Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 14
- 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 by clear consensus. Jayron32 05:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Superbradyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Check Google Scholar and Google Books. Besides this self-published gem of science, there isn't a single reference anywhere that's not written by Luis González-Mestres (and see that article and its talk page, plus now an ANI thread, on the editing practices of the recent editor of this article). A number of editors have been redirecting this to that biography, but they keep being reverted. I would like this thing deleted--and if not deleted, I want the redirect to be kept on salt, so to speak, to prevent this disruptive POV editing that inserts fringe science into Wikipedia.
Note: I just saw that this is the second time at AfD, and I have invited some of the earlier participants. At the time, it was redirected to Lorentz_covariance#Lorentz_violation; perhaps that is still a good target. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kevin (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We will repeat what we just wrote. This is obviously partial. It is actually a personal attack and corresponds to the Wikipedia policy correlated with the Bogdanoff affair:
March 5, we wrote our first article against the anti-Bogdanoff campaign :
March 21, the biography of Luis Gonzalez-Mestres was suppressed from the French Wikipedia.
We then wrote several papers about this incident. See our blogs :
http://www.mediapart.fr/club/blog/Scientia
April 11, the attacks against the superbradyon page started, and later on the English biography of Gonzalez-Mestres.
The situation seems quite clear, and is even worse. In the article "Bogdanoff affair" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
Wikipedia writes that the CNRS (a French public research institution) "issued" a report. But the link given :
is just a PDF without any mention, in the text of the article, of the actual source that provides the PDF and that is actually a private newspaper (Marianne). There is no reference to the Marianne article containing the PDF file whose authenticity is far from obvious (no signature, no stamp, and a CADA official opinion contrary to any publication of the actual report) :
http://www.marianne2.fr/REVELATIONS-Le-rapport-du-CNRS-qui-flingue les-Bogdanoff_a198523.html
This is not an official source and its polemic will should be known by the reader. Actually, the CNRS has issued no public report, as explained in this version that was competely censored :
So, the article is clearly misleading. Even the reference to an official statement of the University of Burgundy :
has been suppressed.
We have already commented all that here :
http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/scientia/050511/wikipedia-and-so-called-bogdanov-affair-i Indépendance des Chercheurs (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore, bibliometric arguments are more and more misleading. Everybody knows how citations are exchanged and the increasing role of lobbying in bibliometry. The papers specifically on superbradyons have been quoted by the most prominent authors in the field. For instance :
- by S. Coleman and S. Glashow, here (ref. 1) : http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9703240
- by J. Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos and D.V. Nanopoulos (ref. 16), here : http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4052
- by T. Stanev (ref. 34), here : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411113
- by T. Jacobson, S. Liberati and D. Mattingly (ref. 12) here : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0212190
- by G. Amelino-Camelia (ref. 4) here : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209232
- by G. Sigl (ref. 57), here : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104291v1
and so on...
There are also other references to articles dealing simultaneously with superbradyons and with more general Lorentz violating scenarios.
Obvioulsy, this has nothing to do with tachyons and there is no reason (except "political" due to the Bogdanoff affair) to suppress this article.
Indépendance des Chercheurs (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Political and other conspiracies aside: Coleman and Glashow, ref. 1, do not mention the term and only say "L. Gonzales-Mestres (to be publ.) discusses possible Lorentz non-invariance in a different context." Ellis et al, ref. 16, do not mention the term. Stanev, ref. 34, does not use or acknowledge the term. Jacobson et al. ref. 12 and text, does not mention the term and speaks only of "Cerenkov radiation". Amelino-Camelia, ref. 4, does not mention the term.
All these articles mention ("discuss" is saying too much) the work published by González-Mestres, but none of them use or even mention the term, let alone discuss it in depth. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Drmies is wrong. The selected papers cite work that was specifically on superbradyons, and by the way at the time of this work Gonzalez-Mestres was using the expression "superluminal particles" and not "superbradyons" until February 1997 (the word "superbradyons" was introduced here : http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9702026 ), although the concept had been clearly formulated already at the January 1995 Moriond Workshop ( http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9505117 , already cited by several people) and since then. Even after February 1997, Gonzalez-Mestres often used the expression "superluminal particles" rather than "superbradyons", just to be more easily understood. The actual introduction of the word "superbradyons" was a progressive one.
An example is this December 1997 paper :
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9712049 (Workshop on "Observing Giant Cosmic Ray Air Showers for > 10E20 eV Particles from Space", Univ. of Maryland, Nov 13-15, 1997, AIP Conf. Proc. )
entitled "Observing Air Showers from Cosmic Superluminal Particles", with this explanation in the abstract : "The new superluminal particles ("superbradyons", i.e. bradyons with superluminal critical speed) would have positive mass and energy, and behave kinematically like "ordinary" particles (those with critical speed in vacuum equal to c, the speed of light) apart from the difference in critical speed."
Superbradyons are a really new concept, fundamentally different from tachyons that do not break Lorentz invariance or from "accidentally superluminal" phenomena due to particular dynamical situations. The superbradyon picture implies a radically different view of vacuum and matter. Superbradyons are a new version of preons (not just "building blocks") and the possible ultimate constituents behind the string model. Indépendance des Chercheurs (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, we do not undestand very well Kevin's comment. There is no scientific motivation, and we have found no physicist or mathematician named Kevin Gorman at arxiv.org. Concernig the use of the word, a Google search for "superbradyons" gives 1600 results. An example of a paper from another author using the word "superbradyons" in its title is here :
But what is really important is that the Physics papers have been cited. This is also the case of the recent paper "Lorentz violation, vacuum, cosmic rays, superbradyons and Pamir data", http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.1853 , cited in Physical Review Letters by this article (ref. 14) :
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3434 , Phys.Rev.Lett.106:101101,2011 Indépendance des Chercheurs (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, we do not undestand very well Kevin's comment. There is no scientific motivation, and we have found no physicist or mathematician named Kevin Gorman at arxiv.org. Concernig the use of the word, a Google search for "superbradyons" gives 1600 results. An example of a paper from another author using the word "superbradyons" in its title is here :
- Drmies is wrong. The selected papers cite work that was specifically on superbradyons, and by the way at the time of this work Gonzalez-Mestres was using the expression "superluminal particles" and not "superbradyons" until February 1997 (the word "superbradyons" was introduced here : http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9702026 ), although the concept had been clearly formulated already at the January 1995 Moriond Workshop ( http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9505117 , already cited by several people) and since then. Even after February 1997, Gonzalez-Mestres often used the expression "superluminal particles" rather than "superbradyons", just to be more easily understood. The actual introduction of the word "superbradyons" was a progressive one.
- Political and other conspiracies aside: Coleman and Glashow, ref. 1, do not mention the term and only say "L. Gonzales-Mestres (to be publ.) discusses possible Lorentz non-invariance in a different context." Ellis et al, ref. 16, do not mention the term. Stanev, ref. 34, does not use or acknowledge the term. Jacobson et al. ref. 12 and text, does not mention the term and speaks only of "Cerenkov radiation". Amelino-Camelia, ref. 4, does not mention the term.
- Furthermore, bibliometric arguments are more and more misleading. Everybody knows how citations are exchanged and the increasing role of lobbying in bibliometry. The papers specifically on superbradyons have been quoted by the most prominent authors in the field. For instance :
- Question Is there any evidence that anyone , ever, has used the term -- besides Luis González-Mestres ? DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Response Judging by Google Scholar it doesn't appear that anyone has (except for a French author). Google results for "Superbradyon -wikipedia" are only 1,970 and most of those are either by or about "L Gonzalez-Mestres", or definitions, some of the definition sites seem to be copying from Wikipedia as well. I'm not suggesting Google is a "notability bible" by any means, but it's usually a pretty good indication. - SudoGhost (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per my response above, and also due to lack of established notability. There are 18 references, 12 of them are by Luis González-Mestres, the inventor of the term (unless I'm mistaken, that makes them WP:SPS). The other references do not mention superbraydon in any way. - SudoGhost (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as not yet being accepted as part of mainstream science and salt in view of previous AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC).
