User talk:SneltCatNoc

Welcome!

Hello, SneltCatNoc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

--EMS | Talk 21:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Sage gravitation

Snelt -

For Le Sage's theory of gravitation, I have been involved as a self-appointed mediator, mostly between ELQ22 and Le Sagian, but also between ELQ22 and MRE. I am someone with my own ideas about gravitation, but my theme is a modification of general relativity, not a variation of Le Sage gravitation.

My goal for this page is to obtain a product that reflects the current state of affairs regarding this subject, including coverage of the notable work currently being done in this area. "Notable" means serious efforts by people who have an artile in Wikipedia, and therefore are notable themselves, or work which is more notable that any material covered under this standard. So the work of Tom Van Flandern and Halton Arp are germane, and certainly the research done by Henri Poincaré and James Clerk Maxwell are too.

Overall, I would like to see the article be fair and balanced, and (of course) NPOV. Note however that "balanced" in my view does not mean that it be as pro-Le Sage as anti-Le Sage. As you note, the overall opinion of Le Sage type model in the physics commmunity is that that are bogus, and I agree that the article should reflect that. However, certain past and current pro-Le Sage viewpoints are appropriate to mention as long as we do not lose track of the overall approval of those models.

Up until now, I have tended to ally myself with MRE as a kind of default. ELQ22 is so blatantly biased that this person is almost useless as an editor. Blatant bashing of Le Sage gravitation is not appropriate. On the other hand Le Sagian is little better, and my initial involvement was in fact dealing with a "food fight" between ELQ22 and Le Sagian. MRE, while admitedly being the editor of "Pushing Gravity" and therefore very pro Le Sage has none the less been willing to work with me on content and has even done some self-censorship. The current version of the article is largely his doing as a result. This is not to say that it cannot be improved, but it does beat what preceeded it, and based on my (admitedly limited) knowledge of the subject has impressed me as being relatively accurate and somewhat NPOV (not that I would remove the POV warning until all disputes are resolved).

I none that less am disgusted with my inability to work with ELQ22. I would rather be facilitating a mainstream viewpoint than keeping the page from being excessively pro-Le Sage.

An extract from the NPOV policy may help you to understand why I do not want this page to be blatantly down on Le Sage gravitation:

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

For the Le Sage gravitation page, much the same applies. Let the known facts and history "convict" the theory.

Overall, if I can help you to create a decent page on this subject, I am willing, and I may be able to bring a few others into the fray if needed. I do ask that you refrain from calling the others "crackpots", as name calling only tends to harden people's opinions and create edit wars. I also ask that you be patient with MRE: He is very open minded for someone pushing an non-mainstream scientific viewpoint, and is willing to learn. --EMS | Talk 21:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]