Talk:Redshift quantization

message: Ian, the article is under development. Don't be a dick and remove quotes when you can tag them with the uncited point. --ScienceApologist 11:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They weren't quotes, they were statements, and until they are verified, they are your own personal point of view. --Iantresman 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't remove them, as the article is still under development. --ScienceApologist 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't be a dick

message: I've restored the See also links on the grounds the both subjects are related to redshift. --Iantresman 17:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not good enough justification. --ScienceApologist 22:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reply is not a good enough justification either --Iantresman 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something is related to redshift doesn't mean it belongs in a see also list of this section. --ScienceApologist 09:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored See also links

message: * Can anyone confirm whether "Redshift discretization" is a synonymous term for redshift quantization? See     --Iantresman 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar terms

message: ScienceApologist, just wondering why you removed the following:
:John C. Hodge concluded that "evidence is increasing that the discrete or periodic nature of redshift is genuine." (ref: Hodge, John C., "Scalar potential model of redshift and discrete redshift" (2006) New Astronomy, Volume 11, Issue 5, p. 344-35)
--Iantresman 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editorially, Hodge, who is not a researcher of this phenomenon is extemporaneously evaluating a subject for the purpose of setting up a different analysis. As such, his statement doesn't represent a researched position but a starting assumption. It is misleading to the readers to pretend that this is somehow indicative of the current research trends in astrophysics. Therefore, by WP:NPOV#Undue weight, this comment is rightly excluded. What's more, his paper isn't even about evaluating the subject, it's about coming up with a theory assuming redshift quantization is correct. --ScienceApologist 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's consistent as far as the context of the subject goes. The report by creationists of the subject is a verifable way in which the subject is introduced to many. The evaluation of the subject is, however, only relevant to the person making the evaluation. If we were to include the musings of Answers in Genesis about redshift quantization, that would also not be appropriate. --ScienceApologist 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of citation

message: Ian claimed that he reinstated the full quote. It is not the full quote. Ian also did not justify why this quote is worthy of inclusion on this page. Therefore I removed it until there is some indication that prose describing this disclaimer is necessary for the subject. --ScienceApologist 16:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper edit summary

message: *The text says (second paragraph) "Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have produced no evidence of quantization in excess of what is expected due to galaxy clustering".
*History of Science professor, Virginia Trimble, et al, in their report on astrophysics for 2006, report that "An assortment of examples of quantized redshifts: Godlowski et al. (2006) on the Local Group; Bell and McDiarmid (2006) concerning SDSS QSOs (46,400 of them, so poor statistics is probably not an issue). The latter is contradicted by Tang and Zhang (2005), who include Bell in their acknowledgements, making them good guys in our simple classification scheme. (p.173) ["Ref]
*Is she not saying that Bell and McDiarmid,(ref) have published SDSS-sourced evidence supporting quantized redshifts, whereas Tang and Zhang have published SDSS-sourced contradictory evidence? In which case our statement of the current state of affairs suggesting there has been "no evidence" is wholly misleading? --Iantresman 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent surveys

message: The writer of the last section is quite correct. This article contained numerous examples of statements that were often in directly contravention of the supposed citation.
I have tried to fix the FIVE examples of this that I found.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.6.86 (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you have done is promote an uncritical view of fringe science. This is not acceptable. ScienceApologist 14:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I did was make the wording in the section match the actual content of the cited sources. The discussion of the Bell 2006 paper is particularly far afield from the paper's content. Please see these sources for yourself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.6.86 (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you remove links to papers that were critical of quantization papers?  For example, the Bell and McDairmid paper did not consider SDSS selection effects (see the note you removed about Schneider et al. 2007), and thus their entire paper is suspect (this should probably be noted in the intro, if you are going to mention Bell there).  You also removed the citation of Tang & Zhang at the beginning, where I believe it belongs.  I agree with ScienceApologist here: your edits appear to be promoting this fringe idea, while brushing away any criticisms.  The introduction needs to make it clear that this is well beyond the mainstream. - 66.92.54.142 14:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored them. 71 is just trying to push an uncritical POV. That's forbidden per WP:NPOV. ScienceApologist 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quite good criticism 

message: And this article, from the first line, does not seem to understand the difference.
In the scientific method, observation precedes making a hypothesis to explain those observations, usually followed by corroborating tests to validate them.  No hypothesis has been put forward by anyone as a POSSIBLE EXPLANATION of the quantization of redshifts.
This is some really basic science vocabulary this article seems to be lacking, and not the sort of thing you expect to find in an encyclopedia.Danshawen (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... Not a bad point, but I'm not sure what word is better. The point is that some people thought redshifts were quantified ("they hypothesized that...", combining observations and some rather shoddy math), but it turns out they were wrong. Do you have suggestions for better wording? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Observation is not the same as a Hypothesis 

message: Here is the answer:
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/05/30/seeing-red/
Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the quantization of redshift observed by Tifft disappears completely.
I submit this article needs to be updated with discussion from the above article and from this referenced peer reviewed paper:
Su Min Tang and Shuang Nan Zhang. Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data. ApJ 633 41 (2005) doi:10.1086/432754
neither of which are based on crank astronomy or creation science.Danshawen (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Tang and Zhang is mentioned. I agree that it and Schneider should be more prominent, since once you account for known systematic effects in modern redshift surveys, any hint of quantization disappears. Not sure if the blog counts as a reliable source (general wikipedia policy), but one could use it as a guide. Want to try a rewrite? - Parejkoj (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Authoritative Surviving Treatment of the Quantization of Redshifts NOT Associated with Creation Science 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Redshift quantization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020112037/http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/SeeingRedBlurb.htm to http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/SeeingRedBlurb.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The equation given in the section "Karlsson's formula" is incorrect, it doesn't give the values quoted a few lines lower. The source [24] states that the separation between the peaks is 0.089 in log(1+z) but they are not exact multiples as suggested in this article. The stated redshifts of 0.061, 0.30, 0.60, etc. can be recovered by the equation: log10(1+z)=0.089n-0.0632. I have modified the equation accordingly but I'm nort sure if this would be seen as "original" because it follows directly from the explicit values given in the source and repeated in the article. George Dishman (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect equation based on the external source