- Comment Just as a note, Indépendance has been blocked for 48h for revert warring, so he (they?) won't be responding to this thread for a couple of days. Kevin (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do not delete. I did not want to enter this discussion, but obviously there are unsound attacks based on nonsense bibliometry (the way to allow people who do not really understand the subject to give an opinion anyway) and on arbitrary definitions of a so-called "mainstream science" (fully arbitratry when the "mainstream" is undergoing a deep crisis). The reference to "mainstream" clearly looks like a conflict of interests, and Indépendendance des Chercheurs has been blocked. As they have shown, the basic papers on superbradyons have been cited by the main specialists in the field. Once this is recognized, as well as the fact that it is a new original concept, the article must be preserved. This kind of so-called "democracy" is a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.158.99.52 (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- The above comment represents the IP editor's first edits on Wikipedia, and it has been worked over to disguise its original similarity to the writing of the User:Indépendendance des Chercheurs . Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- (1) Wikipedia is not a democracy.
(2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which relies on secondary and tertiary sources, it is not a place to report "a new original concept" which has not yet been accepted or significantly discussed by the scientific community.
(3) Wikipedia does not allow its articles to include original research.
(4) Wikipedia does not allow editors who are blocked to log out and edit from an IP address, pretending to be someone else. This is sockpuppetry in the attempt to create a false consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- (1) Wikipedia is not a democracy.
- The above comment represents the IP editor's first edits on Wikipedia, and it has been worked over to disguise its original similarity to the writing of the User:Indépendendance des Chercheurs . Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do not delete. I did not want to enter this discussion, but obviously there are unsound attacks based on nonsense bibliometry (the way to allow people who do not really understand the subject to give an opinion anyway) and on arbitrary definitions of a so-called "mainstream science" (fully arbitratry when the "mainstream" is undergoing a deep crisis). The reference to "mainstream" clearly looks like a conflict of interests, and Indépendendance des Chercheurs has been blocked. As they have shown, the basic papers on superbradyons have been cited by the main specialists in the field. Once this is recognized, as well as the fact that it is a new original concept, the article must be preserved. This kind of so-called "democracy" is a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.158.99.52 (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously, do not delete. There is no serious argument to delete an article explaining a concept whose original and explicitly devoted papers have been quoted by most relevant people in the field, as Indépendance des Chercheurs wrote :
:- S. Coleman and S. Glashow, here (ref. 1) : http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9703240
- J. Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos and D.V. Nanopoulos (ref. 16), here : http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4052
- T. Stanev (ref. 34), here : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411113
- T. Jacobson, S. Liberati and D. Mattingly (ref. 12) here : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0212190
- G. Amelino-Camelia (ref. 4) here : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209232
- G. Sigl (ref. 57), here : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104291v1
Furtermore, the notion of "meanstream" means nothing in this field where the string model is not producing much outcome. Superbradyons are an interesting idea for both particle physics and cosmology, including possible pre - Big Bang issues or the valdity of quantum field theory at very high energy.
But there is an even more fundamental reason : given the time coincidence with the incidents around the Bogdanoff affair, simple ethical considerations require this discussion to be immediately stopped. 82.123.7.247 (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)— 82.123.7.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The above comment represents the IP editor's first edits on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unclear Clearly the main author is passionate. I looked at all 6 articles citing his work above. The problem is that they peripherally cite his discussion or analysis, but do not talk about Superbradyons. On one hand, science is not only legitimate if it is mainstream; on the other hand, the article is way too long for something which has no clear uptake by the community, and potentially misrepresents it's notability. If the article were slashed to 1-2 paras, I think it would be ok and useful. It's always good to have a place to talk about new ideas, but not in a way that attempts to overstate it's respect by the scientific community. Can this be mentioned in 1 para in some other article on theoretical particles? Wxidea (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's precisely the thing, Wxidea. If you look at the first AfD, you'll see it was redirected to a section on Lorentz variations, and that is (mainly) the matter (or wave, haha) addressed by the references brought forth in this AfD. The recent history had the article redirect to the author of the articles cited in this article. As for science and discussion, WP articles have to abide by some general rules, and in the case of science that means discussion in reliable sources; even non-mainstream topics have been the subject of such discussion and are therefore notable (I'm thinking for instance of the E-meter). But I suggest that in this case such secondary discussion is lacking completely, and mentions of the author's research do not directly (even verbally) address the topic. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You summed this up well. I restate my vote as delete. Thanks. Wxidea (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's precisely the thing, Wxidea. If you look at the first AfD, you'll see it was redirected to a section on Lorentz variations, and that is (mainly) the matter (or wave, haha) addressed by the references brought forth in this AfD. The recent history had the article redirect to the author of the articles cited in this article. As for science and discussion, WP articles have to abide by some general rules, and in the case of science that means discussion in reliable sources; even non-mainstream topics have been the subject of such discussion and are therefore notable (I'm thinking for instance of the E-meter). But I suggest that in this case such secondary discussion is lacking completely, and mentions of the author's research do not directly (even verbally) address the topic. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- This article should not be deleted. The original work on superbradyons had a general impact on ideas on Lorentz symmetry violation, but this was precisely the noveltry of this work that went further than previous work in this domain. Of course, this had an influence on the citations but it is precisely an important point of the superbradyon idea.
It is a fact that the original work on superbradyons has been cited by the best-known scientists in the field, even if they were not directly working on superbraydons. But, for instance, Coleman and Glashow considered in 1997 different values of the critical speed in vacuum for different particles to test Lorentz symmetry, and this was clearly inspired by the superbradyon idea that was then two years old. The idea that superbradyon decay may be at the origin of some ultra-high energy cosmic ray fluxes (1996) seems also to have inspired later work on the decay of other heavy objects. This is not a bad point, either.
By the way, there is clearly and ethical and conflict of interests problem in this discussion, if you look at what Indépendance des Chercheurs wrote about dates :
"March 5, we wrote our first article against the anti-Bogdanoff campaign :
March 21, the biography of Luis Gonzalez-Mestres was suppressed from the French Wikipedia.
We then wrote several papers about this incident. See our blogs :
http://www.mediapart.fr/club/blog/Scientia
April 11, the attacks against the superbradyon page started, and later on the English biography of Gonzalez-Mestres."
(end of quote)
How to explain this date coincidence, together with the involvement of a Wikipedia administrator (Alain Riazuelo) in both the anti-Bogdanoff campaign and the attack against the Gonzalez-Mestres biography in the French Wikipedia ? You are already removing comments in this discussion, so... 83.199.114.136 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore, an encyclopedia should not be devoted to any "mainstream", nor to any official doctrine. It must be open-minded and inform the reader on everything, including what is not claimed to correspond to a supposed "mainstream". Obviously, the attacks against the superbradyon article are not open-minded and the use of a so-called "bibliometry" is just nonsense. Who can reasonably ignore, for instance, the role of the citation lobbying ?
Of course, one can understand that nowadays research groups "need" to claim that the program they are proposing is a "unique solution", in order to get as much money and as many positions as possible. But this is a bad practice from a long-term point of view and, precisely, an encyclopedia should not be the driving belt of this kind of strategies. 83.199.114.136 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- The above comments represents the IP editor's first edits on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore, an encyclopedia should not be devoted to any "mainstream", nor to any official doctrine. It must be open-minded and inform the reader on everything, including what is not claimed to correspond to a supposed "mainstream". Obviously, the attacks against the superbradyon article are not open-minded and the use of a so-called "bibliometry" is just nonsense. Who can reasonably ignore, for instance, the role of the citation lobbying ?
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia does not include original research. Neither does it take any notice of people who come along out of the blue and tell it what it 'should' do. Particularly when they resort to sockpuppetry and other dubious tactics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The rule is, on wikipedia, we only discuss things from reliable independent secondary sources, not primary sources. The only thing in reliable independent secondary sources, as far as I can see, is "González-Mestres has proposed a theory about Lorentz violations with the goal of explaining high-energy cosmic rays". Everything else in the article, i.e. almost every single sentence in the article, is not based on reliable independent secondary sources. (For example, someone please show me a reliable independent secondary source, e.g. a widely-used physics textbook, that discusses the role of superbradyons in non-cyclic pre-Big Bang cosmologies.) Now, don't get me wrong, this is fine content, and it can be written about on a google knol, a blog post, or whatever, but definitely not as a separate article on wikipedia. It can also be mentioned in a few words, or a sentence, or a footnote, in Lorentz_covariance#Lorentz_violation. (I also agree that it should be salted to prevent re-creation without prior approval, since this is its second deletion.) --Steve (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is no serious reason to delete this article. By the way, you just "kill" all the comments opposed to the deletion. Is this a "citizen" and "ethical" behaviour in a foundation that permanently asks for help and money from citizens ? And there is obvioulsy a problem about risks of conflicts of interests and lobbying in Wikipedia, as most administrators are anonymous.
The work on superbradyons has been cited by the main specialists, and papers on the subject have been endorsed by the refereed proceedings of the most specialized workshops. It is therefore normal that the public knows what the superbradyon idea is about, especially in a period where there is a serious crisis of the string model. 83.199.16.15 (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The above comments represents the IP editor's first edits on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is also clearly unethical to speak about "comments by a blocked user" without any proof of it, as an argument to hide and exclude comments that you do not like. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia administrators seem to do that quite often. 83.199.16.15 (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)— 83.199.16.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I am the person who reverted the edits; I am not a Wikipedia administrator. Blame me for what I do and blame them for what they do. If you want to understand why I feel it is fair to call the comments comments by a blocked user, see WP:DUCK. Kevin (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- If one looks at the way people get blocked in Wikipedia, suspicion arguments are too often used. Is this kind of internet police normal in such an encyclopedia ?
Of course, if Jimmy Wales proposes such an internet police at the Paris G8 including the DUCK and so on, he will be warmly supported by several governments. 83.199.52.143 (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)— 83.199.52.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The above comments represents the IP editor's first edits on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- If one looks at the way people get blocked in Wikipedia, suspicion arguments are too often used. Is this kind of internet police normal in such an encyclopedia ?
- I am the person who reverted the edits; I am not a Wikipedia administrator. Blame me for what I do and blame them for what they do. If you want to understand why I feel it is fair to call the comments comments by a blocked user, see WP:DUCK. Kevin (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is also clearly unethical to speak about "comments by a blocked user" without any proof of it, as an argument to hide and exclude comments that you do not like. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia administrators seem to do that quite often. 83.199.16.15 (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)— 83.199.16.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The above comments represents the IP editor's first edits on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: Please take notice of the obvious meat- or sockpuppetry above. All of the "keep" !votes are clearly related and coordinated. Given that that are all IPs, they may be IP socks of the blocked account User:Indépendance des Chercheurs, or they may be meatpuppets. In either case, all of their comments after the initial one should be ignored. If a checkuser would like to take a look, that might be interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The last comment is very interesting. This looks more and more like some sort of internet police. What can be learned from internet adresses that correspond to geographic zones ? And who can check the personal and professional relations, and conflicts of interests, of most Wikipedia administrators and influent users ? Maybe it would be interesting to ask the United Nations Commissionner on Human Rights to examine these celebrated "checkuser" techniques and the use Wikipedia and other sites are making of them.83.199.87.242 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your crackpot conspiracy theories are of no relevance to this discussion. Wikipedia policy dictates that articles be backed up by outside reliable sources which indicate notability. This article doesn't have them. It should therefore be deleted. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The last comment is very interesting. This looks more and more like some sort of internet police. What can be learned from internet adresses that correspond to geographic zones ? And who can check the personal and professional relations, and conflicts of interests, of most Wikipedia administrators and influent users ? Maybe it would be interesting to ask the United Nations Commissionner on Human Rights to examine these celebrated "checkuser" techniques and the use Wikipedia and other sites are making of them.83.199.87.242 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Some explanation for Indépendance des Chercheurs - Dear Indépendance des Chercheurs, some people (e.g., User:AndyTheGrump) are being rude here, and no one has really explained what is going on. Moreover, Wikipedia editors spend a lot of time blocking spam, and tend to be exclusionists, meaning they are quick on the draw to remove content. They typically mean well, but in cases like this, they can seem like closeminded pricks. I'm not a Wikipedia insider, but I've observed enough of these discussions that I understand some of what's going on. So I'm going to explain a little bit of broader context to you.
First of all, I'm sorry this has been so frustrating for you. You clearly have put a lot of thought an work into the Superbradyon theory, both in terms of working out your theory, and also in trying to promote it more broadly in the physics community. Moreover, you have people with very little physics background who appear to be criticizing your work, or accusing you of fringe science (I am not qualified to comment on your science).
Unfortunately, Wikipedia, at it's core, is not designed to acknowledge new work. This is both a good an bad characteristic of Wikipedia. It's good because it shifts judgement about issues to people who might be more expert or impartial. It's bad because it does not recognize the expertise of contributors like you. You need to deeply understand that Wikipedia relies on secondary and tertiary sources. That's just how it is. So until people who are not directly related to the Superbradyon research write about it, it is invisible to Wikipedia.
Your best bet will be to try to work with the media or other scientists. You could try to get a well regarded blog or newmagazine to write about hypothetical elementary particles, including the Superbradyon, or similarly try to recruit other scientists to mention the Superbradyon in their articles or in review articles. I know this is an uphill battle.
Good luck in your quest to promote your theory. Don't post anonymously (if that was you) from other IPs, or get your friends to post. Wikipedia editors are also a super defensive bunch, and they only like for other possibly-ignorant exclusionist editors to comment, not for you to recruit outsiders. You only chance to win over these wiki editors is going to be if there's a new, independent publication which substantially discusses (e.g., several paragraphs) the Superbradyon. Don't bother trying to fight.
Sorry for a little lecture here, but the editors are baiting you a little here, I wanted to be clear about the core problem. Best wishes with your research. Wxidea (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- So, now Indépendance des Chercheurs is blocked for one more week and therefore excluded from this discussion. It also seems that any net surfer with a IP beginning by 83.199 is prevented from writing in Wikipedia articles. By looking at the Indépendance des Chercheurs user page, one finds :
All this is by the way based in pure suspicion arguments. There seems to be a problem with internet police, fundamental rights and expression freedom in this way of proceeding.90.46.179.240 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Sockpuppetry
Please see Wikipedia's policies on sockpuppetry. It is not allowed to edit while logged out, pretending to be someone else, as you appear to have done here. This is especially true when your own account has been blocked. Please do not edit Wikipedia until your block runs out or is lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
A large set of IPs from 83.199.0.0/16 (block user · block log · WHOIS) is now editing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination) since your block. These IPs are presumably you. Your block is extended by another week for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
(end of quote)
- So we see two conflict resolution strategies here: (a) Engagement & explanation vs. (b) IP blocking. Good luck with the latter. --- Indépendance des Chercheurs -- I urge you not to let this fire you up. Don't go drive over to your local library or internet cafe, or use a proxy, and post some more or try to defend yourself. Just make a copy of your article, let them take it down (which I assure you the editors here intend to do), and when you have succeeded in obtaining some independent coverage of your theory, come back here, re-post the article along with the new citation, add a note that the article was previously deleted for lack of notability, and that now it is notable. Don't take the word "notable" personally, it has a very narrow definition in Wikipedia, and it means 'are there secondary and tertiary sources that talk about this?' Getting secondary sources is the only way to "win" at Wikipedia. Good luck. Wxidea (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously, there is no real debate here, and people are blocked when they bring arguments. Indépendance des Chercheurs is well-known in an institution like CNRS and is not a person but a collective. A sizeable amount of researches vote for them, and most of these researchers are not members of the collective. And what about the conflicts of interests of the (often anonymous) Wikipedia administrators ?
