Talk:Universal rotation curve

Capitalization

A quick Google Scholar search shows that most papers do not capitalize the term. Moving the page accordingly. Paradoctor (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Single galaxy image

I removed it because it doesn't help illustrate the article's subject. Furthermore, the article already has several relevant images, so the removed image only serves to distract from the topic. Paradoctor (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing original research

The consensus of the AfD was that there was a need for culling of the article to remove original research (that is, research that is not cited by independent sources). I have done this. [1]. People who want to make the case that there are independent groups who are not subject to WP:FRINGE considerations who have used the original analysis which was removed should make their case below. jps (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"consensus of the AfD" ... "need for culling" That is not what the AfD says. You're welcome to list claims you feel are not supported by reliable sources, and I will gladly discuss them with you. Removing the sourced bulk of an article with a blanket claim of OR after you failed to get the article deleted is not appropriate. You should know from past experience where this road leads. Paradoctor (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any citations to this idea being used in astrophysics textbooks, for example? There are none. I removed all the original research except for that which is referenced to classic papers that are used uniformly though the community. None of the stuff I removed is cited by anyone except MONDians or the Salucci group itself. jps (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The text you removed is sourced, so WP:BURDEN is prima facie satisfied. Blanket, unsubstantiated claims are not a legitimate reason to remove sourced content. If you actually can make a case that there are citations which are not to reliable sources for the claims they are intended to support, do it. Someone who so loudly claims to work in support of science should understand how evidence and burden of proof work. Paradoctor (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be made clear that this is a promotion by Paolo Salucci if this is to remain in Wikipedia. The text is written in a fashion inappropriate for a third-party source. jps (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT. Provide facts. Right now all you have are unsubstantiated claims and unfounded accusations. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the entire article with you, if that is what it takes. Paradoctor (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

1. FACT: Universal rotation curve is in no astrophysics text book.
2. FACT: Salucci tends to promote this idea a lot on the internet and generally everywhere.
3. FACT: The article as previously written promoted universal rotation curves as a "new paradigm" without so much as a hint that this is not a standard approach.
4. FACT: The article is written as a promotional piece meant to advertise the claims of the group.

Do you want other kinds of facts?

jps (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Facts would suffice.

1. If you want to start another AfD, I can't stop you. And you are aware of the difficulty of proving this kind of negative, are you?
2. This article is not about Salucci, and this claim is not relevant here.
3. This and the last one are basically the same claim. I don't care about the motives of the editors. I'm only interested in whether the content of this article conforms to policy. Surely, if this article is promotional pap, there must be at least one sentence or source in blatant violation of WP:V or WP:RS? Quote it.

You've been here long enough to know how this works. Get consensus when opposed, get broader consensus when you're not happy with the local consensus, WP:DROPIT if you can't get consensus at all. I'm willing to be convinced, but I want to see sensible arguments, not the handwaving you have given me so far. Paradoctor (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"The universal rotation curve phenomenology replaces the "flat rotation curve" paradigm and switches the focus from the structure of “a typical galaxy” to the typical systematics of the mass structure of spirals." -- Pap! This is what Salucci wants everyone to do. He has so far been unsuccessful in getting everyone to do it. That's the issue. jps (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing a description of the concept with a claim abouts its applicability. Though the way it's phrased, that is an easy mistake to make, so it certainly needs a reliable source. Tagged the statement accordingly. Please give it at least a few days, so editors who are not as frequently here as we are have a fighting chance of adressing this problem. Paradoctor (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement

The article is an advertisement. Anything not based upon secondary, independent sources should be considered for trimming or removal. Can someone identify secondary, independent sources so we can figure out what we're actually working with? --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Independence is a criterion for counting sources WRT notability. The criterion for content is reliability. Is there a problem with a source in the article? Which one? And what is the specific problem? Is the source self-published and the author not a recognized authority? Does the source not actually support the claim it's intended to support? Paradoctor (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"The criterion for content is reliability." NPOV, OR, and NOT are some policies that say different. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the sources used in support of the content, and neither of the policies mentioned contradicts or overrides RS.

Now, which claims in the article are not supported by reliable sources? It is probably because I'm new to Wikipedia, but I have trouble identifying the problem spots. Could you please give me an example? Paradoctor (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation on NPOV, OR, and NOT is clearly contradicted. Also, WP:RS is a guideline that supplements the WP:V policy. Guidelines rarely override policy, and certainly don't in this case.

As I said, "Anything not based upon secondary, independent sources should be considered for trimming or removal."

NPOV: See especially WP:UNDUE and WP:PSCI, both of which bring up WP:FRINGE, which also applies.

OR: See especially WP:PSTS.

NOT: See especially WP:SOAP, and also WP:NOT#OR. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If there's no further clarification needed, and no one is offering the required sources, how about we trim/stub the article to what little we have sourced to non-primary sources? --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot to clarify, namely which which statements are not actually supported by reliable sources. So far, we have only your unsubstantiated claim that there is a problem. I see an article with a lot of citations to apparently valid publications. If that is not the case, it should not be hard to give examples. Paradoctor (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained, the concerns aren't about reliable sources. Is further explanation needed, or is this just being ignored? --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It would tremendously helpful if you were to point out one sentence you deem in violation of policy, as well as stating which policy it violates how, because this is what has been missing all evening now. Please take your time, it is becoming late around here. We'll continue tomorrow. Paradoctor (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You still don't understand. We're not discussing sentences here, but the bulk of the article. There's nothing in the first three sections that belongs with the current sourcing as I indicated [2] [3] [4], and most of the last section should be similarly removed. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS about talk page discussions: "Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", added emphasis is mine. If the article is violation of policy, some part of it must obviously be. I ask you again, point out an example of a sentence that is in conflict with policy, and state exactly how. If you can't, you have no case to support your claim.

Maybe the following will clarify for you why I am skeptical of your claims. Take these edits: [5] and [6].

The former is perfectly fine, no problem here. With the latter, I agree with the change, but the reason you gave for it makes no sense. This is a simple styling issue, and calling this an advert is entirely off the mark. This is especially true when the contributing editor is new, and cannot be expected to have mastered the intricacies and details of our style guide. Paradoctor (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not addressing the policies, nor indicating that you understand how they apply. As you point out, consensus is based upon policy. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice: As of now, I'm withdrawing from this topic. I'll unwatch the involved pages, please refrain from contacting me on this matter. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Paradoctor (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh

In my good faith attempt to find some approaches to this issue, I dug up a 2001 series of lecture notes by E. Battaner & E. Florido. They deal with Salucci's claims in depth and make some interesting observations:

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Battaner/node7.html

"[T]he most interesting fact in the fitting effort made by these authors is that such a large variety of galactic types have rotation curves which can be adjusted to a single universal rotation curve (even for ellipticals, not considered here).... The explanation of the puzzling behaviour of binary systems, however, is still not completely satisfactory."

"The universal rotation curve is a fitting problem.... Bosma (1998) considered that the notion of universal rotation curves breaks down. He observed several galaxies with a high rotation velocity, but non-declining rotation curves. This could be due to the inclusion in Persic and Salucci's sample of very inclined galaxies, where opacity problems are difficult to handle when using H rotation curves. Verheijen (1997) also found 10 out of 30 galaxies in the Ursa Major clusters for which the rotation curves do not fit the universal rotation curves. Despite all these exceptions the scheme introduced by Persic, Salucci and collaborators, provides a first fit that theoretical models should take into account."

---

The general point here is that it is well understood (from MOND, thank you very much!) that there is an acceleration scaling that appears to be an excellent fit for almost all rotation curves. This is a "UNIVERSAL" single-parameter fit which is simpler than the Salucci approach and would be preferred as an Occam's razor approach. (Ignored in our promotional article, of course.) There is a scaling that is happening in galaxies that is very peculiar and not yet completely explained by modelers that I have seen, and this fact is exploited by Salucci and the MONDians as a button to push. They should push those buttons in the literature and I applaud them for doing so even if they turn out to be chasing ghosts. But what we cannot do here at Wikipedia is accommodate this kind of bleeding edge discussion. It's simply not going to be possible within the confines of our sourcing rules. Getting people to understand this has been a real bear.

jps (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Good, this is a well-cited paper that contains a critical discussion of the URC concept, and it certainly belongs in the article. Do you wish to propose an edit, or would you like me to make a suggestion?

What this does not, however, is telling me what is wrong with the claims/sources in the article. I'll keep asking as long as there are claims that there is a problem with the text. Paradoctor (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"this is a well-cited paper" Which? --Ronz (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The one prominently linked at the top of this section? Paradoctor (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no well-cited paper linked in this section, hence my request for clarification. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation by a mainstream textbook?

According to Paolosalucci (talk), the universal rotation curve model "was pioneered in and then set in and ." If it was pioneered 33 years ago and set 28 and 18 years ago then wouldn't there be a mainstream textbook that discusses it in depth? If so, what is the name of the textbook? Leegrc (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Yes, we're need to find some reference that demonstrates that any of this is worth noting at this level of detail. A textbook or other source that puts this all into the larger context is what's needed. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

References