Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Universe model

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. All of that for a no consensus. :) Woohookitty 06:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Universe model

[edit]

New rationale

[edit]

New rationale for deletion: As there seems to have been some confusion as to what valid criteria for deletion are, I think it only appropriate to lay out some legitimate reasons the article should be deleted that are not given in the initial nomination:

  1. While some of the article's contents deserve to be in Wikipedia, the attempted consolidation of a wide range of concepts from normal astrophysics to crank science is plainly original research. There is no single "Electric universe model" that exists. Rather there are a lot of ideas about electricity in the universe that the article claims to be about.
  2. There is a book called "The Electric Universe" that was published and arguably could have a page in Wikipedia. But this is not a page about this book.
  3. Nor is this a page about plasma cosmology or the various Electric star ideas of Velikovsky. Instead it is a clearinghouse of these and other pretty much unrelated topics -- a disambiguation page that was made up.
  4. The page is basically a POV fork that organizes information culled from the internet to push an agenda of attacking mainstream science while keeping a lot of uncontroversial material that is unrelated to the agenda (a type of Ignoratio elenchi)
  5. There is precendent for deleting such original research articles. See, for example Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation anthropology.

Arguments about whether the idea is pseudoscience, whether this is the "cutting edge", or whether the present paradigms are wrong should have no bearing on whether any article is in an encyclopedia or not. We're here to describe ideas that exist, not to judge them. Individuals' feelings about a particular subject are irrelevent. That's the essence of NPOV as I see it.

--Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • As the author of the article, I feel I should respond to the New Rationale, corresponding to the numbered points above.
    1. As far as I know, while I have included "normal" astrophysics, I have not included any crank science. Sure some consider Velikovsky a crank, but all the article mentions is that he believed electromagnetic forces were more significant in the universe, as did Birkeland, Juergens, and others.
Whether there is or isn't crank science included is beside the point. The problem is that the article is original research and a new conglomeration. Joshuaschroeder
    1. Correct, the article is not about the book of the same name, but that is no reason to delete in itself.
The point is that while there may be justification for the book to have a page, the "model", being something that doesn't exist except in the mind of the author, doesn't have any justification for a page. Joshuaschroeder 21:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The page is very much about plasma cosmology since it is the foundation of the Electric Universe model, in the same way that the Big Bang theory is "about" astronomy. Velikovsky never had an electric star theory, though Ralph Jeurgens did; it was based on the astrophysics of Hannes Alfvén, which makes it a directly related topic, as are all the others.
This is not a correct argument as pointed out by Joke on the plasma cosmology page, serious advocates of plasma cosmology do not have any relationship or hold to the ideas of Velikobsky and electric star proponents. Joshuaschroeder 21:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The article does not attack mainstream science, in the same way that the Big Bang theory page does not "attack" religous, or non-standard cosmological points of view. Indeed, the article criiticises no-one, and no other theories.
The design of the article is to POV fork from legitimate scientific and pseudoscientific articles. Joshuaschroeder 21:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. However, if the article is considered to fall too closely into "orginal research" or "pet theories", then it goes. Ian Tresman 13 July 2005 19:00 (GMT)

Old rationale

[edit]

A slightly hesitant nomination. The article admits it is a protoscience, I am just asking for opions as to how far it ventures towards pseudoscience. Perhaps all it needs is an appropriate "controversial" boilerplate. -- RHaworth 2005 July 9 07:53 (UTC)

