Talk:Pleochroic halo

message: What are the sources for this page?  As of 7 Feb 2005 I see none.  This is especially troublesome consider duplicate pages elsewhere on the web (i.e. http://www.freetemplate.ws/ra/radiohalo.html ).  Could someone add sources here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Custer (talk • contribs) 14:29, 7 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I am thinking about changing the article to include the person who originally thought of the idea of SHE in relation to radio halos back in 1973.  The term "anomalous radiohalos" is also a little vague.  If I include the original source of this idea I think it would help everyone to understand the subject better, and the article the author published is also viewable for free online which is always nice.  If there are any objections let me know here. EMSPhydeaux (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anomalous Radiohalos 

message: Hmm...now here is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack being accepted as a scientific refutation of the evidence. Interesting, very interesting. Whenever I find such attacks to be the first and foremost in the line of debate, I always get the feeling that there must be some good science at the heart of the issue being attacked by this logical fallacy, as any real argument would be made directly at the science and the evidence.BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was repetition: the previous but one sentence says "claims of creationist Robert V. Gentry[1] that radiohalos in biotite are evidence for a young earth (Gentry 1992)" and the deleted sentence said "let the science speak for itself" - which is the same thing and adds nothing to the more specific earlier sentence. Adding a citation to the earlier sentence is helpful Babakathy (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, nice sidestep. Its really not that big of an issue, in fact, I kind of like the fact that those of us who are still thinking outside the status quo are referred to negatively by the rest of the "scientific" community; It puts us right along side Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, and Galileo--an honor we have not yet earned.BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do yourself and everyone else a favour by actually reading the article. The case you are trying to make is made clearly in the last-but-one sentence. Your sentence simply said the same thing for a second time. Also, please read some of the links on radiohalos. Or links I showed you at Talk:Radiometric_dating. For example this explains that the halos can be caused by decay of U to Ra to Po and not represent original Po in the rock. In such cases there is nothing surprising about them. Direct quote In uranium ore-fields the extra uranium provides an abundant source of inert radon gas; and it is this gas that diffuses in ambient fluids so that incipient biotite and fluorite crystallization is exposed to it. Radon (222Rn) decays and Po isotopes nucleate in the rapidly growing biotite (and fluorite) crystals whence they are positioned to produce the Po halos.Babakathy (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: creationist "pseudoscience"

message: Under "External Links", an anonymous editor changed "Favoring a young earth interpretation" to "Non-Scientific Sites".  I'm sorry, but that's clearly POV.  The other subheader "Disputing a young earth interpretation" was changed to "External links" which is redundant, given that the subheader is under the "External Links" header.  If someone wants to change these headers, that's fine, but we shouldn't change them in such a way as to insert our own POV.  I've never seen "Non-scientific" in the link section on any other wiki page talking about creationism.  That's just blatant POV-pushing. Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links POV 

message: The article currently contains this statement: "(According to the standard theory, beta particles do not discolour the rock, although Baillieul (2005) suggests the need to reexamine the possible role of beta emission.)"
This seems to be unnecessary, and lacking support from mainstream science.  I propose we remove this conjecture.  Any objections?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMSPhydeaux (talk • contribs) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not yet read Baillieul (2005), but procedurally it should be read thoroughly before reverting text based on a cited source. It is preferable that a cited sourced be used to improve the article rather than simply reverting. Babakathy (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've read it: Gentry "discounted the possibility that beta particles may play a role in coloration changes within minerals; however, neither author gives a basis for this rejection beyond the erroneous statement that beta particle energies are too low to have any affect. High energy beta particles have the well documented ability to break molecular bonds. Combinations of alpha and beta decay particles, beta particles alone, or some completely non-radioactive process may be the cause of the observed mineral discoloration haloes." Point appears to be B says G ignored beta particles erroneously. Babakathy (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the point he was trying to make, but this isn't even about "B" and "G;" this is about the cause of a natural phenomena.  By saying "B" said something about this natural phenomena we are essentially putting the opinion of some guy who wrote a page on a website up at the same level as scientists who have done the research, and published their results in peer-review articles.  I think we can agree that we do not want to do this.  I suggest one of two things needs to happen: (1) We need to remove the statement, or (2) we need to provide a more reputable source than an article on a website.  Am I wrong here?EMSPhydeaux (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta Decay 

message: Relevance (and basis) of Schnier's work unclear: it is only relevant here if it provides new facts or interpretations of radiohaloes. Gentry postulated some SHEs might explained radholaoes and apparently  Schnier's work says more about SHEs but for this article we need to know whether Schnier has anything to say about SHEs and radiohaloes - otherwise put the material on the Superheavy element page. Babakathy (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to that journal, so I tried not to alter it.  I'm willing to bet that Schnier's work is pretty much a rehash of Gentry's; maybe we should simply remove Schnier, and provide references to more of Gentry's publications on this subject as they are more easily accessible.  I was curious as to the reason the word giant was removed.  The fact that they are giant halos could prove to be important.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Superheavy element]]s 

message: I propose we make the page name pleochroic halos rather than radiohalos for the following reasons:
1) Pleochroic halo is a descriptive term about the observed phenomenon, while radiohalo indicates something about the commonly accepted theory of their generation (which could change... cause this is science).  Therefore pleochroic halo will always be accurate, while radiohalo may at sometime become obsolete if a new theory of generation is commonly accepted.
2) At least the US geologic community prefers the term 'pleochroic halo' (this is the first place I have heard it referred to as such, and I'm a geology graduate student).  However, as this page is British, the case may be different there.
3)  'Radiohalo' sounds like radio waves (low energy photons), when the radioactive damage is actually caused by β particles (He nuclei) and some γ rays (high energy photons).
However if it does not please the community to change the name, please at least put a redirect page from the term 'pleochroic halo' 130.39.188.140 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hum, there's already a redirect? See pleochroic halo. As for the name of this article, wikipedia guideline says essentially "use the most common name". I don't know which of the radiohalo or pleochroic halo is most used, so I can't be of help here. Also radiohalo refers to radioactivity, not radio waves. I don't reall have an opinion on what should happen to this article in general. Feel free to be bold and edit the page.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this page named radiohalo rather than pleochroic halo?

message: Visual examples really help me to understand a subject. I find that their lack here makes me struggle to imagine the subject in my mind's eye. Are there no images available to use in this article or a researcher who could be approached to donate one? Thank you, and looking forward to seeing the topic, Wordreader (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micrograph? Illustration? 

message: 1. There is a total lack of inline citations. Authors: we are not psychic - provide the citations that you were thinking of when you wrote your text.
2. To me, this article provides validation of a very minor viewpoint. See: WP:Undue and note Mr Wales' feeling about this, third bulleted item: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." 
This forces me to ask, are pleochroic halos "real" phenomena or are they a creationist construct? This article, as stands, is a total befuddlement.
Discuss and correct. Thank you for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They are real phenomena, but of course if you Google "radiohaloes" you'll come up with lots and lots of creationalist bollocks that makes me sick to my stomach. Ideally, the article would simply discuss the actual phenomenon, banish all the rubbish citations from Gentry, and note in one sentence that creationists have jumped on the bandwagon, and, as typical whenever they talk about a field they don't know anything about (which, come to think of it, might as well be all of science given how much of it you have to reject to believe in young Earth creationism), did not realise the obvious: 218Po is a daughter of 222Rn, which can diffuse away in the rock, far from the uranium it was born from, and thus start another radiohalo that appears to begin from 218Po. One would have to be a complete idiot to not accept this argument once it was stated, but I suppose being a serious young Earth creationist gives one a free pass into that category. (And this is accepting that the halo is starting from 218Po, which is by no means certain.) Read this – it's mainstream and will provide a breath of fresh air. Double sharp (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags applied. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Radiohalo. 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  tag to http://www.vfmg.de/aufschluss_2-2010_Weber.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060625082326/http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview/tnb/thousands_not_billions_chapter5.htm to http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview/tnb/thousands_not_billions_chapter5.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) 11:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Leaving aside the introductory lead and trailing sections, the article has two sections: "Production" and "Creationism".
"Production" has eight lines (and a table); "Creationism" has seven lines.  This a ratio of material that is pretty close to a 50/50 balance.  Is anyone seriously claiming that the "creationism" interpretation warrants a 50/50 share with mainstream science?
A huge proportion of Wikipedia use is by intelligent lay people coming to a new subject.  What message does this 50/50 balance give to our readers?  That the creationist view and mainstream research of radiohaloes are equally credible?
Could we rework this so that it is clear to readers that the creationist view is both very small minority (which it is, isn't it?) and has no(?) serious scientific support?
Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done some reworking and consolidation of the "Creationism" section.  This also clarifies that Gentry's starting point is the young earth model in which he believes. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see an issue with your recent changes.  Thank you for working on this.  —PaleoNeonate – 05:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

text: The article actually says who suggested that: Robert Gentry. You are right that his ideas are far away from how real scientists think. You are also right that besmirching this article with creationist silliness may be inappropriate. The only excuse I can think of is that earlier versions were even worse: This is the very first. Later ones] had more details from creationist sources. Maybe it is time to say good-bye to Gentry? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I love to play Devil's Advocate with new ideas but an encyclopedia is not a "compendium of random people's ideas". If Gentry [eg a "random person" / defacto non-scientist] deserved a mention here then so would the Last Thursdayists. 01:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Chopped the Gentry stuff and refs as moved them to the Gentry article. Vsmith (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: appreciate it I didn't want to delete it out of respect for the editors above Mcslinky (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism