home
 
 
The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
 
Wikipedia Censorship

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar metamorphosis

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was : Deleted, consensus that this kind of content has no place on Wikipedia. (The article essentially constituted promotion of an obscure fringe theory; qualifying it in the first sentence as a fringe theory makes no difference. In addition, several users have noted the misuse of references.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 
(Note: I believe that at one point it was believed that planets had formed from matter that has split from the central star, and that Venus, Earth and Mars constitute stages of planetary evolution; this theory has long been discredited. That a star could actually become a planet? I don't think anybody has seriously suggested that in the past 100-200 years; if for no other reason, then because a star is way more massive than a planet. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC))
 

Stellar metamorphosis[edit source | edit]

Stellar metamorphosis (edit|talk|history|protect|links|watch|logs) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: "Stellar metamorphosis" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
This is very fringe pseudoscience presented as legitimate in violation of WP:FRINGE. It is seemingly based on unreliable self published sources. It is also consists mostly of a synthesis of sources to make an article. The mainstream sources themselves are not about this topic, nor do they mention it, rather the writer has used them to make deductions about their fringe theory. Thus it is a mixture of pure original research liberally sprinkled with nonsense. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and I could not locate reliably published secondary sources which are " independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 
The nebular hypothesis cannot explain the formation of gas giants. So we keep theories that do not work and label possible alternatives as fringe and censor them? That is the motto of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavyinfinity (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete: Pure fringe blither and OR. Zero mention in reliable independent sources. Eggregious abuse of sources. Fails all notability guidelines. Nothing worth merging or saving. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The General Science Journal, Arvix, vixra, .edu, sites are not reliable? So, what sites are reliable? .gov sites? Why are you really here? Is somebody paying you? Wavyinfinity (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I'll bite. Creating and pushing this article is your sole activity on Wikipedia ... you have NO other purpose for being here other than that. Why are you really here? Is someone paying you? Obviously you have some personal agenda, since you don't appear to believe that anyone else is here without their own personal (and, presumably, sinister) agenda.
I don't suppose you much care for such insinuations. That's part of the reason we don't make them, here on Wikipedia, and doing so is a civility violation under WP:CIVIL. You would be better off to stop doing so at once. Ravenswing 10:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 
I understand. I will be civil as I am on a steep learning curve with wikipedia. Though it is not easy being civil, unearthing a piece of human history that dates back almost a century, while people call it fringe or crackpottery, ridiculing and condemning. Makes it difficult to be civil when others are not. I am a scientist and it is my responsibility to share new understanding regardless if people agree with it or state that it is fringe based off their own dogma. If we can not share understanding publicly, then why do science? Why bother? Why not just state that everything is known and claim to be masters of the universe, when we haven't even ventured outside of our comfortable solar system? Nobody is paying me. I have a responsibility to my species to share this, regardless. If it gets censored then so be it. I gave it my best shot. Reasonably though it has garnered more public attention than the nebular hypothesis all day yesterday. The numbers don't lie: http://stats.grok.se/en/201306/stellar%20metamorphosis Wavyinfinity (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
You can share your science, but Wikipedia is not the place to push original research. It's an encyclopedia, where the main criteria are notability and verifiability. Read the policies. In the meantime, there are countless other places to publish your research. Also, it would be nice if you responded to my delete vote, since I took the time to read the 1924 paper and have responded in detail. You complained earlier that people weren't reading it. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply: What 24.218.115.184 said. Wikipedia has specific policies and guidelines governing what can be made into an article or not, and they revolve around reliable, published, independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking. Should this article be deleted for failure to meet any of those sources, nothing prevents you from disseminating your research wherever you can. It just can't — until and unless it is published in peer journals or finds its way into the mainstream media — be published on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 18:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. At first I thought this was a fringe theory which was no longer accepted but had at least been discussed in the academic literature, like panspermia or the static universe, and thus worth having an article. However, upon further investigation it seems that no reputable astronomer has proposed this theory. A search on ADS shows four publications which use the phrase, none of them peer-reviewed and all figuratively referring to other processes. The article relies on a) fringe sources on e.g. vixra, fake 'journals' and personal websites, b) cherry-picking facts from otherwise reliable sources which do not actually discuss this theory and c) doesn't mention that the theory has no current support among professional astronomers. Delete and remove all references in other articles. Modest Genius talk 11:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure nonsense disguised as science. Some bits have completely untrusted sources others have reliable sources grossly misinterpreted and most of the crazy stuff has no sources at all (obviously). Cheers. Gaba (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: It makes some solid observations about how are current model of the universe basically guesses to fill in the blanks of what we dont understand yet. Until Our current theory can be proved %100 accurate deleting alternate theories is counter productive to science. Leave the entry. Let people look for supporting evidence and then decide for themselves. Unsigned by 69.171.163.85
  • Delete as a fringe theory with no significant discussion in academic sources. I have been contacted before on my talk page regarding just a theory, and it seems now that the user, or someone else supporting his position, has (after many months) gone ahead and created the article anyway. IP, our current theory is quite good to explain the formation of stars—said formation has been observed by Hubble, Spitzer, and other space telescopes. Granted, our current theory does not explain everything about the formation of stars or stellar systems, but that doesn't necessarily open the space for pseudoscientific blither supported only by viXra "papers". Wer900 • talk 22:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Good to explain the formation of stars. Okay. How about gas giants? It is common knowledge that current theory cannot explain the formation of gas giants as it is even written on the nebular hypothesis page itself. Not to mention there are backwards orbiting "exo-planets" that falsify the NEB hypo. Yet it is kept? Why are you really here? Is someone paying you too?
If you were so sure of your "knowledge" why attack alternative theories? You have something to lose if this understanding gets attention? Ego? Pride? Please come back when your argument is sound. Wavyinfinity (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Wavy, I am not being paid by anyone to be here, I am doing this out of my own passion for astronomy. The Earth is not a black dwarf; otherwise it would have the mass of a star, and in any case it would be impossible to form black dwarfs with the current age of the universe. If you think the Earth is a sub-brown dwarf, by contrast, those exist, but the Earth did not form as one; it formed as a regular planet, from the leftover material from the process of star formation.
Your statements about our not knowing how gas giants form is either naïve misunderstanding or outright dishonesty. Gas giants form beyond the frost line, where water vapor deposits into ice and therefore allows the formation of larger planets. These larger planets, in turn, attract the hydrogen and helium around them, becoming giant planets. Giant planets are quite well-explained by the current theory; hot Jupiters are formed by the gravitational interactions of several gas giants in a system, and are in any case incredibly rare. The only reason we see them so often is that they are the easiest exoplanets to detect. Wer900 • talk 01:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 
  • Delete per all the reasons mentioned above by others; I have nothing else to add. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment:With all do respect there is no room in science for "Quite good explanations". How many famous scientist were called quacks for ideas that went against traditional beliefs before being vindicated or inspiring someone else to make a new discovery? This is not religion is it science. Alternative theories should be embraced and at least tolerated. Otherwise we are no different than the ones who persecuted some of our most celebrated and important theorist. We have been going down a slippery slope of censorship in the scientific community the last decade or so in regards to alternate theories of the universe. So i suggest we temper that ugly trend with some tolerance for once. I am not the author of the theory and i am done responding. I just wanted to clarify my position and reasoning behind my original comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.233 (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You appear to have confused wikipedia, an encyclopaedia, with the scientific community. If you want to publish the original research, do it in a real scientific journal. Claims of "censorship" in the scientific community are usually based on "My nonsense was rejected by journal X, therefore they are censoring me". Considering the number of scientists who espouse fringe beliefs generally (a number of individuals come to mind) the claim that the scientific community censors people is untenable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You appear to be confused as well, Mr. Alexander Oparin is the originator of the theory and developed this understanding in 1924, so it is not original research. If you had even bothered to actually read the sources you would know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavyinfinity (talk • contribs) 11:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Who decides what is a real scientific journal? Is not a real scientific journal a journal that keeps scientific articles? Tell me, what constitutes a fake journal? How does one write fake scientific articles? Is there such a thing or did you make that up? Why are you here? Your motives are clear, you have something to lose if this understanding gets to have it's own page. Personal reasons to delete an article are hardly appropriate. Wavyinfinity (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
A fake journal is one with no meaningful peer review that prints any old garbage submitted to it (possibly in exchange for cash). Allegations that I have something to gain are amusing, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's clearly pseudo-science that does not put forward a unique, testable hypothesis, but that's besides the point. It fails Wikipedia notability requirements; most of the listed sources are just a smoke screen intended to provide the appearance of credibility. Praemonitus (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete- Fringe crackpottery that fails our verifiability policy. Reyk YO! 07:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fringe pseudoscience and synthesis of sources, with no support from reliable sources. Others have said it all. Begoon talk 08:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fringe garbage. — Kheider (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep This theory is older than the Big Bang Theory itself as it was developed in 1924 by Mr. Alexander Oparin in his book "The Origin of Life" in reference number 3. It is not original research. If the people who are requesting deletion even bothered to actually read the sources they would know this. Wavyinfinity (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Oparin, the biochemist? The citation you refer to is supposed to support the sentence "The conclusion of stellar metamorphosis is that we observe many stars in different stages of evolution, and we interact with one a daily basis as the Earth itself is a black dwarf star." Could you help me with a page number in the pdf as I can't find the part that supports that sentence...