  • Keep I am the author of this article. I have added the Controversial boilerplate to the Discussion page. I would suggest that although the article may be considered controversial, and you may not agree with its position, this does not necessarily make it pseudoscience. Please check the article for its interest, and whether it is well constructed, and presents a good case. Arguably, all new ideas can be considered pseudoscience until they are more fully evaluated and peer reviewed. Please don't throw the baby out with the bath-water, as we say in the UK. Ian Tresman 9 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an explicit policy against original research and this article qualifies as that. Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes of course this is going to be a controversial topic. Let it be marked as "disputed" if necessary. I see great value to readers in the article: the recent Deep Impact mission to Tempel 1, which received over 1 billion hits on the NASA web site, proved the interest of people in science at the "edge" of discoveries. I think Wikipedia is doing a great job to provide people with both "established" knowledge and "emerging" knowledge. I have often learn't more about a topic by reading the lively discussion page than by reading the article itself, so even if the "debate" is moved to the discussion page, the readers can still benefit -- --Bongani 9 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)
It is misleading to say that this article represents "emerging" knowledge. It is mostly hodgepodge of facts, ideas, and internet websites. Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua it is only 12 days old! As for "facts, ideas and internet web sites" - well pretty much every Wikipedia article has those, and they aren't illegal. I do agree though with the gist of your comment that the article has a long way to go before it could be called "comprehensive" or "high quality", but if it gets deleted, it will never be given that chance. Your comment is fine as a criticism, but not as a reason for deletion.--Bongani 18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This users 4th edit-Splash 9 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)
  • Comment. The relevance is that registering usernames for the purpose of voting on VFD — or making it seem like you're doing so — is frowned upon. We've had to deal with too many sock puppets doing the exact same thing. This, of course, does not change the significance of your argument, but please keep this in mind when voting on VFD.
    And yes, if Stephen Hawking had voted after making only 4 edits, we'd be saying the same thing. --Ardonik.talk()* 08:18, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK - I understand the reasoning. My first edit was October 2004, my name is Mike Stuart ("Bongani"), my contact number is +27 11 485 2036, my email is mike@rainbowsa.co.za. And I am not a sock puppet. (I have not edited much yet on Wikipedia, but am a frequent browser of both article and talk pages; I also run my own Wiki on skills development] in South Africa, and am the editor of the Skills Development Guide and National Training Directory publications). --Bongani 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ardonik said it exactly. I did notice that your edits were spread out, but just occasionally an account is compromised (or a user goes off the rails). Seeing as your vote is evidently in good-faith and the rest of the VfD does not seem to be overflowing with sock/meat puppets, I imagine (but don't promise — that's for the closing admin and there is some funny stuff going on at the bottom of the page) that your vote will be counted along with the rest. -Splash 18:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This theory is obviously pseudoscience, although I suppose it could be kept as long as it is made clear that this is simply not accepted by mainstream science at all. 64.223.120.40 9 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep'. I can see this being expanded further though the creator needs to go through and summarize some of the points from the links. WP is not a link repository. It would be much more helpful if there was more information regarding the theories/ideas. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 10:41 (UTC)
But it is a misrepresented article. There is no such thing as an "Electric Universe model". There is only a bunch of websites and a book with the title "The Electric Universe". Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. So far I haven't seen a single argument why this article should be deleted?! There is no Wikipedia policy to limit articles to (mainstream) science. This appears to be a sufficiently notable topic to be in the encyclopedia. VfD is not the forum to discuss NPOV disputes. --Moritz 9 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Useless psuedoscience: the Sun and stars are powered by an external electric current... is nonsense. Also non-notable (try google): this is essentially someones pet theory they are pushing. William M. Connolley 2005-07-09 11:36:53 (UTC).
    • I did try google, and I'm getting >50k results for "electric universe". The question remains how many of those are related, "electric universe model" only gives 500 results, furthermore Google results aren't perfect for determining notability. (If someone has further insights regarding notability, I'd be very interested in them?if the guy turns out to be the only one interested in this I will change my vote.) Useless pseudoscience (not that I necessarily disagree!) is not a reason for VfD, unless the article is total nonsense/gibberish which it is not. It is someone pushing his pet theory, but that, too, isn't a reason for deletion as far as I am aware.--Moritz 9 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)
      • Hi Moritz - if you do a search for "'electric universe' + plasma" you get 6,240 results (not sure how to find out how many of those are unique - anyone?) What this means to me is not that the model is gospel truth, but just that it is relevant to be offering it as an article on Wikipedia from the perspective of reader interest. --Bongani 19:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are parts of this article that can be saved, but the article itself is about a nonsubject Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fast growing non-subject': Moritz's Google search mentioned just above which yielded 500+ results for "electric universe model" 10 days ago, now yields 973 results, an increase of 194%. Will we decide to delete a topic on Wikipedia that represents a fast growing field of interest just because it offends mainstream science? I personally would not have a problem with it appearing under the heading of "pseudoscience", if that makes the mainstream science people feel more safe, but lets not censor the information from being available to the public. --Bongani 18:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I tend to agree with William M. Connolley jamesgibbon 9 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
  • sigh Okay, look. True, it's not gibberish, not per se. But it's damn close to original research, and... to quote Wolfgang Pauli, "this isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

I'm willing to grant Ian Tresman the benefit of the doubt as to his good intentions (his webpage indicates that he's a really cool guy), but I don't think the article's creator should get a vote, really, because creating the article can be considered a vote in itself. I've read this. This is a mishmash of unconnected observations and extrapolations from long-outdated hypotheses (Birkeland was dead by the time fusion was discovered, wasn't he?), leading to unwarranted conclusions and largely-unfalsifiable claims - and citing Immanuel Velikovsky, even if only as an inspiration, is never a good thing. Specifying that "(they) would not necessarily have endorsed the EUModel themselves" is a nice touch, though - plausible deniability. Science likes new ideas. Science loves new ideas. And finding a hidden connection between two observations which had previously been thought completely unrelated is always really cool. But here, there's.... nothing. Yes, electricity is important in the universe, but this isn't really saying anything. DeleteDS 9 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

  • Delete. Of those 500 Google hits correctly reported by -Moritz, only 71 are unique. Thus non-notable and, as other voters have said, this article doesn't offer anything encyclopedic. Also, it is extremely close to original research. -Splash 9 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)
  • Merge with plasma cosmology. --Christopher Thomas 9 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep A few centuries ago, most of the statements of today's science, as well as their authors' heads, would have been granted a Strong Delete, for the simple reason that they attempted to understand questions unanswered by the paradigm of those times. There are questions - many questions - which today's science cannot answer, and it is reasonable to assume that some of the reasons lie in the paradigms which underlie it. The concept of an electric universe, which I have looked into for quite a while, is a truly scientific theory in that it asks the kind of questions that other scientific views (those views which happen to dominate the trends of our century) are paradigmatically blind to. I see Wikipedia as the true Encyclopedia (Diderot's, that is) of our time; "mutatis mutandis", I do not think that it is Wikipedia's role in history to inflict on Ian Tresman what was inflicted on Galileo -- 83.94.159.146 9 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)
    • You don't know much about what happened to Galileo, do you. It's not that he said "the Earth goes around the Sun", it's that he said "the Earth goes around the Sun, and the Pope (who is paying for all this) is an idiot". Galileo's problem wasn't that he was right, it was that he was an asshole. Even more important, though, he was right. Modern science is always willing to accept a new idea if there's a compelling reason to do so. DS 9 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
      • I take exception to that characterization. Some would say that Urban VIII was horribly thin-skinned to have taken Galileo's writings so personally, and that, in any case, subjecting a once-close friend to the Inquisition is inexcusable. And Galileo was correct in asserting that he was entitled, by prior decree, to teach whatever hypotheticals he wished. The 1994 apology from John Paul II was not merely an admission of the scientific truth of Galileo's work, but also a recognition that his prosecution was unjust under canon law of the time. Xoloz 06:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thin-skinned? He called the guy arguing the church side Simplicio! This is after the pope granted him permission to write the dialog only if he argued both sides. The only way to insult the pope more would be too literally pee on him. gkhan 12:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - moderately notable nutcase physics. Article needs to say that it's full of shit though. -- Cyrius|✎ 9 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:49 (UTC)
  • Keep This model explains much that has been discovered recently in astrophysics and cosmology. It deserves to be available for review, appraisal and honest discussion, not swept under the rug. Ken Moss 9 July 2005 11:40(UTC) (Comment by 24.69.255.205.)
    • In order: No it doesn't, no it doesn't (unless you can prove it?), and no it doesn't - it deserves to be carefully excised and disposed of. 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--We have an article on creationism on this site which is obviously a load of BS so why not about an actual scientific theory?--Boyinabox 9 July 2005
  • Keep It's a load of BS, but it doesn't qualify as original research since it was a theory apparently proposed by Velikovsky, who is well known. It should be separate from Plasma cosmology which is theory actually proposed by a notable physicist. –Joke137 20:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about this? The V page sez Of all the strands of his work, Velikovsky published least on his ideas regarding the role of electromagnetism in astronomy and then goes on to say he abandoned but disciples took it up. Is a minor discarded V theory really worth including? William M. Connolley 21:29:27, 2005-07-09 (UTC).
  • Delete (see Talk:Electric Universe model) If this is not a page about the theory due to Velikovsky, then I say axe it, unless a clear distinction can be made between it and the Plasma cosmology theory. –Joke137 23:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pseudoscientific babble, by the looks of it. Unless of course we can get some references to peer-reviewed papers in reputable journals? --StoatBringer 00:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor pseudoscientific theory. No peer-review papers in reputable journals, and few google hits either. Salsb 02:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a real theory. An idea worthy of mention. maclean25 08:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Splash. Additionally, the article doesn't really explain the theory, so much as reference outside sources for it. Xoloz 08:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The box at the top of the article that says "this article is controversial, ..., not excepted by mainstream science, ..." is a good start, but it needs "this theory is complete crap". Non-notable crackpottery. Quale 08:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep [Double vote by anon] The history of science is littered with stories of broken careers (and worse) of scientists or talented autodidacts who propose new explanations for phenomena where a well-developed paradigm is in operation. Unfortunately, in scientific research, just as in any other sphere of life, personal egos, power and prejudice play an important role in sustaining a current theory and defending it from question and attack, ironically often through the very “ peer review” procedures that are meant to control the quality and “originality” of technical articles.
    • If the history of science is littered with stories of broken careers and worse, then surely you can supply them. I'll admit that scientists are humans, and that egos and politics can influence the outcome of science. Case in point, Deutsche Physik - which was the result of the government interfering in science, not in scientists deciding independently to exclude huge amounts of new discoveries on ideological grounds. Science goes with what works. Since this doesn't work - and it doesn't- it gets rejected. DS 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, one can find more articles relating to Electric Universe topics in the journals of plasma physics, than in the journals of cosmoslogy or astrophysics, where one would assume they would be extremely relevant. I believe this is due to the fact that there are some very powerful scientists with a vested interest in protecting the theories which they themselves have contributed to building up. And these people are exactly those who typically form a peer review board. People like Kristian Birkeland and Halton Arp are often viewed as heretics by cosmologists that perhaps find electrical forces an unwelcome element in their elegant equations.
Scientists will, and do, admit that their entire theoretical framework has been based on a flawed premise if you show them a good reason. There's a story about an old scientist attending a conference, listening to a speaker, and then approaching the man afterwards and saying "Thank you! I have been wrong these past twenty years!" To quote Carl Sagan, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." Give us a good reason to accept the Electric Universe model, and then we'll see. Also, "very powerful scientists"? What planet are you living on? And "heretics"? Do you think people are going to get burned at the stake for this? Excommunicated from the laboratories?DS 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh.
I think I will skip the historical examples. Although at the moment we don't seem to be burning our heretics, we certainly do a good job at exiling them. And I don't define power only at the scale of certain world powers. Science certainly has its hierarchies and its own internal power structure.
Among our contemporaries, we could start with Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons - one of the examples that actually made it into the world's media mill.
(you mean the frauds?)
Or Halton Arp, mentioned in my original posting; ask him why his office is at the Max-Planck Institute in Germany...
The world of medical research is a rich area to look at when looking for exiled scientists, below just a couple of the better known:
[Jacques Benveniste], [Peter Duesberg]
Jacques Benveniste's work could not be replicated, even by his own coworkers - and that's just the more straightforward ultra-dilution work, and not his "digitized antigen" idiocy. You're citing an experiment which was at best tangentially related. And the Duesberg hypothesis is bullshit. It'd be great if it wasn't, but it is. Not the best comparisons for a proponent to make.


