The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have ignored the lengthy discussions about the validity (or lack thereof) of this theory, as this is absolutely not relevant to whether this theory is notable or not. From the rest of the discussion it appears that at this point in time, this theory has not garnered enough independent coverage to meet our notability guidelines. Randykitty ( talk) 07:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

MiHsC

MiHsC (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This theory has not received the third-party independent notice we require for coverage. jps ( talk) 14:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Main points:

• MiHsC seems to have a plausible explanation for the EmDrive anomaly which is both self consistent and explains the existing observations within error bounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.26 ( talk) 06:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• As for WP:Fringe theories, many papers about MiHsC have been published in peer-reviewed journals.
• As for the variability of impact factors of peer-review journals, several papers about MiHsC have been published in the prestigious MNRAS.
• As for WP:Notability, MiHsC is quite new and has still not many third-party independent researchers working on similar ideas, but some exist, see the peer-reviewed publications by Dr Jaume Giné from the University of Lleida who links MiHsC to the holographic theory.

• One researcher is not many. It's one. Who is a mathematician. No one else in the field of dark matter or cosmology cares. Look at the 2013 Snowmass summary report, or in the journals Classical and Quantum Gravity, and Foundations of Physics. You will find no mention of MiHsC in the several years it's been since M.E. McCulloch proposed it. WaywardAMOp ( talk) 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Would it be fair to say that those who have invested a great deal of time and effort in looking for "dark matter" would not be particularly incentivised to investigate a theory purporting to show it doesn't exist, at least not in anything like the quantities being hunted for? To me it makes perfect sense that the first professional scholars to investigate MiHsC would be from departments other than those most fervently dedicated to the search for 'dark energy' or 'dark matter' ... it also makes perfect sense that one or more of said departments will eventually realize that there is something actually worth refuting there, and assuming it's refutable, they will do that. But to my knowledge, for some reason, this still hasn't happened? Smells like institutional silo effects might well be an issue here? I mean, maybe a bunch of them have looked at it, but as yet they cannot easily refute it, and for whatever reason they don't feel comfortable telling their colleagues that they've even had a look at it, for fear of being told off for encouraging crackpots, or just for fear of looking dumb? -- Sethop ( talk) 23:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• No, it wouldn't be fair. If dark matter could be shown not to exist, literally every scientist I know who studies the subject would be thrilled. This is irrelevant to the question at hand, though, which is whether this particular topic is notable enough for its own article. jps ( talk) 13:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Ok, well that's good to know. On the other hand, perhaps you could explain why none of those scientists have apparently never bothered to even *look* at MiHsC long enough to tell the rest of us *why* this theory doesn't, as the author claims, show us that dark matter could be shown not to exist? -- Sethop ( talk) 11:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• It's impossible to tell whether people have looked at it or not. The fact is that obscure theoretical proposals only get considered if they are evaluated to be worthy of consideration. Otherwise, it's considered a waste of time trying to evaluate them because of the sheer number of proposals. jps ( talk) 15:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• It makes sense to ignore the ones that have not passed peer review. Ignoring the ones that have seems both arrogant and lazy, and speaks to an unhealthy institutional culture. It makes physics look bad, at a time when it's probably important that it looks good. But this is, as you keep saying, irrelevant to the question of whether this page falls within the wikipedia policy criteria for deletion. -- Sethop ( talk) 00:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• What you think of the situation is irrelevant. jps ( talk) 11:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• As for WP:Notability also and and WP:Secondary sources, independent second sources refer MiHsC in the media, including the January 2013 edition of the New Scientist and the serious science news website Phys.org.

• This calls into question the credibility of those publications, which are popular publications (who have been criticized for inaccuracy before). WaywardAMOp ( talk) 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• phys.org is not a "serious science news website", it's literally reprints of press releases with the occasional blog post - David Gerard ( talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• http://phys.org/news/2012-09-dark-effect-inertial-mass.html is not a press release. If phys.org and New Scientist do not meet your standard of "serious science news" could you provide some examples that do pass muster? -- Sethop ( talk) 03:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• It's a user-generated article that is simply a breathless summary of a paper. More than possible that the article was submitted on the behest of the author. New Scientist, on the other hand, is a periodical that has been known in the past for allowing for pseudoscience and fringe science to be published on its pages. It got so bad about 10 years ago that there was actually a petition that went around asking them to shape up. They've improved somewhat, but these kinds of uncritical pieces continue to show up from time to time. jps ( talk) 11:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• As for WP:NOR, the wikipedia article and the published papers about MiHsC reference other work in the field, including peer-reviewed third-party independent work.
• The MiHsC theory is based on known established physics. It is based on ( general relativity including Mach's principle and quantum mechanics through ZPF, the Hawking radiation of the Hubble horizon and the Unruh radiation of the Rindler horizon.
• The main competitor of MiHsC theory, MOND (way older), has its own article on Wikipedia, although it uses ad hoc parameters to try to fit observations while MiHsC naturally fits observations without modifying any parameter (which doesn't prove MiHsC is real of course, but that the theory is simply more falsifiable than modified models of gravity).

— Tokamac ( talk) 15:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC) User:Tokamac is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT. reply

• Unless someone can link to some proof that the calculations predicting the rotation speed of galaxies, and especially globular clusters are wrong, it seems to be pretty powerful theory. Remember what Richard Feynman said: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. ... so it doesn't matter how many peer reviewed journals publish it, in this case, it really matters if the observed galaxy and globular cluster rotation speed is correctly and precisely predicted by this theory (without need of introducing Dark matter, which seem to me even more fringe, although it is more popular among general public). On the other hand, link to such observations and calculations should be included (even if it is published outside official channels). And I also believe that even incorrect theories of the past deserve their Wikipedia articles (So we may very well end with future, where MiHsC is mainstream theory, at least until replaced by something even more powerful, and Dark matter is just archived as massively popularized physical misconception of early 21st century). XChaos ( talk) 16:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• This is irrelevant to whether there should be a Wikipedia article. jps ( talk) 13:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as it stands - Tokamac's points are either directly contradictory of Wikipedia policies and practice or hopeful of RSes coming up in future. The sourcing on the article as it stands is almost entirely primary sources and the rest are passing mentions - David Gerard ( talk) 16:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Please explain which Wikipedia policies are being violated here? Is there really no distinction between a 'primary source' that happens to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and other forms of 'primary source'? -- Sethop ( talk) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Start with WP:PSTS. It's better when primary sources are peer-reviewed, but when establishing the notability of an obscure ides, just because a few papers were published in respected journals even doesn't mean the topic deserves an article. I can point to thousands of ideas that have been published in extremely prominent journals which are not included in Wikipedia because that's how science works. Good ideas and bad ideas get mixed in and eventually the correct idea works its way to the consensus. Wikipedia acknowledges this state of affairs by demanding independent notice for ideas so that we won't fall into traps of promoting ideas that aren't noticed not debunking ideas at Wikipedia when that's not what Wikipedia is set-up to be able to do. If you want this topic to be in Wikipedia, the best thing to do is encourage independent experts to review, critique, and comment on the idea external to Wikipedia to comply with our sourcing requirements. jps ( talk) 13:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Ok, so the problem I have with WP:PSTS as it is currently written, is that in the particular case of scientific ideas the policy itself would seem not to distinguish between self-publications of new ideas, of which there must be bazillions, and ideas published in peer-reviewed journals, of which there are probably a thousand times fewer? So that policy probably needs looking at. WP:SOAP would seem not to apply, as Mike is not Tokamac, who wrote the original article (and FWIW I have never corresponded with Mike *myself* in any way shape or form, but am certainly considering doing so in in future *if* nobody can persuade me that this theory has actually been debunked, as opposed to just somewhat inexplicably ignored!), WP:NOR doesn't apply *either*, as almost everything on that page references the peer reviewed literature. Now, if you and I can in good faith disagree on what the policies are actually saying in cases such as this, that would seem to be a problem. I think I am relying on a *literal* interpretation of said policies while you are perhaps drawing on what has been the common practice with similar cases in the past? In which case I really cannot see how a consensus for deletion can be reached without first updating the relevant wikipedia policies such that they better account for edge cases such as this one. Would you agree?

• WP:FRINGE continues on from where WP:PSTS leaves off. Note that just because something has received attention in the peer-reviewed journals in the past does not mean that it is not fringe now. There are two papers published in MNRAS and then after that, basically, the rest of the publications are in fringe journals which should be taken with a grain of salt. Since secondary sources which discuss the topic simply don't exist, it's pretty obvious that policy is that the theory is simply not notable. jps ( talk) 15:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• EPL_(journal) is a "fringe" journal? Again I feel this may be pushing the semantics of that word a bit too far. -- Sethop ( talk) 03:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

There are so many obscure out-of-the-way journals that people publish in when they're shut out of the main ones. MNRAS, ApJ, A&A, and the associated journals are the ones that people who are writing about astrophysics and cosmology publish in. When they stop doing that, that's the indication they're being ignored. EPL has an editorial board for astronomy which is questionable at best. jps ( talk) 11:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete While peer reviewed literature has been published beginning in 2008 (see ^[1] and ^[2] for list of publications by authors publishing MiHsC related articles), it lacks interest from independent researchers as of this time and should not be considered notable. Furthermore, many of the articles are not in fact peer reviewed, such as those hosted on the arXiv or recent work published by Progress in Physics ^[3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiname321 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Wikiname321 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • All of the ones on arXiv have been peer reviewed, so far as I know. Can you provide an example of one that hasn't been? -- Sethop ( talk) 03:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per David Gerard. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 20:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete McCulloch gets much of the physics incorrect ^{citation needed}, and makes a couple of basic mathematics mistakes ^{citation needed}. He has never provided a rigorous derivation of his Hubble-scale effect, and what he has written down contradicts physics as it's currently known (quantum electrodynamics, Einstein's relativity) ^{citation needed} without providing any reasons to believe they should be overturned. It has been published a couple of reputable peer-reviewed journals, however this does not necessarily mean they good ideas. He has also published in Progress in Physics, a fringe physics journal, known for publishing authors who can no long publish on arXiv. This seems also to be a promotional article for what's considered a fringe theory. The author is a professor of oceanography in Plymouth, UK (not physics), and a couple edits come from an IP: 81.156.121.132, which is in Plymouth, UK and cite no other authors. McCulloch has also self-published a book ( http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Edge-Cosmological-Model-Inertia/dp/9814596256) on his idea, before it has any acceptance, and it is used as a citation in this article. WaywardAMOp ( talk) 09:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC) — WaywardAMOp ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• 7 papers (2 in MNRAS, 5 in EPL) are not just "a couple of reputable peer-reviewed journals" as you try to pretend.

• That is actually a couple of journals, and it doesn't speak kindly to their system of peer-review. WaywardAMOp ( talk) 09:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• McCulloch's book was not "self-published" since he was invited to write it by World Scientific, which is of good reputation.

• Very well, still not the most relevant point. If one with advanced physics training reads his papers (especially his Progress in Physics papers), it becomes clear McCulloch does not understand even BSc-level physics (which is surprising considering that is his degree). He is trying to gain support for his idea by strapping it to Wikipedia articles, when no one other professional physicists talk about it, like an advertisement. He also seems to have a quarrel with MOND, which is not currently the most popular idea about dark matter. This is another demonstration of how he does not understand physics or the current state of research. WaywardAMOp ( talk) 09:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply

— Tokamac ( talk) 08:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• • Professor of Geomatics, the science of positioning in space (in general terms, not necessarily outer space) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.55.235 ( talk) 22:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep jps initiated this debate by saying that '3rd party independent notice' had not been satisfied. This is incorrect: MiHsC has been discussed at length in the well known 3rd party magazines New Scientist and phys.org and the first paper on MiHsC has been cited 32 times (MM). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.122.231 ( talk) 08:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC) — 81.156.122.231 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Back before the Pioneer Anomaly was solved, there were lots of speculative ideas floating around that attempted to resolve it. This particular idea was one of hundreds, many which received far more notice than this idea yet have no Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, novel ideas such as this when they are cited 32 times (this is more than what I find in a cursory search of citation counts, but anyway....) do not indicate serious notice by the expert evaluators. That is what we would require if it were to be included at Wikipedia. WP:REDFLAG is the name of the game. In the future, maybe people will find cause to investigate this particular idea more thoroughly. Until then, it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to have an article on the subject because it is simply not possible to write a neutral analysis of the possibilities, problems, or promise of such a novel and avante garde proposal. jps ( talk) 15:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I would concur that WP:REDFLAG is an issue here, however the Pioneer Anomaly is but one of many intriguing anomalies potentially resolvable by way of MiHsC, which to my mind makes MiHsC rather notable even if it's wrong ... I think how it has been largely ignored despite its amazing implications, impressive elegance and the rather clear instructions provided by the author for how to go about falsifying it will one day make for a fascinating discussion in the philosophy of science, but yes, it would seem that it's potential importance rather ironically counts against it for the purpose of Wikipedia inclusion, unless I am missing something here? -- Sethop ( talk) 10:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • The only reason this idea is claiming to resolve many "intriguing" anomalies is because its author crowbars ad hoc explanations into each of his later papers (more and more failing to get into high-quality journals) each time he hears about a new unsolved problem in physics. This is classic fringe bait and may be descending into crankish-ness. It's not a good thing. Monumental importance of an idea absolutely counts against an idea. There are just not a lot of people interested in entertaining this out-of-the-way proposal. Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting it just because the author finds it a convenient outlet (which is indeed where some of the keep !votes are coming from). jps ( talk) 23:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
        • No, MiHsC has no adjustability at all, so by definition cannot be 'ad hoc'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.122.231 ( talk) 10:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
          • Then it is already falsified because the explanation for the Pioneer Anomaly rules out the explanation provided by the author. jps ( talk) 13:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
            • Does it? Please explain how. That sounds like the sort of assertion that deserves to be backed up by a peer reviewed paper, or at least a lengthy blog post from a sufficiently qualified physicist. I don't think it's as black and white as you imply, but if it is, then excellent, why not point one of your friends at this most excellent opportunity to put the whole thing to bed? Maybe you should have a go at it yourself, if it really is as black and white as you imply. -- Sethop ( talk) 01:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
              • The Pioneer Anomaly has been explained by radiation pressure. If MiHsC claims to explain it through some other means, then it would cause extra acceleration on top of the ones already measured. Thus, it is falsified. Doesn't need detailed analysis at all. Either it is amenable to tweaking so that the Pioneer Anomaly acceleration is no longer generated by the theory (since we know it is caused by radiation pressure) or it continues to generate the anomalous acceleration which is not seen and thus the theory is falsified. No one is going to bother publishing that. It's sufficient to debunk it in comments on Wikipedia. jps ( talk) 15:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
                • My understanding is that radiation pressure has been used to explain part of the anomaly but not all of it, and the same is true of MiHsC. Nobody would seem to have examined in detail if they could both be in play, and it would seem that although it has been shown how radiation pressure *could* explain *part* of the anomaly, that is a long way from *proving* that it was the primary, let alone *only* cause. This should be examined in more depth, and not be me. Here is Mike's critique: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/comment-on-thermal-model-of-pioneer.html -- Sethop ( talk) 00:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
                  • Your understanding is wrong. Thanks for showing us his blogspot site. It clearly indicates he has gone out into the deep end of fringe physics. He's basically a crank. jps ( talk) 11:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
                    • Shrug. This is irrelevant to the question of deletion. Explain how your opinions are backed up by wikipedia policy. Is there a wikipedia policy on exactly which physics journals count as "reliable"? If not, then maybe it is time to start one, because you certainly aren't going to convince me by simply asserting what I'm sure what must be your heartfelt beliefs on such matters. -- Sethop ( talk) 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep all things considered I feel there are probably enough Reliable Independent Sources to justify keeping this, so long as it's made obvious that it is very far from a well accepted theory, it nevertheless remains a highly notable one, at least IMHO. I would be curious to know whether it would be more or less keep-worthy if one or more, er, notable Physicists would do Mike the courtesy of refuting his theories in a peer reviewed journal, on the arXiv, or even in their personal blog, as opposed to simply ignoring him outright, or blithely commenting on Reddit (or here, or wherever a member of the public might stumble across it) that he is 'clearly' wrong, without bothering to explain how, thus strongly implying that peer review is a more or less meaningless concept, and we should really just pick and choose which 'scientists' to pay attention to, based on our personal perceptions of intellectual authority. Which is not an entirely unreasonable position to adopt for genuine experts in the relevant field, but one that seems entirely unworkable for the average citizen or at a systemic level, and as such, probably not an attitude that deserves to be encouraged, even by those arguably well positioned to adopt it for themselves. BTW, I have added some 'citations needed' above, and if the citations provided were sufficiently conclusive, then I could certainly change my mind on this particular case, but my wider points on the matter would stand. -- Sethop ( talk) 11:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • A lack of people bothering to refute your work, when they're not talking about it at all or citing it, is not evidence of correctness. If the work isn't being cited it isn't noteworthy in physics, basically. It may be notable if there's sufficient RS coverage as a fringe theory per se, but I still don't think there is - David Gerard ( talk) 12:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • No, and nor did I say it was evidence of correctness. However, these papers have been peer reviewed, and Mike is still employed as a lecturer, and this alone seems sufficient evidence that the theory is not obviously wrong. In which case, given the significance of the anomalies being addressed, it definitely seems notable, at least until it has been convincingly shot down, preferably in a peer reviewed paper, but at least in a public blog post or some such, as opposed to via half-hearted accusations of crankiness or unworthiness in an obscure wikipedia keep/delete discussion like this. I expand on these points further below. -- Sethop ( talk) 11:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Peer review is not good enough because basically it involved only a few evaluators who have considerable leeway in allowing novelty to be published until such time as crankiness is assumed by the publishers or the community. There is evidence that this has happened here because the papers have not been published in the same level of high quality journals in the last year or two as they were back before the Pioneer Anomaly was solved. What we are doing is unduly promoting this idea by pretending it's received notice of the community when really it's just dying a death from neglect. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to change that state of affairs. jps ( talk) 13:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Every single sub-point of WP:SOAP and a lot of WP:RGW currently indicates Keep to me on this one, so again, maybe you'll need to elucidate further per my comments below. Are you saying that because a lot of the physics community has yet to comment, that those who *have* don't count? Because that isn't what that rule says. Right now the weight of popular, expert, journalistic and amateur opinion would appear to be in MiHsC's favour, given that the only people who really seem to *object* to the theory are some pseudonymous critics on Reddit and Wikipedia, who have yet to present much in the way of *evidence* for their various assertions of ineptitude and/or narcissism on Mike's part, let alone some valid critiques of the actual *theory*, so I'm really not sure that their objections should be taken particularly seriously at this stage. Even if they *were* taken overly seriously, despite my pointing out their structural flaws, I'm not sure this would *remotely* approach the level of a "Great Wrong". I mean, nobody has died, Mike is still getting published in peer review journals, he still has his job as a lecturer, the deletion of this page despite a lack of genuine consensus to do so would simply mean that it would take a bit longer for more of the physics community to get around to properly examining a theory that *could* turn out to be quite important for them. As "Great Wrongs" go, this doesn't really strike me as a contender. So I personally feel we are not there yet, and if the page gets deleted on those grounds, then I wouldn't want this to be used as evidence the next time this argument occurs that an even *greater wrong* is somehow being righted... -- Sethop ( talk) 12:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
          • Name one physicist who has commented. jps ( talk) 15:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
            • http://web.udl.es/usuaris/t4088454/ssd/ - Jaune Giné, primarily a mathematician, but also well published in (astro-)physics. -- Sethop ( talk) 03:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
              • I don't see any comment there. jps ( talk) 11:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
                • By "comment" in this case, I mean "reference MiHsC from a peer reviewed paper" which is clearly a lot more important than making some random comment on reddit or whatever. -- Sethop ( talk) 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
            • You know, I've been thinking about this again, and should it turn out that the MiHsC theory is *correct* then there's almost certainly going to be some papers written on exactly what "wrongs" (eg: institutional silo effects) led to it being ignored for so long, and also some uninformed speculation, perhaps even condemnation from the popular press as regards how long they ignored it. Should that turn out to be the case, however, the existence of a wikipedia page would seem to be neither here nor there, so to claim that this is about "righting" that "wrong" of currently unknown size (and I mean, are we talking deontology or utilitarianism here? It gets complicated...) would be on shaky ground. My point remains that a *literal* interpretation of the rules currently favours Keep and I would prefer to see one or more of those rules updated before a consensus on Delete is reached. -- Sethop ( talk) 06:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
              • This comment makes no sense. The rightness or wrongness of the theory is irrelevant to the point that people who are convinced it might be right are somehow convinced it is worth including in Wikipedia. Why do you keep calling the theory's author by his first name? Do you know him personally? Did you know of this idea before coming to this AfD? If so, how? jps ( talk) 11:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
                • I was referring to the WP:RGW policy you linked. You were using it as a justification for deletion, I was musing on whether it actually applied, given that it's one of the very few places I can see that you've referenced something I might actually be able to find some agreement with you on. So long as you stick to brandishing your personal opinions about which journals should be ignored and which should not, and calling Mike a "crank", we are never going to get there, so if that's all you've got, let's just call this WP:NOCON and go home. I confess to using his first name largely because I couldn't be bothered to type "Dr. McCulloch". I'm from New Zealand and we don't exactly give a crap about titles and such over here. Ok, I am probably overgeneralising there, but I think our country actually scored dead last on some international "citizens' respect for authority" scale - which I suspect makes us natural Wikipedians in a way. I came across his theory by way of that utterly bizarre EM-drive thing, which I'm sure you also regard as terribly terribly "fringe" if you've ever even heard of it, but this is of course irrelevant to the question of whether you can back up your personal opinions with wikipedia policies that *unambiguously* justify your assertions. -- Sethop ( talk) 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Sandstein relisted this before I could do it. I would encourage the participants in this debate to try to reformulate their !votes to make them based in policy, as most of them are currently just opinions. Whether or not a theory is correct has no bearing on notability, for example (some theories are not notable because they were incorrect and abandoned early on, others are notable because they were incorrect but generated a lot of coverage because of that fact). Most other arguments are not policy-based either. As a reminder, what is needed to show notability are independent, in-depth reliable sources discussing the subject. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Over two thirds of the sources cited are to the author of the term itself, thus the article functions primarily as self promotion. — Cirt ( talk) 05:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment My Keep stands, at least for the moment. I am no wikipedia expert, but all of the points Tokamac made at the top of the page, most of which reference a wikipedia policy in at least some fashion, seem at least somewhat valid, and I await clear explanations as to why they are not. Furthermore, it seems like MiHsC is significantly less ad-hoc - and significantly more falsifiable - than at least one of the alternative theories that may or may not resolve the rather notable anomalies MiHsC is purported to have some degree of explanatory effectiveness in regards to.