There's a passage where he likens planetary formation and cooling to star formation, even using the term "yellow star", but that's just a reflection of some thinking in the 1920s, from a biochemist... It certainly doesn't support the sentence it is placed after, and is, in fact, a fine example of misuse of a source.
You could maybe use that source in another article to support a statement about what some 1920s scientists believed, provided you clarified that current scientific thinking had moved far beyond that, and that Mr. Oparin was not an astronomer or astrophysicist. I'm not even really sure that would be at all useful, but using it like this is utterly inappropriate.
It's been a useful example of why this 'article' is synthesis and OR, so thanks for that, but it doesn't help much otherwise. Begoon talk 11:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Page 18 for those who propose deleting without actually researching anything, "There was a time when the Earth, too, was passing through the same stage of development as the Sun, namely that of being a yellow star. Later, as it gradually radiated its heat outwards into the cold interplanetary space, it became cooler and cooler. It turned from a yellow star into a red one, its light became dimmer and dimmer and finally went out altogether. The Earth became a dark planet." I hope that helps the censorship process along well. It has been known for some time the Earth is a dying star, since 1924.Wavyinfinity (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that's the passage I assumed you must mean, so no need for me to amend my comments. Cheers. Begoon talk 14:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Concerning about what some 1920s scientist believed? So you mean Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Darwin's Theory of Evolution which was developed before the 1920s isn't worthy of science either based off that logic. What is your true purpose here? You are not making any sense. Not to mention on the nebular hypothesis it states quite clearly that the formation of giant planets is still a mystery and stellar metamorphosis solves that problem. So both the 1920's argument and the more advanced understanding are both bunk as the nebular hypothesis was conjured up in the 1700's back when people didn't even have electric lights. Wavyinfinity (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I moved your comment from inside mine, maybe you didn't see the advice in my previous edit summary. Please read WP:INDENT and WP:TPG and follow the correct posting format. Thanks. Other than pointing out that you dropped the 's' from scientists where you roughly 'quoted' me, I can only apologise that you don't feel I'm making sense. I shan't confuse you any more. All the best. Begoon talk 00:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
A new article would basically need to start from scratch since the current article violates several policies. There is little value in userfying this version. Rather they should consider writing a new article when the sources appear, otherwise they'll just have a stale draft in their userspace. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The original research policy is bunk, the man who developed this understanding is already dead as noted above. The fringe policy is bunk because this theory is developed by three independent sources, two in scientific publishing, and one on a .edu site. Which other policies did it violate? It isn't user friendly? Sure it is. There are more papers written by these two individuals and literature exists in reference to non-equilibrium thermodynamics that has yet to be touched upon. This is a genuine scientific theory, albeit alternative, that needs to have its say regardless of what people vote. Censoring this would be a tragedy of the human spirit. Wavyinfinity (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Being on a .edu doesn't make something intrinsically reliable. The sources which mention your fringe theory are not reliable and not scientifically published, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I read the references carefully. The theory fits the classic definition of fringe science (or "anti-establishment" if you prefer.) This is not to say that the theory itself is false or useless, but just that fringe ideas don't belong on Wikipedia. We have also been through similar discussions (on fringe science) before. Thanks, Anand (talk page) 13:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: the two main images that go along with this article are also up for deletion here and here. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Request for immediate deletion: could we please move this along? User:Wavyinfinity is going crazy with the replies/attacks on other editors and has once again inserted a comment inside Begoon's comment above (removing his signature in the process) even though he was told to stop doing that earlier today. There's no point in dragging this along. Regards. Gaba (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes. If I were an admin, I would speedy delete this under G3 right now; the "theory" is that obviously wrong. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Guys, remember it's not pleasant to have an article deleted, even one like this, and User:Wavyinfinity may not have seen my previous edit summary. He's obviously not experienced posting in this format, and AFDs are harsh sometimes. He probably doesn't realise that replying to every comment in this fashion weakens his position, and should almost certainly read WP:BLUDGEON.
As a user new to editing he deserves some leeway. (Personal attacks are obviously unacceptable, though, and there's a need for more care there.) That said, I'd agree there's not really any doubt about the result, but AFD is what it is, and often these things just rumble along like this. My personal solution will be to not waste any more time here, having already spent more time on it than I would wish. Cheers. Begoon talk 00:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete: Lacks notability and is original research (which includes synthesis from the page creator). Lacks reliable sources. "General Science Journal" is not peer-reviewed ("The original and continued purpose of these pages is to provide an opportunity for public presentation of scientific theories without prior and arbitrary assessment, criticism or rejection by the recipient."). Neither is viXra ("We will not prevent anybody from submitting and will only reject articles in extreme cases of abuse, e.g. where the work may be vulgar, libellous, plagiaristic or dangerously misleading.")
I read the 1924 paper, but as noted by Begoon, Oparin was a biochemist, and it does not appear that he was trying to advance a new theory of Earth origins. His main point was in trying to describe the conditions that life would have originated under if it originated on Earth, and in doing so he describes science as it was understood by those at the time. Here's an example on page 5: "There was a time when, according to the views now generally accepted among scientists, the Earth was a white-hot ball. Astronomy, geology, mineralogy and other exact sciences provide evidence for this and it is beyond doubt." Did he then misconstrue that to mean other scientists thought that Earth was a cooled star, or did that represent the mainstream position of the day, or was he advancing a new theory? If it's the first, then it isn't notable. If it's the second, that is notable and it should be easy to find reliable sources supporting this, and the Wikipedia page on planets could be updated with theory. If it's the last, it isn't notable unless other sources can be found. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Can someone WP:SNOW this? We all know it's going to be deleted, but in the meanwhile we are misinforming a large number of people: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The cleanup notice at the top of the article provides sufficient warning. Praemonitus (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move Suggest the article be cleaned up, summarized and moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology. The theory is based on the work of a well respected scientist. Although it is not a mainstream theory, at its core it is a legitimate theory worthy of note. It stands out from its peers as a theory of Earth's origin based upon biological requirements rather than astronomical models. Only the parts that acurately reflect the theory as put forth by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Oparin should be maintained. Magicjava (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
It is unclear that this is a theory "based on the work of a well respected scientist", as I outlined in my delete vote. The single reliable source for "Oparin's" theory referenced so far is ambiguous in this matter. More reliable sources need to be found for both notability and verifiability. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I may have been a bit unclear in my first post. I think that only a reference to Oparin's work should be kept and moved to Alt Cosmo. The Stellar metamorphosis theory page should be deleted and not moved to alt cosmo. As to Oparin considering the Earth to have been a star, I think he is very explicit on it being both a yellow and red star in the past. See the Origin of Life PDF page 18 paragraphs 5, 7, and 8, and page 19 paragraph 5. In all four he refers to earth as once being a star.Magicjava (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that that's his idea. It seems to me he is simply repeating, somewhat ineptly, what some astronomers thought at the time. Again, he was a biochemist, not an astronomer, so even if it were his theory, it would not be, as Gaba says below, of any special significance, especially considering that it lead nowhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
See below for my main reply. But I am interested in the idea that the earth being a star was taken from others. Do we have links to any books or papers that support that? I ask because I'm interested in learning more about the background to Oparin's theory. Magicjava (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
No, Non-standard cosmology deals with alternate views of the formation of the Universe, this article is about stellar evolution. Also, this "well respected scientist" was a biologist and this is definitely not a "legitimate theory worthy of note" in the astrophysical field. At this point it's neither legitimate nor worthy of note. We are doing a great disservice to WP and its readers by keeping this crap around. Gaba (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Oparin's theory on stellar evolution makes direct statements about the formation of the universe, namely that it is older than the Standard Model would indicate as the standard model does not provide enough time for a star to cool to a planet. Further, his theory on stellar evolution directly informed his theory on life on Earth, which is one of the more noteworthy theories of the 20th century. So it seems to me to be relevant to Alt Cosmo and noteworthy. And, to repeat part of my above comment for clarity, I think that only a reference to Oparin's work should be kept and moved to Alt Cosmo. The Stellar metamorphosis theory page should be deleted and not moved to Alt Cosmo.Magicjava (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
← PREV Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite
© 2010~2021 SCS-INC.US 		NEXT →