And whatever you do, don't get labelled as an anti-Darwinist:
[John Davison]
Read his page - both his sad story about what happened to his salary (and he seems to have labeled himself an anti-Darwinist), and his manifesto. It tries to be good science, but it's not. Just like the Electric Universe model, oddly enough.
Or a too independent scientist:
[Ted Steele and others] [Jeff Schmidt]
Jeff Schmidt got clotheslined by office politics that had nothing to do with science. The link you supplied doesn't explain much about Ted Steele, although that seems to be corporate bullshit which had nothing to do with science.
Anyone with a bit of curiosity can find lots of examples, and I don't think it would serve any point in this particular forum to follow this argument further.
It seems to me that the argument isn't that we shouldn't cover nonsense, it is that this particular bit of nonsense represents original research. Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant you that.
Scientific talent also falls on a Gaussian distribution curve and for the majority at the mean, those outside two standard deviations can appear as unacceptably different. Human nature, being what it is, will be prone to attacking the “deviant”, particularly if the individual is not a member of an established group. jd 05:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Science picks and chooses, based on what works. Weird new ideas are accepted if they work, which means not just "making sense relative to other pre-existing ideas", but "making sense relative to the observed facts".
I trust people can still remember the response Alfred Wegener received from the eminent Lord Kelvin and Sir Harold Jeffreys regarding Wegener's hypothese of continental drift. Wegener perhaps hadn't been able to postulate a workable mechanism, but the experts of the time were more than happy, often through vehement ridicule of Wegner, to throw the baby (idea of continental drift) out with the bathwater (lack of a workable mechanism) instead of taking the time to consider the matter with any seriousness, delaying the paradigm shift until Vine and Matthews landmark 1963 paper unleashed the floodgates.
And you know what? Although mocking him may have been cruel, as long as Wegener had no idea of how continental drift could work, rejecting it was right. The mere fact that the maps fit together nicely wasn't enough. He later turned out to be correct, a mechanism was suggested for how it could happen, various other consequences were predicted which were tested and proven right, and once those' things were done, Wegner was vindicated. And remember - just because Wegner was mocked, and later turned out to be right, that doesn't mean that other people who are mocked will turn out to be right also. 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course I agree with your statement in bold. However, one should hope that an idea could be published and soberly considered even in the cases where the author hasn't gotten it completely correct the first time through. Mockery is in many cases designed to discredit the author and kill the argument so that others become hesitant to become tainted by association. jd 05:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
By letting the ideas of the electric universe remain on Wikipedia, one can only advance the real cause of scientific research by allowing people access to ideas which might lead to other ideas and could, one day, trigger the next paradigm shift within the field of cosmology. Julie Dyer 10 July 2005 11:15 (UTC) [Note: this vote is by 83.94.159.146, who has already voted, above. These are her only two edits to wiki - William M. Connolley 12:11:22, 2005-07-10 (UTC)]
  • Note: this is totally incorrect. The previous post was written yesterday by a friend of mine staying at my place. She even used another computer, but I guess your system picks up the current DNS of my router, which functions as a firewall. Julie Dyer 10th July 2005 16:20 (UTC)
I don't understand the comment noting that I have not edited earlier, does this imply that my contribution is not as serious as others? I often use Wikipedia as a reference, I have a particular interest in this subject matter, and was inspired to contribute. With one vote. Incidentally, not as a “sock puppet”. jd 05:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess you haven't read the VFD debates much, then. VFD, by being more "democratic" in nature than the rest of Wikipedia, is far more vulnerable to abuse - and thus, we regular contributors become wary of total (and almost-total) newcomers voicing their opinions here: how do we know that they're genuinely interested in the topic, instead of being buddies of the article's creator? Answer: we don't, and can't.

