Talk:Hannes Alfvén

message: The article was riddled with suggestions that plasma cosmology somehow receives an imprimatur from Alfvén. It's convenient for these people to choose a dead man to be their leader, but it isn't factual. Alfvén developed the Alfvén-Klein model and ambiplasma. He also believed that plasma played a large role in the universe and wasn't understood well by astrophysicists. However, he did not endorse the work of Perrat and Lerner which represent the current codex of plasma cosmology. Nevertheless, upon coming here I found that almost every section mentioned plasma cosmology as though it were the crowning acheivement of this man's life. POV to say the least! --ScienceApologist 12:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a reminder that it is better to place a  tag into text you are not sure of, to give editors time to source a statement. Without a statement, there appears to be nothing to source. --Iantresman 16:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remember that for text I'm not sure of. --ScienceApologist 22:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plasma cosmology

message: Irregulargalaxies, above, asked for a source for "Alfven's lack of acceptance by the broader scientific community". The citation from Stephen G. Bush noted:
:    "... most of the scientific community refuses to follow it or to give Alfvén credit for his achievements although  many of his basic concepts are now accepted" (ref: Stephen G. Brush, "Alfvén's Programme in Solar System Physics". IEEE Trans. Plasma Science, Vol. 20 No. 6, Dec 1992)
Why have you removed it... and described it as a "better explanation"? --Iantresman 23:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what may or may not have been true in 1992 is definitely not true today. Alfvén's contributions to plasma processes are now part of standard disucssions in the plasma astrophysics "canon". Plasmas are studied in reference to most high-energy astrophysics processes along with shocks and special relativity. Out-of-date sources should not be used in such a way. --ScienceApologist 12:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a historical context, up to 1992, it is accurate. So Alfvén's contribution today is accepted, despite what happened just 15 years ago. --Iantresman 13:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is accurate for this person's opinion. However, in 1992 there were people studying Alfvén waves and MHD, so he obviously wasn't totally ignored. Again, this isn't the most reliable of sources. --ScienceApologist 13:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is saying he was totally ignored. And just because people were studying Alfvén waves and MHD, does not mean that other aspects of Alfvéns were not ignored, as decribed by Brush in a peer reviewed journal. --Iantresman 14:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Brush's opinion is mentioned in this journal. However, it is not indicative of what was going on in the entire community. it is the opinion of one individual. --ScienceApologist 21:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased to see that you've noted how "scientific community" is an inappropriate term here, and in many other places. Certainly most members of the scientific community do not write papers on the same subject as Alfvén, and do not referee his papers. But Bush's conclusion is more than just a single unsubstantiated opinion out of the blue, and gives many examples in his paper. So the question is, how do we represent the contents of the paper, and Brush's conclusion/opinion, fairly? --Iantresman 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to cite Alfvén's Nobel speech as our primary exposition. This will give the reader an indication of how he viewed himself with respect to the wider community. I just don't think that Brush's paper belongs in Alfvén's biography. --ScienceApologist 12:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that biographies, contain information from reliable sources, and Brush's paper fits in every way. He's one of the few commentators on Alfvén, he's peer reviewed, a "Distinguished University Professor" in the " History of Science". What possible objection can you have?  --Iantresman 12:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * No offense intended, but what you THINK, is by definition irrelevant by Wikipedia standards. Opinion does not belong in an article, whereas 'peer-reviewed' materials (articles looked at and approved for print by more than JUST the original author) DO belong in Wikipedia articles. Please SA, I know you and Ian have had differences over time. But let's try not to POV push too much. I can say this from a little bit of perspective/introspection over the last few months. I know you've pushed for "notable" sources yourself, so, please don't source only your opinion to influence articles where peer-reviewed materials have been provided by those familiar with the subject. Thanks. Again, no umbrage intended. Just a nudge toward more neutrality and less POV-pushing on all sides. Mgmirkin 06:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: ** But he was talking about whether or not the opinion in the paper should be included, at least that's how I read it, not whether or not his personal opinion (if any!) should be included. You can't include every bit of peer-reviewed material in existence in a Wikipedia article. Not all peer-reviewed materials belong in Wikipedia. Peer review may be an important condition for inclusion but it alone is not sufficient for inclusion. mike4ty4 08:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I might also point to the following article: http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1504/150412.pdf (by Falthammar & Dessler, both published and notable/respectable scientists in their own right; feel free to look them up on the Astrophysical Data System if you need a list of their various papers/abstracts.) that covers many similar points to the other biographies and post-mortem reviews of his life, works, general acceptance and verification of many aspects of his work. Being from the Proceedings of the APS (Americal Philosophical Society), one can assume that it is of sufficiently high quality to be notable (I believe I added it before, but it seems to have disappeared for reasons unknown, though I may have been thinking of another article, but I'm pretty sure I'd have added it to the Alfven article as opposed to any it's less relevant to; I hope that won't happen again without a REASON for removal noted on the talk page). And joins a number of other notable sources on the above subjects. Many of the sources tend to say much the same thing. So, in that regard, Brush's work is no better or worse than the rest and probably DOES, in fact, represent his understanding of the general community's stance on Alfven? Also, as Ian's note above and link to the university's page on Brush, it appears that he is more than qualified to assess, and in fact does on a regular basis assess the merit of works, and their general acceptance or lack there of by various disciplines / fields of research. So, I tend to agree with Ian's assessment / argument. Regardless of any association (agreements/disagreements) we may have outside of Wikipedia (don't go there), in this instance I generally find that Ian's arguments have been sound and the sources are notable. But others may feel free to disagree if they must... Mgmirkin 06:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Afvén & the broader community

message: I've edited the stub section slightly for consistency, to more actively use the active voice ("Alfven said X, Y, Z" rather than "'blah, blah, blah', as said by Alfven") so we know who said what without ambiguity. Made some minor ordering changes so it transitions more logically from his belief that the BB was a scientific myth created from equations on the blackboard to his proposal of an alternative that he believed to be based upon sound known physical phenomena as seen and verified in the lab. Hope this is a sensible revision? Mgmirkin 06:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alfven's Cosmological model, edits.

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hannes Alfvén. 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/20061123090839/http://www.alfvenlab.kth.se/hannes.html to http://www.alfvenlab.kth.se/hannes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630204317/http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1504/150412.pdf to http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1504/150412.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220073000/http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/egs/award6n.htm to http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/egs/award6n.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) 05:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hannes Alfvén. 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/20130113172001/http://libraries.ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/html/mss0225a.html to http://libraries.ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/html/mss0225a.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113172001/http://libraries.ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/html/mss0225a.html to http://libraries.ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/html/mss0225a.html
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) 07:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified