaRouche, making an appropriate Google search difficult. And we don't know that the court record would include "personal details", which is what is forbidden by that section. On the other hand, the next section, WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown suggests we would need a reliable source for the relevance of Lerner's association with LaRouche to Lerner. If the unreliable source is correct, there are thousands of people in a similar situation, suggesting it may not be notable with respect to Lerner. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Eric Lerner isn't well known, then Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_who_are_relatively_unknown expressly prohibits the use of any third-party primary sources which are not themselves published in reliable secondary sources:

Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.

John254 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to give undue weight to criticism of Eric Lerner, in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism, which provides that

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

The assertion that this article may contain only a description of the criticism of Eric Lerner's theories, with little description of the theories themselves, is based on several blatantly incorrect claims:

(1) That peer-reviewed journals, such as the "IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science" do not constitute reliable secondary sources sufficient to support the inclusion of content favorable to Eric Lerner in this article [7]. As asserted by editors who have attempted to support the inclusion of controversial content sourced only to the "Lyndon LaRouche Watch" in this article [8] [9] [10] [11], this claim is self-contradictory and wholly untenable.

(2) That the significance of well-sourced content favorable to Eric Lerner must be established before it is included in this article. This assertion is quite inconsistent with Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content, which expressly provides that

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people ^[1]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources

Moreover, as a passing mention in the "Lyndon LaRouche Watch" hardly establishes significance of any sort, editors who have attempted to support the inclusion of controversial content sourced only to the "Lyndon LaRouche Watch" in this article [12] [13] [14] [15] may not contradictorily require exceptional evidence of significance for the inclusion of favorable content published in peer-reviewed journals.

As the biographies of living persons policy requires that

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

this article should, in addition to describing the criticism of Eric Lerner's theories, describe the theories themselves. Aggressively biased editing to remove well-sourced information favorable to Eric Lerner [16], while simultaneously resorting to a political propaganda website for guilt-by-association criticism [17] [18] [19] [20] is highly disruptive, and will be stopped. John254 23:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quite disagree. The article gives undue weight in favor of his theories. The fact that we cannot find reliable sources as to the content of his theories, other than his own works, suggests we need to carefully apply WP:FRINGE to balance any statements of the theories with appropriate criticism. IEEE Transactions in Plasma Physics appears not to be a peer-reviewed journal, although the IEEE name lends some weight to it. I can't speak to the contents of the other "well-sourced" claims removed above, as I'm editing on a laptop at the moment, and don't have access to what journals I have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, this [21] and this [22] indicate that IEEE Transactions in Plasma Science (not Physics) is peer reviewed. I'm not sure where you were reading that it wasn't. ABlake (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this article doesn't "carefully apply WP:FRINGE to balance any statements of the theories with appropriate criticism" -- it simply eviscerates the description of the theories altogether. We can't have it both ways -- if theories are sufficient notable for the inclusion of criticism, they are sufficient notable for the treatment of the theories themselves. WP:FRINGE does not support the bizarre proposition that we should only describe the criticism of certain theories, without any description of the very theories that are the subject of the criticism. Finally, editors willing to make edits such as these should not lecture anyone else on the finer points of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. John254 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful, John. The subject of this article and others have abused Wikipedia to promote his theories. People are extremely wary of giving undue weight to these ideas, and rightly so. It took a long time to get this situation under control, and it's best if we proceed with great caution rather than rushing headlong towards binary everything / nothing solutions. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy requires that our biographies be written in a fair and balanced manner -- even if many editors dislike the subject of the article, and even if the subject himself has been topic banned for self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox -- activist editing which seeks to use our articles a forum for revenge against their subjects for past on-wiki disruption is just as bad, if not worse, than activist editing for self-promotion. In no way is it justified to use this article as a means by which to throw as much mud at Eric Lerner as possible, even if a political attack website must be used as a source [23] [24] [25] [26], while simultaneously removing well-sourced favorable information on the basis of a counterfactual assertion that a peer-reviewed journal isn't really peer reviewed. While editors associated with Eric Lerner need to be recused from editing this article, editors so angry at Eric Lerner that they cannot edit this article in a manner consistent with our biographies of living persons policy should also recuse themselves. John254 10:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You know, I had no idea. Oh, wait, no, I just remembered: I know that policy and spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia enforcing it. Amazing how one of us could have forgotten that well-known fact. Now how about you stop teaching grandmother to suck eggs? Guy (Help!) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Now how about you stop teaching grandmother to suck eggs? Guy"
• Really? WP:CIVILITY, if you please. Dial the tone back a notch or two, eh? Thx, Mgmirkin (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Seriously, perhaps people with an axe to grind on both sides of the issue should recuse themselves from editing, and let those willing to adopt a neutral tone give editing a try. A WP:Biography shouldn't be a place to promote or to bash a person. It should neutrally present all the relevant data about the person, their life, times, theories, criticisms, etc. Without undue weight one way or the other. Mgmirkin (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Falls under the heading of "don't template the regulars". When someone is, as I am, an active OTRS volunteer and has as much involvement as I do on BLPs, spelling out BLP in the way John did is plain rude. He also templated long-time regular user:ScienceApologist, which is considered uncivil. What I did do was to tell SA to use better sources, and he might take it from me whereas he probably won't take it from John. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there are two separate issues here:

1. Should the now renegged association with Lyndon LaRouche be mentioned on the page?
2. How should we cover Eric's fringe ideas?

Let's take each in turn:

Lyndon LaRouche association

It is undeniable that Eric was once associated with Lyndon LaRouche. He is quoted in secondary sources describing the break he made with LaRouche's movement and it is also clear that this is the same Eric Lerner since he is the one who has the desalination patent. The question is, should this association be noted? Is it notable? Eric's commentary on LaRouche's movement was included in perhaps the single most notable authoritative secondary source disputing the activities of LaRouche. It does not seem to disparage Eric, nor does it seem to be particularly biased against him. The source may be biased against LaRouche, but this isn't an issue for this page. The reason I thought it appropriate to include this source and wording is because it allows for some further characterizations of Eric's political history -- something which is included on this page. It may be that his politics are irrelevant to the notability of the subject and therefore should be excised. I'm willing to accept that. So then we should probably excise all the stuff on Eric's political activities. What is inappropriate to do is to excise some of Eric's political activities history and not others. Either all of it is relevant or none of it is relevant. I'll let others comment below.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Entirely plausible, now please cite reliable independent secondary sources for that. You find them, I'll add them. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the most obvious source: Affidavit of Eric Lerner, May 29, 1979, Gilbertson v. Lerner, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, Civ. Docket No. 09564-79. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one: "King, Dennis. Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. New York: Doubleday, 1989. p. 310." ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)King, Dennis, "Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism", Doubleday, 1989, ISBN 0385238800, avail online at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/newamericanfascism.htm , chapter at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/fascism32.htm .

Excellent. So, no need to cite the anti-LaRouche website. Let's have a form of words for an {{editprotected}} shall we? Guy (Help!) 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the cited sources are unacceptable to make a controversial claim concerning a living person. The use of the court document would, as a primary source, blatantly violate Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_who_are_relatively_unknown, which expressly provides that

Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.

Furthermore, it is fairly obvious that "Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism" is not a peer reviewed publication, but rather a political attack book, written by Dennis King, who also maintains the political attack site "Lyndon LaRouche Watch" -- indeed, as ScienceApologist notes above, the book is actually featured on "Lyndon LaRouche Watch". As an extremist source, this political attack publication is in no way a reliable source for any purpose other than describing the writing of Dennis King. Note that other portions of Eric Lerner's political history, being less controversial in nature, can (and, to maintain balance, should) be included in the article consistent with our biographies of living persons policy. John254 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see this on AN and just wanted to add a thought. I've met Lerner a few times (actually been in his home and talked to him fairly extensively about politics) and am surprised to learn he was involved with Larouche (oddly enough, I also met ScienceApologist once at a Wiki Meetup, though I doubt that user would even remember. I am thus pleased to announce that my Lerner-ScienceApologist number is 2. Beat that!).

I'm a little concerned with the addition of the LaRouche material without knowing more about the full story. Based on some of the posts here (not a reliable source, but provides background), I wonder to what extent Lerner was truly a "follower" and to what extent LaRouche was just helping him to do scientific research. That distinction could actually be very important.