{Although I've contributed more than one comment here, I'd just like to ascertain that my vote (for delete) is only counted once.DS 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If we deleted articles on the basis of their subject's being bullshit, we wouldn't have much about religion. Seriously though, we should not limit speculation on the world to science in a work that encompasses all human knowledge. Grace Note 01:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This, on the other hand, is a not-unreasonable argument.
  • I am the author of this article, and would like to address some of the points made so far. Most votes to remove it are based on the article being pseudoscience or worse. I would like to respond that (a) I don't think that pseudoscience is a reason for deletion, otherwise articles on astrology, crop circles, UFOs, and dozens of other subjects, must also be contenders for deletion. (b) Wikipedia Articles are not peer reviewed submissions, they do not even present a case. They are merely an overview of the subject, including how viewpoints may have rightly or wrongly come about. (c) That people have considered an Electric Universe (in various forms) is clear from the historic references provided, from Birkeland onwards. Again it does not matter whether any of these people were right or wrong. What is important, is to provide an accurate record of the whos and whys. (d) The Electric Universe is distinct from Plasma Cosmology in that it (i) pre-dates it (ii) suggests more radical proposals, eg. electric stars, (iii) Has interdisciplinary connections with ancient history and other sciences. (e) I have yet to add any material explaining the more radical aspects of the Electric Universe; everything else is standard astrophysics. To summarise: you don't have to like the article, but surely that is not reason to suppress it.Ian Tresman 11 July 2005 11:33 (GMT)
    • That said, however, it pretty much seems to be original research based on misinterpretations of Birkeland.
The above comment says it all for the rationale as to why this article should be deleted. "That people have considered the Electric Universe" doesn't make sense as an argument. People "consider" a lot of things. and it isn't suprising that they consider electricity and the universe together. That does not mean that there is such a thing as the "Electric Universe model". See, for example, the VfD on creation anthropology. This article was deleted because the author developed it as an amalgamation project from a number of different people who "considered" creationism and anthropology. The same standard should be applied here. This is an article that was developed as a clearinghouse of a whole slew of ideas that relate "electricity" and the universe. Many are unrelated to each other. Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Judging from comments here I should probably begin by saying I am a "total newcomer" - I'm also an undergraduate physics student, so my grasp of these fields is not large. However, I think that this artice should stay on Wikipedia for a number of reasons.
    • Firstly, even though this stuff does not have the necessary recognition to avoid the "original research" flag, I feel that both the age of the theory, and the considerable body of seemingly scientific research that relates to it, should preclude it from this rule. The "Electric Universe" model represents a collection of ideas being developed by a number of people from different backgrounds over many years. I feel that the spread of the work saves it from being original research in the sense that is intended by Wikipedia's reviewing policies.
    • Secondly, although the "model" may be pseudo-scientific in it's overall structure it seems to contain in it much that is scientific, and I would tend to agree that its "pseudo-" stems from its "proto-".
    • As to positive reasons to keep it:
      • The electric universe ideas represent a compelling counter voice in an area of science where the accepted theory stands largely alone. To add to this, the area of science is one which is significantly unfalsifiable. This combination is a very unhealthy position for a science to be in, and we should welcome opposing ideas simply for the sake of scientific integrity. In this vein, electric universe is a good candidate simply because it is so different from the accepted model - even if it turns out to be complete nonsense, it's nonsensical richness may inspire newer better theories. Someone should remember dissident voices such as these, and I think Wikipedia should be that someone.
      • The model is also compelling because it does exhibit worthwhile traits: it focuses on the problems of the accepted theories, and also seeks balance and revision - the Newtonian hegemony in cosmology should make us uncomfortable. A cosmos governed by mechanics alone does seem primitive; simplity is not always a good thing but may indicate that we have ignored to much detail.
      • Finally, there is a quiet revolution going on in physics which I feel may disturb the very foundations of many theories. As we come to understand non-equilibrium dynamics more and more, and we begin to acept that large effects can have small causes I think we may find that we have been looking at many problems in entirely the wrong way. Our current ideas have as their ancestors two body problems, analytical systems. But the universe is vast and contains innumerable components, to look only on the small scale and fail to appreciate the entirety of the system could be disastrous - what I like most about the electric model is it tries to engage the universe wholistically, rather than by reductionism, and is itself based in a non-equilibrium science (electric plasmas).
    • I'm not saying keep it because I like it. I'm saying keep it because it represents worthwhile counter-voice to an entrenched and often conservative orthodoxy.-Hayimd 18:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC) <-- user's first edit is this VfD.[reply]
  • From the above:
Firstly, even though this stuff does not have the necessary recognition to avoid the "original research" flag, I feel that both the age of the theory, and the considerable body of seemingly scientific research that relates to it, should preclude it from this rule.
The article makes it seem as though the theory is old simply because it refers to well-respected scientists who happened to do research in plasma physics. Birkeland, Spitzer and Langmuir did not advocate for an "electric universe" in the sense implied in the article, notwithstanding a quote where Birkeland muses about the possibility of electrical stars. The current theory of stellar fusion is more a part of their legacy.
I would vote to keep the article if it were to be an article about a historically interesting, discredited and disowned theory of Velikovsky. As it is, it is more of a catalog of electromagnetic phenomena in the universe, many of which are widely agreed on by mainstream physicists, and no description, except in the introduction, of how the electric universe "theory" differs from mainstream physics. I think that is because there is no theory, other than the primitive one advocated by Velikovsky and his acolytes. The rest is mainstream physics or plasma cosmology is at least a genuine alternative cosmology, albeit one that is not generally seen as coherent or well-supported. –Joke137 19:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- we should keep the parts of the article that are relevent to Velikovsky with the Velikovsky nonsense but "Electric Universe model" is an inappropriate title for a hodgepodge internet collection of a wide range of disparate ideas that represent, for the most part, original research. The "Electric Universe" is advocated by a large number of nonscientists and there are a number of scientists listed in the article itself which do not actually believe that Velikovsky is worth anything (see plasma cosmology for example). Where there is new information, it can be included in other articles. If I recall correctly there was a book entitled "The Electric Universe". We should make a page about that book but this page that is trying to be a clearinghouse needs to be deleted because, frankly, there is no such thing as an "electric universe model". It's a neologism invented by some very wacko and very fringe antiscientists. Joshuaschroeder 22:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Vsmith 03:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As space probes give us more and more information, we are learning that the gravity only model can't explain all that we are seeing,and that electricity, magnetism and plasma play more of a role in space than we previously thought. I would not throw out an article that will help us learn and explain the new discoveries as they occur. Tom Thomsen <-- anon user 67.4.185.181; first edit
The above comment does not come even close to a justification for keeping the article. The Pioneer anomaly is not a free license to make sloppy articles about made-up subjects.
  • Weak Delete: Assuming there is at least some scientific foundation, an article on a new theoretical model would be great. But I can't find anything original except a qualitative suggestion that the role of electro-magnetism has been underestimated (it certainly has not been ignored). There isn't even really an adequate definition or any indication what mainstream model is being challenged. Peter Grey 15:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This seems to be a bunch of disorganized rambling about a fairly well researched field of study. Perhaps it can be cleaned up and turned into an article about the pseudoscience, but as it stands I tend to agree with the assertion that it's a "neologism invented by some very wacko and very fringe antiscientists". No doubt plasma needs to be better understood, but I don't see any evidence that this is what's going on here. Space lightning scaring cavemen? C'mon! Gabe 19:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the article is about. The article is a hodge-podge POV-fork meant to distract from physical cosmology. Perhaps you could elaborate on your rationale? Joshuaschroeder 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua - I am curious how you know that the intention of the article is "to distract from physical cosmology"? Or is this an assumption? --Bongani 18:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt quite a bit with people who advocate various ends of plasma cosmology in my work with cosmology. There are a few in the fringes of this group who are so far out there that anything that sounds like plasma cosmology gets included in the Electric Universe including legitimate research and fanciful meanderings of Velikovsky. As I have said, the Electric Universe itself is a book and one that basically follows the same line as this page (that is to attack mainstream cosmology), but this is not an "Electric Universe model" by any strech of the imagination -- it's only a book. Nevertheless, there are those people who follow this line of pseudoscience rather closely and do have the deliberate intention of attacking physical cosmology for whatever reason (mostly because they hate the Big Bang model). The content of the article speaks to this motivation as it states very radical conclusions from some very mundane observations and some very strung-out descriptors of Velikovsky, etc. to tie the whole thing together. The article is written from the perspective of a person from this internet community of "Big Bang skeptics" who likes to think that if they can attack from as many "points of view" as possible, it will lend credence to their ideas. Joshuaschroeder 21:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the new rationale. If no consensus on delete, perhaps evolve the page to describe the Velikovsky stuff. In its current form the article is a blatant violation of WP:NOR, and bad research by the way: The Electric Sun model also bares some resemblance to the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor, an Inertial-Electrostatic-Confinement (IEC) Fusion device which accelerates postive ions towards a central anode. Cough! --Pjacobi 19:30, July 19, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electric_Universe_model&oldid=1144840191"