These MiHsC based explanations of anomalies have been published in peer reviewed journals by a lecturer employed at Plymouth University, which has almost 3000 staff, all of whom would bear at least some reputational damage were said university to make a habit of employing cranks, as would any scholar published in any of the journals Mike has been published in, as would those scholars who have written books published by World Scientific, were they to become known for publishing the works of cranks. So to dismiss Mike as a crank without clearly explaining why seems absurd, lazy, and in some sense at least, unethical.

If he is clearly wrong then it really should not be hard to show where and how his theory is theoretically incoherent, empirically invalidated, entirely ad-hoc and/or unfalsifiable. If his mistakes are trivially obvious to any sufficiently qualified physicist, then both his university and his publishers should be asked why exactly they employed him and/or published his work, and if they cannot explain their decision and how they will adjust their hiring and/or peer review processes to avoid making the same mistakes again, then their own reputation should suffer accordingly.

On the other hand, if his papers contain no obvious mistakes, then given the quite considerable mystery around some of the anomalies being addressed, it seems as though refuting MiHsC should be a worthwhile and interesting task for someone qualified, if not a professional physicist then at least one of their grad students, who would probably enjoy the chance to refute such a paper and maybe get to publish a paper of their own in the process.

Either of those outcomes would seem better than a qualified scientist with multiple peer reviewed papers being completely ignored by the establishment ... possibly because he is not deeply embedded within one of the big physics departments and projects that are working full time on such matters? I wouldn't know. But it seems weird.

To be frank, it seems highly inappropriate for those of us who are unqualified and/or anonymous to be calling professional lecturers from respectable universities "cranks", or claiming that their peer reviewed papers are "wrong", without at the same time specifying where and how they are wrong ... because ignoring peer reviewed science and engaging in pseudonymous character assassination is pretty much exactly what cranks do. -- Sethop ( talk) 11:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

That's quite the WP:TLDR, but from my skim of its contents it seems you may not be familiar with how many WP:FRINGE theories work in practice. This particular idea is obscure, make no mistake about that. Typically, we do not include obscure or novel proposals in Wikipedia because of WP:CRYSTAL. It may be that this lecturer has come up with a brilliant idea that solves all problems. That's not for us to judge, that's for the community of astrophysicists to judge. Now, I happen to be a member of that community, at least broadly, but that's neither here-nor-there. The larger question is, has there been independent notice of these ideas? I have seen no third-party sources of high quality offered to that effect. Until this peculiar idea is actually noticed (and note that even negative notice would count for this in terms of WP:NFRINGE), it is highly irresponsible for Wikipedia to have an article on the subject. The reason for this is plain: we cannot write a neutral article on an idea that hasn't been properly evaluated. One might get excited about the peer-review that has accompanied a couple of the referenced sources in the article, but that is simply not enough. Peer review is an indicator, not an ends. When a theory is proposing extraordinary solutions to an extraordinary array of problems, strict scrutiny on the part of independent sources is what we need to establish its worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia, especially at the level of an article. This particular topic fails in every way to do that. That is not an indictment of the science nor the researchers involved. It is simply a fact of the situation as it currently exists. If tomorrow amazing observational results come back confirming that this is the only possible explanation for the vast array of problems that exist, then I'm sure we'll be flooded with excellent third-party sources and the article can be recreated without prejudice. We should not have an article about this until other people notice. That's just the way Wikipedia works. jps ( talk) 13:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• There has been quality independent notice. 35 lines in a New Scientist article (Issue 2900, Jan 2013) and two articles in Phys Org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.122.231 ( talk) 18:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Nah. Those are News of the Weird mentions of way out-there ideas. There is no critical evaluation of the ideas, it's just sensationalism. That is not what we use to establish article notability. jps ( talk) 15:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• I concur. It seems as though the key points we are arguing over are the definitions of "high quality" and "multiple". Right now a literal interpretation of the rules would say keep, because there *have* been multiple independent high quality sources referencing the theory ... but you are saying that in this case those references are insufficient to justify notability. I think until the policy is further updated to better reflect what is 'sufficient' notability in such cases, consensus probably cannot be reached.