I'm also a bit concerned about undue weight. Lerner struck me as a straight-up anti-capitalist of the "Old Left" and I know for a fact (from an e-mail list serv, sorry none of this comment here is reliably sourced!) that his main work recently has been with the NJ Civil Rights Defense Committee already cited in the article. It's possible that to even mention the LaRouche stuff - which really sticks out in an article like this - given the short nature of the whole discussion seriously distorts his political history. Like I said we don't even know the full scope of his involvement with the organization, at least from what I've seen. I would probably support SA's thought that it might be better to mention none of his political history, because in telling only part of the story (and possibly just plain getting it wrong) we could be doing Lerner a real disservice. I would maybe just mention his association with the NJ civil rights group as a current political activity which we can reliably source.

Just for the record while I've met Lerner I'm not a friend of his (though he was a nice enough guy) so I'm not biased here. I would feel bad for him though if he was only tangentially associated with LaRouche and we made too big a thing of that. We might just need more information in order to figure out how to proceed. I don't know if Lerner has ever edited here, but another possibility is to simply e-mail him about this if we're concerned about the BLP issue. I know he knows he has a Wiki article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Eric has edited here as User:Elerner which I did not realize. I guess he's under an ArbCom restriction as well and apparently can't edit this article, though it might still be useful to contact him somehow. Given that SA was apparently wrapped up in an ArbCom case that involved Lerner as well (I have not looked at the specifics and don't plan to, but it seems obvious they were antagonists), it might be a bit ill-advised on SA's part to be pushing this LaRouche issue. Just a thought in the interest of avoiding unnecessary trouble, since ultimately the LaRouche thing is hardly critical to this article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@John: No, those are acceptable sources for a nice, bland statement that Lerner is, or has been a LaRouche supporter. Both are secondary sources apparently relying on Lerner's own words. We have no need to obscure this fact, it's an interesting if minor fact and does not appear to be contested. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, court documents are primary sources -- per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews

Indeeed, "court records" are specifically described as primary sources in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well_known_public_figures, and forbidden for the use proposed in this article:

Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them.

Moreover, political attack publications obviously aren't reliable sources. Alleged association with Lyndon LaRouche, a highly controversial political figure, must necessarily qualify as controversial information concerning a living person which may only be included if supported by a reliable source per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material -- please see Lyndon_LaRouche#Criticism. John254 10:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The types of arguments being made by John are utterly specious and hardly worth rehashing. Aside from being, on the whole, personal attacks on others they also completely miss the point. There are reliable secondary sources for this connection between Eric and LaRouche. If the political history of Eric is not relevant, then excise the entire thing. If it is, then include it. That is all. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book seems okay to use, with caution - see below - but per WP:NPF I don't know that it would be appropriate to use the court case, which qualifies as a primary source. Per that section of the not-so-famous-person BLP policy, "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source." Like I said though the book is okay, but I still don't know what exactly it is telling us or if we should use it given how little we know about this. Here's the full passage from the book re: Lerner:

"Businesses run by NCLC members are expected to put the NCLC's needs first. Former LaRouchian Eric Lerner found this out when he and several comrades formed a company to promote a water desalinization invention. After leaving the NCLC, he stated in a 1979 lawsuit that NCLC leaders had pressured him to funnel the firm's profits to the U.S. Labor Party, the electoral arm of the NCLC, in violation of election laws. Lerner charged that this was standard policy with other NCLC-controlled businesses."

The NCLC referred to here is apparently the National Caucus of Labor Committees. According to that org's Wikipedia article, the NCLC grew out of a faction in Students for a Democratic Society. In its early years it was "a New Left organization influenced by Trotskyist ideas" but "by the mid-1970s, the NCLC had abandoned Marxism altogether, in favor of what its members described as an American System approach. Some press accounts alleged that there was a shift to the right, and that the NCLC established ties to the Ku Klux Klan and the Liberty Lobby." I don't think we really know when Lerner stopped being involved, or how "LaRouchian" the organization was prior to its abandonment of Marxism. Lerner was apparently involved in the '68 student strike at Columbia (along with SDS leader Mark Rudd), so if he went from that to SDS to an SDS splinter group that was ultimately controlled by LaRouche then his actual involvement with LaRouche or status as a "LaRouchian" is a bit more questionable. I don't think I'm completely willing to trust the secondary source's characterization of him as a full blown LaRouchian though it is entirely possible that he was. It's also possible he was in a Marxist organization that grew out of the student movement of '68 and left that organization when it shifted direction and/or become more LaRouche dominated. Again, I don't know, but I don't think we have enough evidence to confidently make the controversial claim that Lerner was a "follower of Lyndon LaRouche." Left politics in the late 60s and early 1970s was nothing if not complex, and folks were involved with all sorts of groups with varying degrees of intensity.

I'm not trying to whitewash anything here, and if there is more detailed information that shows Lerner was truly a "LaRouchian" then I'm fine with putting it in. We have to proceed carefully though, particularly since the editor trying to add this information has disputed with Lerner here on Wikipedia. I'd like to hear thoughts from Guy and SA about these issues.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism" is a reliable source [27], then I shutter to think what an unreliable source would look like. Anyway, here's my trump card: Will Beback has expressed concerns that the Eric Lerner described by Dennis King is actually a different Eric Lerner altogether:

Are we certain that the Eric Lerner associated with LaRouche is the as the subject of this article? "The American Ideology: or Why LCers Fear Theory" by Eric Lerner and Carol Menzel.[28] ("LCers" may refer to members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees and the International Caucus of Labor Committees, former LaRouche parties. -Will Beback 19:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[29]

Now, that just might be a problem. John254 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the webpage to which Will Beback refers in his comment above is archived here. John254 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same Eric Lerner as proven with the reference to the patent for desalination on his own web page. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean United States Patent 5,207,928, which you removed from the article, on the basis of the claim that "Patents are not in and of themselves worthy of inclusion in biographical articles. Any yahoo can get a patent." Yes, that patent? Then this couldn't possibly be the same Eric Lerner as the one who "formed a company to promote a water desalinization invention"[30], since if the Eric Lerner described here actually did form such a company, the patent would relate to events that you wish to include in the article. John254 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic of John's last comment. It clearly seems to be the same Eric Lerner. The fact that ScienceApologist did not want to include the bit about the patent in the article has no bearing on the issue of whether the Eric Lerner in this article was the same one tied to LaRouche. You brought up a legitimate question about the possibility of two different Lerners and SA provided a convincing answer, so I think we can drop this.

I'm still interested in seeing a response to concerns I raised above. At this point I do not support including the LaRouche stuff unless we can clarify the exact nature of Lerner's involvement with that dude. I think SA and anyone else who wants to include that material needs to explain how we can be certain that Lerner was truly a follower of LaRouche and not merely affiliated with a LaRouche connected group. This is not a cut-and-dried issue, nor is it trivial since we are talking about information that many would take to be defamatory being inserted into a BLP.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In removing the patent from the article, ScienceApologist asserted its insignificance -- anyone can get a patent, right? ScienceApologist's claim that the patent relates to "a desalination company... [Eric Lerner] started", information which he is attempting to include in the article, is inconsistent with his assertion of the patent's insignificance. So, either

(1) the patent doesn't actually relate to the desalination company, in which case it doesn't show that we're talking about the same Eric Lerner or

(2) if information about the "desalination company" is included in the article, the patent should be included as well, since the patent would have been used for commercial purposes in the "desalination company", and certainly wouldn't merely have the status of a document that anyone could obtain.

However, as Bigtimepeace observes, Eric Lerner's membership in the National Caucus of Labor Committees would not imply his support for Lyndon LaRouche, and Dennis King's passing characterization of Eric Lerner as "LaRouchian" in the course of writing the political attack book "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" is not dispositive. So, even if we were to regard "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" as a sufficiently reliable source for the inclusion of any information in this article at all, we should state only that "He was a former member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees who left the organization after being pressured to funnel money from a desalination company he started into the US Labor Party." leaving Lyndon LaRouche's name out of it. In this case, we should also mention that Eric Lerner later obtained United States Patent 5,207,928 for the method of desalination employed by the company he started, since the patent would then be relevant to the subject matter of the article. John254 02:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric's fringe science ideas

Eric promotes two fringe science ideas: plasma fusion and plasma cosmology. Both of the subjects are worthy of inclusion to the extent that Eric has received outside attention for his promotion of these ideas. One thing we need to make sure of, though, is that Wikipedia doesn't serve as a soapbox or a coatrack for these ideas. We must be certain to include information about Eric's ideas as it pertains to outside commentary on the issue and nothing more. In other words, his fantasies regarding filamentary absorption of the CMB, surface brigthness tests, and efficiency ratings for aneutronic fusion are not worthy of inclusion here since no outside independent sources have taken notice of them. As soon as Eric gets noticed for these ideas, that's when we include them: not before. The laundry list of papers Eric has written and the inordinate detail that the article used to go into describing his peculiar ideas was unreasonable. Eric slides by barely with notability through his semi-popular science book and a few bits of mainstream media notice for his focus fusion company. That's the extent to which we can describe his ideas. Since he is marginalized in the scientific community, we are right to marginalize Eric's ideas that he claims are written at that level until he can get a qualified reviewer to take notice. Even a debunking will do.

There is plenty of precedent for this. For example, on the Christopher Michael Langan page, this particular person's "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" was basically excised as being, on the whole, non-notable. We mention it because it is mentioned by secondary sources, but we do not go to great lengths to describe it because, frankly, no one has taken notice of this description at the detailed level required for a detailed description. Likewise here, since Eric's ideas are patently ignored by those in the know, Wikipedia is right to exclude detail description and self-analysis of Eric's ideas: doing so would be an extreme violation of WP:REDFLAG.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is rather a significant difference between the Christopher Michael Langan article and this one, insofar as the former excludes detailed criticism of the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe". This article, however, contains extensive quotations of critiques of Eric Lerner's book, which describes his theories. To the extent that Eric Lerner's book, and, by extension, his views on Cosmology, are the subject of criticism in this article, it is appropriate to provide some treatment of these views themselves, as published in peer-reviewed sources such as the "IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science". I strongly disagree with ScienceApologist's hairsplitting distinction between Eric Lerner's views on cosmology, and Eric Lerner's book on cosmology. John254 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that CTMU is notable for the CML article because it is mentioned in various interviews with the subject (e.g. the Erroll Morris interview). Eric's book is notable because it has received outside reviews that generally pan it. Eric's ideas that are published in obscure journals that have not received outside notice are not appropriate for inclusion in this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, any published views of Lerner's which are not likely to be a mis-representation of his views may be appropriate to his bio. If we were talking about Lerner's inclusion somewhere else, they would not be notable, but we are looking at notability relative to the subject of the bio, not notability of the subject's ideas to the mainstream world. Once the general notability of the subject is established, we look for sources which round out a biography, not merely sources which deal with the notability of the subject to the mainstream. For example, if Lerner spent 10 years doing something which no one paid attention to, we would look for any sources to fill in that 10 years. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as Eric Lerner's book discusses substantially the same theories as his journal articles, the articles discuss a notable theory, and are thus suitable for inclusion. Moreover, the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a respected peer reviewed source, not an "obscure journal". ScienceApologist has taken an unsupportable, entirely untenable position:

(1) Material concerning Eric Lerner's theories published in peer-reviewed journals is not suitable for inclusion [31] BUT

(2) Critiques of Eric Lerner's theories on self-published faculty webpages and blog entries constitute good, reliable sources, which really need to be included in this article (see [32], which uses [33] and [34] as references) AND

(3) When a self-published political attack website mentions Eric Lerner in passing, we really needed to include that information in the article [35] [36] [37] BUT

(4) Since ScienceApologist has been informed that he can't use a political attack website as a source to support a controversial claim concerning a living person, it's still acceptable to use a political attack book written by the author of the same political attack page as a source [38]

ScienceApologist's arguments are completely without merit. John254 02:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John254's arguments are boneheaded. (1) IEEE Plasma Transactions have an impact factor in the fucking toilet. It's lower than almost every other plasma physics journal published. In terms of cosmology, it has an impact factor of essentially zero. That has to be taken into consideration. (2) The attack site is not attacking Eric Lerner, so objections to it are irrelevant here. Done and dumb. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist, play nicely or go away. Your edits are becoming trollish. When I pointed out the errors of your edits, you warn me on my talk page to stop editing[[39]]. When John254 pointed out the errors of your edits, you call him a bonehead[[40]]. When we showed you notable citations in IEEE, you attacked the journal itself in an incivil manner. Oh wait, you have a personal problem with civility[[41]]. By the way, "incivility" is derived from the Latin incivilis, meaning "not of a citizen". I would suggest that you apply that to your Wikipedia status until you can learn to play nicely with the other Wikipedia citizens. Be a team player, or get off the field. ABlake (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between calling someone a bonehead and calling someone's arguments boneheaded. IEEE Plasma Transactions is a JOKE of a journal: publishing rubbish such as this. Just about the worst nonsense I've ever read. Every professional I know who assesses the journal agrees with me. Good luck. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV regarding IEEE Plasma Transactions is completely irrelevant as far as editing is concerned. The opinions of your "professional" colleagues (whoever they are) are equally irrelevant. Again, you assume to speak for the scientific community as a whole. If you continue to let your POV dictate the contents of this article, you will be excused from further editing here. The article about Eric Lerner is not the POV playground of ScienceApologist, or anyone else. ABlake (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, IEEE Plasma Transactions is a low-impact factor journal. It's not surprising that it would publish junk. That doesn't mean that junk should be included here. This is done simply because Eric's fringe fantasies are only notable inasmuch as they are noticed by those who do not share his bizarre outlook. Other than that, they deserve exclusion from our encyclopedia. The end. And why did Eric ask you to be his meatpuppet again? Is he paying you to do this? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're resorting to innuendo? Well, if you have nothing better to argue with, go for it. I wish I got paid for all the wasted time I've spent trying to reason with you. I'd be a rich man! :) And I'd have great job security too! Again, your opinion of IEEE Plasma Transactions is irrelevant. Bottom line: It's a notable peer-reviewed journal, therefore, it is acceptable to cite under Wikipedia policy. ABlake (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced. You arrived on this page almost as soon as Eric left. It wasn't until a few days ago that someone alerted me to the fact that you are Eric's partner. Immediately, I began to understand your contributions in a whole new light. Sorry, we all choose with whom we associate. You are a close associate of Eric who is banned from editing the article. This casts a pall on your contributions and I have no qualms about pointing this out. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, my contributions were fine and good until you realized that I am an associate of Eric? That's actually refreshing to hear. It means my edits stood on their own. I'll take that as a compliment. I really do exercise a great deal of circumspection when I make any changes, as required by WP:COI, and it's nice to have that validated. Thanks! I hope you also remember to assume good faith until I've shown a biased edit. So far you haven't shown me one, and I can't remember making one. I'm sure you'd have brought it up if I had, and I would have corrected whatever it was if I had. On the other hand, I've brought up your aggressively biased edits and negative behavior several times, but that hasn't seemed to have changed anything. I guess that's the difference between you and I. I'm sure your grandfather would be proud of you, as I'm sure mine would be of me. It comes down to how we were raised, and our role models. That's my social worker background coming through. Sorry, I digress... ABlake (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, your contributions were confusing, as though you were gaming the system. Remember when you "alerted" the now-departed Ian Tresman to my edits at scientific community? I asked you about it then and you were, as far as I can tell, being duplicitous. I'm disgusted with your behavior at Wikipeida as a single-purpose account, frankly, and I do not care to be silent about it. You are welcome to continue to make suggestions here at the talk page, but I'm very upset that you did not divulge your personal connection with Eric Lerner at the outset. You were/are being duplicitous all along and you know it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. You were adding biased info[[42]] to the Scientific community page so you could turn around and use it as a source against including information in this very article, which illuminates (again) your own duplicity. I'm surprised you even brought it up. I make no apologies for pointing out your sneakiness. Would you please stop with the personal attacks and stick with the points of the article. People don't want to read all this crap, and besides, it just makes you look bad when the truth comes out. ABlake (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a question for you since you're an astronomy guy. Are journals like the Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy or the Astrophysical Journal respected in the astronomy field? If so, what makes them different or better than IEEE Plasma Transactions in the plasma physics or astronomy fields? Do they have higher standards of review and publication? What is it that would make one field's journal more respectable than another? ABlake (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journals are considered reliable sources if they have the respect and support of most experts in the field. This can generally be deduced by how often it is cited from other journals which are indisputably reliable. Jefffire (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And note the very significant notability difference between this and this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And would you mind archiving this page? I'd do it but it takes nearly 4 min to load. Thanks (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I set it to be archived by Miszabot, but that does not seem to have happened yet. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought the bot must have been non-functional or something. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Editors who assert that a peer-reviewed journal

is a JOKE of a journal: publishing rubbish such as this. Just about the worst nonsense I've ever read. Every professional I know who assesses the journal agrees with me.[43]

but personal faculty webpages and blogs are good reliable sources suitable for use as references [44] are certainly welcome to their opinions. However, consistent with our verifiability policy, articles need to be edited in accordance with material that has been published in reliable sources, not the personal beliefs of our editors. John254 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• John, just a minor comment here - do you have any idea how patronising you sound? Not one of the people involved in this dispute appears to be a newbie. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to describe the problematic editing of this article. As this editing has involved multiple fundamental policy violations, I have found it necessary to cite and quote the relevant policies in many of my comments to illustrate the application of the policy standards to the editing in question. That experienced, intelligent, articulate editors who are, or reasonably should be, familiar with our fundamental policies have been responsible for this editing is actually a far greater problem than any perceived ineloquence in my description. John254 01:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John--- right, but also excluding self-published and less-than reliable sources is not always necessary, see the WP:BLP page. We have a special exception here for BLP. What we need to use is proper attribution, which is not happening in the current article (for sources like CSI for example). It does seem like people are ignoring the basic source rules here. COI only applies if the edits are not NPOV- accusations of COI not accompanied by agreement that the edits themselves are POV, and diffs to prove it, can be ignored. I don't know whether John has been NPOV or not. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is upon editors wishing to use a reference to demonstrate it is reliable. SA can quite legitimately call a reference BS on the talk page, and since he has scientific experience that assessment should not be considered lightly. If he is mistaken then it should be a relatively easy matter to demonstrate that expert in cosmology respect the journal. Jefffire (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a peer reviewed journal, associated with the prestigious Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. This status provides a prima facie case that the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is a reliable source. If ScienceApologist wishes to show that it isn't, he is going to have to do better than merely describing the journal by means of crude scatological terminology. John254 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE is a respected institution, and their stamp on the journal is the easily-demonstrated indication of respectability and notability that you are looking for. I'm curious to know what SA has done or published that would lead you to believe that he has any "scientific experience" enough to call the IEEE a joke. He's a grad student! Grad student vs. IEEE..., hmmm. I think the onus is on you to show that SA has any credibility or weight to use his opinion as anything more than original research or POV. So far, I've seen absolutely zero. I'll stick with the professionals. ABlake (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name "IEEE" is an indication of respectability (but not notability). However, the Journal of Irreproducible Results is also published by a respected institution, and they clearly do not consider themselves respectable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for lightening up the mood Arthur. I'll try to lighten up my edits too. It's not worth getting all spun up. ABlake (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming reliability by association is not how science works, but I understand how establishing scientific reliability may be daunting to editors without scientific backgrounds. In general "impact factors" are a rough and ready way to judge how well respected a journal is. I did some research and this journal appears to have had an impact factor of 1.82 in the period between 2000-2004 [45]. Rather poor, but at least it has one. It's impact factor appears to have dropped substantially in recent years, and it appears to have dropped off the listings, which casts grave doubt on it's current reputation. Jefffire (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, though, that we don't need to show that the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is the most respected journal in cosmology -- we only need to prove that it's a more reliable source than this blog post, which ScienceApologist used as a source critical of Eric Lerner. John254 11:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I'm afraid that that is completely incorrect (please see WP:RS). Blog posts are not RS, and neither are non-respected journals. It's not a contest, it's a standard of inclusion. Jefffire (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that blog posts can be used to source the opinion of the person writing the blog. In this case, that person is the extremely respected cosmologist Sean Carroll who is offering his evaluative opinion as a cosmologist of Eric Lerner's ideas. This is how the source is used. In contrast, the non-respected journals were being used to soapbox for Eric Lerner's ideas beyond what is notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that IEEE is a respected and reliable source, whether or not it wins a popularity contest. Stop making up rules that don't match policy! It is hypocrisy to dismiss the IEEE articles (which has the support of the scientific community, except your friends), and include a reference from a blog. If you include the "extremely respected" blog, you should also include the respected journal. Sorry, but I won't let you enforce a double standard that is completely against policy. ABlake (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." [46]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(interpolated, as someone is not indenting properly)

