Talk:Omega Point (Tipler)

message: Tim Shuba is deleting links to articles, while giving the edit summary of "remove some of the spam" . As was explained in the above section "Inappropriate edits by Tim Shuba", those links are not spam. Further, two of those deleted links were to PDF files, which do not contain any free-host generated ads, and one was to an HTML file hosted on theophysics.host56.com, which does not at this time place ads. As was explained in said section, none of the Theophysics website links are spam, because ads that may appear on some Theophysics hosts are put there by the free host in order for the host to pay for its free services, and the website creator does not make any money off of such ads.
Tim Shuba states in said above section that "a personal site like this should not generally be a reference", thereby demonstrating extreme confusion as to the Scholarly Method. None of the sources come from the Theophysics website. Copies of some sources may be hosted on that website, but they didn't come from it, and the Theophysics website is never cited as a reference in the article.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop adding new sections and simply comment on the one above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Shuba is improperly deleting article links 

message: Tim Shuba has deleted large swaths of the article , in the process making the article incoherent, e.g., the "Physics" section previously contained Prof. Tipler's explanation as to why he maintains the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist, and now the section contains no explanation of why Tipler maintains that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.
The section "The Omega Point and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything" previously contained an important explanation by Tipler as to why he in part maintains that the Feynman-Weinberg-DeWitt quantum gravity theory is correct, which Tim Shuba deleted.
One of Tim Shuba's edits also violates WP:Citing_sources#Citation_styles, i.e., his reformatting of Prof. Deutsch's book-reference in the "Physics books dealing with the Omega Point Theory" section.
Tim Shuba has not engaged in a discussion about these specific edits beforehand, and hence has not attempted to justify them beyond his non sequitur edit summaries. Tim Shuba has previously stated his dislike of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory on this Talk page, calling it a "highly fringe theory" in violation of WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources, and calling me "fanatical" for insisting that Wikipedia policy be upheld.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop adding new sections and simply comment on the one above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing by Tim Shuba 

message: As there is consensus to make improvements to this article to improve readability and bring it into line with policy, I have begun trimming OR and removing synthesis, over quoting of Tipler, etc. However, as I get deeper, I note the article is mostly built on primary sources (Tipler), and actual independent WP:RS are few. Also, there is a problem with deliberate conflation of sources - e.g. a source having mentioned the omega point as a general term in physics is made to seem as if that source supports Tipler's theist interpretation in particular. As Tipler's Omega Point theory has not received the kind of notice we generally require to devote a separate article to, it may be that after sufficient improvements are made, the best course is WP:AFD and redirect Omega Point (Tipler) to Frank J. Tipler. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree.  I had thought to suggest Omega Point as a better parent however that appears to be a somewhat different concept though with it's own (possibly misplaced) section on this same concept.  Your idea might be best. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:FRINGE Tipler's version of "Omega Point" should receive far less coverage than mainstream understandings of the term. Three articles that describe Tipler's claims at length may be 2 too many. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The consensus over at Omega Point is that they really are quite distinct concepts with essentially no overlap and I tend to agree.  I think maybe that section over there should go away and a disambiguation redirect be added over to wherever this ends up, I might raise it over there. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article may fail [[WP:N]] 

message: In wanting to improve the section on Tipler's religious conclusions, I was trying to find where Tipler addresses the multiplicity of gods argument but got a little lost.  Could you (succinctly) reference a section where he explicitely concludes that non-Christian religions couldn't be a valid interpretation of his OPT?  So far I just see that he has an OT quote but that is valid for all the Abrahamic religions as well as any religion with a "god as universe" concept which includes Hinduism and lots of others, probably he's addressed this somewhere I can't find but I bet you know where to look. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something Jamie can help with 

message: I started taking a look at this article after it was listed at WP:RFPP. At that time there appeared to be a dispute over the use of "", "" and "" tags, and the ":Category:Pseudoscience" One editor strongly objected to the tags and category; at least two editors strongly supported the tags and category. 
As a way of resolving whether :Category:Pseudoscience was appropriate I posted at WP:FTN. A regular from that board, LuckyLouie, responded  and . No other regular has commented negatively on LuckyLouie's analysis, which appears broadly in line with prior objections to the article.
In addition to LuckyLouie, several other editors have now commented here. Their views appear broadly in line with prior objections to the article.
I believe there is a strong consensus for the inclusion of the disputed tags and category.
TFOWR 09:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is mostly a topic for bored smalltalk. Notable as such, I suppose. What do you want, it was the 1980s. I think this can well be merged into the author's bio. I think it could be interesting to examine this for possible influence on science fiction literature in the 1990s. Stuff by Peter F. Hamilton could be more or less directly inspired. It is ridiculous to try and create a "controversy" over the status of this stuff in "real science". It's a thought experiment, or one authors musings on interpretation of  quantum mechanics. This sort of thing was popular 20 years ago, see also quantum mysticism, Deepak Chopra etc.  --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a number of improvements, removing the lengthy explanations sourced to Tipler, etc. At this point we can begin to evaluate the article: is it suitable to be expanded with secondary sourced material, or should it be redirected to a main article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

text: All those bare assertion accusations of pseudoscience are antiscientific, as they all violate the Scientific Method, since Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in many science journals, including in a number of the world's leading physics journals. So Tipler's Omega Point Theory has many times undergone the process of the Scientific Method. Whereas all of the examples of accusations of pseudoscience occur in non-refereed sources, and hence have not undergone the process of the Scientific Method.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: Removed this diagram as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It also fails WP:VER as a verifiably accurate "diagram of the multiverse formulation of the Omega Point based upon the below works by Prof. Frank J. Tipler". An anonymous artist granting copyright is not a reliable source for information regarding Tipler's theories.  - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, based upon that standard, virtually every diagram on Wikipedia would have to be removed. Nor is that diagram WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, since everything in that diagram can be found in Tipler's works.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My biggest objection to the diagram is WP:OR, in that it's one editor's interpretation of Tipler's theory, and it omits some of the more eccentric religious elements found in similar diagrams published by Tipler. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Omega-Point-Multiverse.png