Right now, as I say, a literal interpretation of the rules would certainly seem to fall on the side of Keep. As to how WP:FRINGE theories work in practice, my experience is that 99.99% of said theories are not published in multiple respected peer-reviewed journals by actively employed lecturers from major universities, and thus allowing this particular page to remain undeleted is not exactly setting a precedent allowing the floodgates to open ... but if it somehow *does*, that would certainly validate my hunch that the relevant wikipedia policies need to be updated, which is not something I feel capable of taking on myself, but I would be an interested observer to the process.

Furthermore with reference to WP:REDFLAG it seems to me that MiHsC is considerably less 'strange' and 'exceptional' than many other theories purporting to explain the same anomalies ... and the number of such alternative theories should not really be indicative of a "scientific consensus" that MiHsC is somehow attempting to overthrow, on the grounds that many of said theories are mutually exclusive and/or unfalsifiable - as opposed to mutually reinforcing and evidence based, as one would expect when a true "scientific consensus" was in place ... all things considered, this still feels like a corner case, and if you really want to reach beyond what the rules *literally* say, then more wikipedia editors (preferably including a few that are not astrophysicists) are probably going to need to weigh in, and maybe in the process, actually update the rules/guidelines. The best place to do so, IMO, would be WP:REDFLAG.

The thing about WP:CRYSTAL (and specifically, point 4) is that, as I say, I don't get the impression MiHsC is necessarily in opposition to anything on which a true scientific consensus actually exists. Maybe you can explain how it does, or maybe you are implying that until a greater consensus *does* exist, *none* of the relevant theories deserve their own wikipedia page. Your point about WP:NPOV is well made, but it really does hinge on the definition of "properly evaluated", and if you want to claim the evaluation it has had so far is insufficient, then that should probably be addressed by updating WP:REDFLAG in order to bring policy in line with practice, and perhaps this case can be referenced from there as an example to inform editor intuitions around similar such decisions in the future.

FWIW, if you are wanting to get me to the point where I would concur that a consensus for Delete has been reached, then referencing rules like WP:NOR and WP:SOAP that clearly favour Keep while saying they favour Delete, implying that Mike is a crank as opposed to a scientist, and saying that my thoughtful contributions constitute WP:TLDR for you ... is probably not the best way to go about it. -- Sethop ( talk) 00:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't know why you're making this personal. The fact is that the idea has not been evaluated by third-parties. That is where the crux of notability lies. Find a third-party source that evaluates it -- not some third-rate journalism or clickbait. jps ( talk) 15:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

To reiterate, I have read the various policies you have linked in favour of Delete, and to my mind they mostly favour Keep. That you might think the opposite is intriguing, and what I am waiting for is for you to explain where and how my interpretations are wrong, or figure out which of your interpretations were wrong, either of which which might help to suggest how the rules can be made less ambiguous, rather than simply assuming I am wrong, and more or less ignoring the points I'm trying to make. If we have discovered an edge case that helps to illuminate one or more necessary improvements to the rules or guidelines, then that is a good thing, and once that has happened, consensus can no doubt be reached. Until then, perhaps this should be closed as WP:NOCON. -- Sethop ( talk) 00:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