Can I ask, what brought John254 to this page in the first place? He sounds right now like another shill: lord knows we've seen our fair share of them here. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, not ScienceApologist's point of view. Consequently, disagreement, yea, even significant disagreement, with ScienceApologist on this page does not imply that one is "another shill" of Eric Lerner. Especially not when the user disagreeing with ScienceApologist had over 30,000 edits, and 1 year and ten months of experience on Wikipedia, before making a single content edit relating to Eric Lerner or plasma cosmology. Indeed, my initial involvement in editing this article was for the sole purpose of removing inadequately sourced controversial information concerning a living person [47] [48] [49] [50] that, as JzG concedes, should not have been inserted into this article. As I found ScienceApologist's attempt to insert this allegation troubling, I investigated the situation further to determine whether any more subtle WP:BLP violations were present. John254 00:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that User:John254 has researched the subject of the article or the beliefs associated with that person carefully enough. He instead seems to be parroting old concerns of plasma cosmology POV-pushers and adopting them as his own despite having been clearly dealt with before User:John254 had a user account. WP:RTFA surely applies as does our admonition for people to actually research before making bald and unfounded pronouncements. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much research does it take to see that basic policies are being violated? The truth is that the debate died down because Eric Lerner and Ian Tresman were both banned over their heated disagreements with ScienceApologist, and I deployed for several months. That doesn't count as prior resolution. SA was warned about his own behavior at that time, but it still continues along the same thread. If John254 was to go back and read the entire history, he would find that the same inappropriate tactics and arguments are still being used today. Luckily I was around to catch it this time, which started this latest round of edit warring. Read my talk page for the condensed version. ABlake (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am under the impression that the article as it currently stands is fine on the science/beliefs front.

On the political activities front, we have two options:

1. Include the sourced material about Lerner's break with LaRouche sourced to the book published by Doubleday.
2. Remove all political activities as being non-notable.

I do not have a preference for either. Please indicate your preferences below along with a coherent argument as to why you chose the way you did.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we have only two options. I would be okay with option one if we had a better sense of the nature of Lerner's involvement with LaRouche. If the only source we have is the book (which, as I have argued above, is not detailed enough for us to claim that Lerner was directly involved with LaRouche rather than merely a member of a LaRouche connected group), then we should not include direct reference to Lerner's association with LaRouche. That does not, however, mean we must remove all reference to political activities. Inability to adequately source a controversial claim about Lerner's political past does not mean we delete discussion of his political activities which are adequately sourced, and thus we are not at all forced to choose between one and two. A third option is to leave the article in its current form until we can clarify the LaRouche situation.

John254 has also suggested another (fourth) possible alternative which I would be fine with. Rather than mention LaRouche specifically, use the book to say "He was a former member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees who left the organization after being pressured to funnel money from a desalination company he started into the US Labor Party." This seems undeniably true, and does not get us into problematic territory by claiming Lerner was a "follower of LaRouche" when that may or may not be the case. ScienceApologist, would you be open to this option?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is as well, if not better, sourced than the other claims surrounding Eric's political activities. In fact, the other claims about Eric's political activities are taken from his website and so are his own presentation of self. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not satisfied with the science/beliefs section that was gutted. I don't care about the inclusion of the LaRouche section since it is part of his history. However, there needs to be a consistent standard applied. It is inappropriate to excise the credible bulk of his professional activities (which is the source of his notability) while including a very small part of his political activities which is hardly (if at all) notable. Double standards should not be applied. ABlake (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To SA, what you say regarding the sources is simply not true. The footnotes in question are numbers 12-17. Footnote 12 comes from crmvet.org which does not seem to be run by Lerner (there is a longer interview with him regarding Selma here which we should probably add). Footnote 13 regarding Columbia in 68 is to a primary source document that is part of an interactive history of Columbia hosted by Barnard College here and which does seem to verify Lerner's involvement (however that is a primary source, so under the BLP policy we should probably find a secondary source which discussed Lerner's involvement). Footnote 14 is to Lerner's NJ civil rights group, but number 15 is to a story in a San Diego newspaper which identifies Lerner as a member of this group (the link in number 16 does not work and should probably be removed). Footnote 17 is to a Rutgers student paper. The only problem with that is that the story is from 2000 and also the group seems rather non-notable (from its web site one can't even tell if it's still active). It might make sense to take that out.

Regardless, the sources do clearly support the claims made in that section and only one is from the web site of Lerner's NJ group. In general I think the LaRouche book is okay as a source as I have said. The problem is that we are dealing with a controversial claim, and from the source we have I don't think we can make that claim (Lerner was a LaRouchian) with complete confidence.

Again though, would the sentence about him being a former member of the NCLC work for you? I think it's a fair compromise. People who follow the links to the NCLC and US Labor Party will see they were connected to LaRouche, but we avoid making a direct claim about Lerner and LaRouche on the basis of somewhat fuzzy evidence.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]