" 

 :: If that is right then the article is wrong, see further; but if you are right, the contents of that paragraph belongs in either the Redshift article or in the Redshift mechanisms article. Please back up your claim that ""tired light"" is not what the ""tired light"" article defines as such; and next correct its definition to make it only cover what it is, and not what it is not. The article would be largely wrong if you are right, as it now states: 

 ::""Tired light is the hypothesis that photons of light slowly lose energy as they travel through space. [...] Various mechanisms to produce such a drop in energy have been proposed. Scattering by known mechanisms from gas or dust does not reproduce the observations. For example, scattering by any mechanism would be expected to blur the images of distant objects, which is not observed."" 
 ::BTW, that last sentence is unwarranted for the ""scattering"" process that you removed: it refers to another mechanism. 

 ::Apologist, you have been nagging to censor this information from this article just as you attempted to hide the whole tired light subject from the redshift article  unmistakenly in order to make a strong as possible apology for a single POV about Cosmological redshift. Thuis is part of a pattern, indeed contrary to my attempts to help making Wikipedia the most informative and unbiased encyclopedia ever. You are now simultaneously trying to delete an exhaustive list of redshift mechanisms which should be linked to from the Redshift article. If your strategy to censor out a number of known redshift mechanisms from Wikipedia will be successfull, it can only lead to a POV notice on the Redshift article as well.  "