If you could point to one serious independent source written by an expert not connected with the theory's author, you would do your argument a lot of favors. So far, you've done nothing of the sort. jps ( talk) 11:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Have you actually read the article? There are links to such at the bottom. You keep asserting that for some reason they don't count. I admit that it would be *nice* if there were a few more, but what is there would appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion as they are written. If those standards need to be written *better*, then as I say, now would be a good time to make that happen. -- Sethop ( talk) 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Non-notable fringe stuff. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The problem I have with labelling this 'fringe' is that it gives way too much credit to the *real* fringe. Those of us who would like to be able to tell *actual* crackpots to shut up until they can get a paper into a peer-reviewed journal are shorn of credibility when it is made to appear that this supposed "red line" is in fact meaningless, and suggesting that what actually matters is "being part of the club". The fact that it could be described as "outside of mainstream physics", or at least "on the edge", and yet still pass peer review, that actually makes it significantly *more* notable, in the "everyday" sense of that word, and there is arguably some cause for concern when the semantics of a word in a particular context begin to depart significantly from the everyday and common understanding of the word. Another cause for concern I have is the use of "Primary Source" to describe a theoretical paper. This is not usually done, and I think the wikipedia guidelines should be updated in order to avoid future confusion and unnecessary consternation. -- Sethop ( talk) 02:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Peer review is obviously not a bright line rule. Do you know how much crankiness appears in the peer-reviewed literature? Peer-review tends to involve an editor and a reviewer only. It isn't magic. It works very well as an initial winnower, but it isn't magic. jps ( talk) 11:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I guess our definition of "cranky" differs. I have actually glanced at many of Mikes papers, and they seem a *lot* less cranky than a great many others I have seen. Such remarkable clarity! If only all physics was like that... in any case, since we clearly cannot reach agreement on that point or perhaps any other point, I am favouring WP:NOCON over continuing a conversation that appears to be becoming something of a broken record. -- Sethop ( talk) 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment It just occurred to me that maybe we could get around our lack of consensus regarding what the rules say on this case via WP:IAR, which I had temporarily forgotten about due to jps insisting we focus exclusively on what the rules say - which is what I have been doing - but I see that WP:IAR-abg specifies (a) don't use it to get around a lack of consensus (it probably means unilaterally, but if so, *that* page should be updated), and (b) don't use it to be lazy. Now, I have been by *far* the least lazy contributor to this discussion, in that I have explained my opinions in some depth as to which rules I believe do and do not apply, and which ones are margin calls, so what I would want in order to invoke WP:IAR in favour of Delete is (a) the word 'unilaterally' to be added to WP:IAR-abg and (b) all the Deletionists in this conversation to stop being lazy, admit where they have made false, unjustifiable or unverifiable assertions (there have been *plenty*) and specify exactly which rules probably *should* apply in favour of deletion, except for the fact that as they are *literally* written, they (arguably, in some cases, as I explained above) do not, and thus we are forced to *ignore* them, at least partially, in this particular case, for the moment, because we can neither agree on exactly what they mean, nor agree on an appropriate way to change them in order to get to a consensus *that* way, an option I am certainly leaving open, but one I don't currently feel up to undertaking myself. If you are for some reason incapable of recognizing where you have made mistakes, or incapable of reading what the rules actually say, as opposed to what you think they say, or of using anything other than your own personal intuitions in calling for this deletion, then I'm not going to go on trying to paper over the gulf in our understanding anymore, as I think everyone would agree that I have written quite enough already. And if none of this sounds terribly appealing, then there is always the WP:NOCON option. -- Sethop ( talk) 18:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Although yeah, I obviously cannot coerce the *other* Keepers into consensus, but if you were to do as I suggest, to my satisfaction, then I would change *my* vote, and you might well find that by doing so you have managed to overcome the others' objections as well. -- Sethop ( talk) 18:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

And a (hopefully) final thought on this: In order to invoke WP:IAR we'd probably have to agree that by doing so we've "made wikipedia a better encyclopedia" which is to my mind not a completely trivial question to answer, but I'm sure more experienced editors could inform our intuitions on that one, which would be a lot easier for them if everyone first did as I suggest and walked back all the erroneous or unjust points they'd made, meaning we had boiled our points of disagreement, uncertainty and/or confusion down to what actually matters, rather than forcing them to read this whole thing. -- Sethop ( talk) 19:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Ok, so in my relatively brief skim of Mike's papers and blog posts on and off over the last few months, I, er, guess I missed that bit where he rejects GR :-) It sorta seems like that should be stated front and center of each and every paper, rather than implicitly introduced by reference to previous papers, or whatever. *Despite* this arguably questionable approach to slipping subversive thoughts into the peer review literature, it *still* looks to me like he's actually *not* a crackpot, but I am certainly no longer as indignant as I was with the folks who were claiming that he *was*, as if I had a more complete understanding of the relevant physics, and didn't really have a *lot* of time to think about it, I might well have done pretty much the same thing.

FWIW, I was relying on my very rough understanding of the physics, the fact that he seems like a nice guy who works for a respectable university and publishes in peer reviewed journals, and my opinion that "Dark Matter" really is way too arbitrary as an explanation for various anomalies, so radical alternatives deserve to be looked for. However, as I say, I missed that Mike was *also* throwing out GR, which is going beyond "radical" to yes, I admit it's not *totally* stupid to say "fringe", but given the people that lumps him in with, I'm just going to go with *impressively radical* for now :-)

Regardless, I would now concur with jps and friends that *even if Mike is right*, we absolutely do need a great many more secondary sources to say so before we give MiHsC wikipedia's imprimatur, and that yes, under the circumstances it would be really quite difficult to get some wording in there that actually managed to achieve NPOV. And NPOV is not really something we're allowed to fudge, even if we all agreed that it was worth doing, which I very much doubt is going to happen. Does that all sound about right? -- Sethop ( talk) 04:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, of all the arguments, Cirt's is probably the one that cuts through most for me; the only person talking about this theory at any length seems to be McCulloch, the originator of the theory. It might be crankery or it might not be (I don't understand the physics enough to make my own judgement), but our standard is based on notability, not correctness, and the attention that this theory seems to have received has been fleeting and shallow, as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 06:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC). reply

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.