IP adresses are blocked just on the grounds of suspicion. The end of the text quoted above is :
As previously stressed, this is based in pure suspicion arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.168.157 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)A large set of IPs from 83.199.0.0/16 (block user · block log · WHOIS) is now editing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination) since your block. These IPs are presumably you. Your block is extended by another week for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)(end of quote)
- True, but these 'suspicion arguments' are backed up by evidence (the closely-related IPs), unlike the nonsense about others' supposed 'conflict of interest' which is backed up by nothing. If Wikipedia chooses to take suspicions about closely-related IPs as evidence of collusion, it is their right to do so. In any case, these repeated postings of the same irrelevant points will make no difference. This is not a vote. It is a discussion as to whether the article should or should not be deleted, according to Wikipedia policy. Such policy requires reliable outside sources for articles. This article doesn't have them, and as such is almost certain to be deleted. If you wish to argue that this policy is wrong, or you have verifiable evidence that anyone taking part in this debate has a conflict of interest, this should be raised elsewhere. We cannot change policy here, and this isn't an appropriate place to discuss alleged conflicts of interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Close-related IP's" are not an evidence, but furthermore such assertions are false. There are in this discussion several groups of IP adresses with comments opposing to the deletion. Such an internet police "technique" is not legitimate.
And "Wikipedia policy" is just a joke to provide "official reasons" to attack people. Indépendance des Chercheurs has disavowed the campaign against the Bogdanoff brothers were a Wikipedia administrator (Alain Riazuelo) has built his own "notability" and is quoted by Wikipedia itself as a "source".
Gonzalez-Mestres is a well-known candidate of Indépendance des Chercheurs to the CNRS elections, see for instance :
Obviously, the program he is proposing does not point to the same direction as the Jim Wales participation to the e-G8 together with representatives of the main internet corporations. Influent CNRS people also consider him as a "dissident". Precisely, Wikipedia was at the origine supposed not to get involved into suppression of dissent campaigns.82.123.87.182 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know that the assertions of collusion are false? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- You wrote : "these 'suspicion arguments' are backed up by evidence (the closely-related IPs)". This is obviously false, as there are several groups of IP addresses providing comments against the deletion. Furthermore, what do we really know about the Wikipedia administrators ?82.123.87.183 (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know that the assertions of collusion are false? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Close-related IP's" are not an evidence, but furthermore such assertions are false. There are in this discussion several groups of IP adresses with comments opposing to the deletion. Such an internet police "technique" is not legitimate.
- True, but these 'suspicion arguments' are backed up by evidence (the closely-related IPs), unlike the nonsense about others' supposed 'conflict of interest' which is backed up by nothing. If Wikipedia chooses to take suspicions about closely-related IPs as evidence of collusion, it is their right to do so. In any case, these repeated postings of the same irrelevant points will make no difference. This is not a vote. It is a discussion as to whether the article should or should not be deleted, according to Wikipedia policy. Such policy requires reliable outside sources for articles. This article doesn't have them, and as such is almost certain to be deleted. If you wish to argue that this policy is wrong, or you have verifiable evidence that anyone taking part in this debate has a conflict of interest, this should be raised elsewhere. We cannot change policy here, and this isn't an appropriate place to discuss alleged conflicts of interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously, there is no real debate here, and people are blocked when they bring arguments. Indépendance des Chercheurs is well-known in an institution like CNRS and is not a person but a collective. A sizeable amount of researches vote for them, and most of these researchers are not members of the collective. And what about the conflicts of interests of the (often anonymous) Wikipedia administrators ?
- So we see two conflict resolution strategies here: (a) Engagement & explanation vs. (b) IP blocking. Good luck with the latter. --- Indépendance des Chercheurs -- I urge you not to let this fire you up. Don't go drive over to your local library or internet cafe, or use a proxy, and post some more or try to defend yourself. Just make a copy of your article, let them take it down (which I assure you the editors here intend to do), and when you have succeeded in obtaining some independent coverage of your theory, come back here, re-post the article along with the new citation, add a note that the article was previously deleted for lack of notability, and that now it is notable. Don't take the word "notable" personally, it has a very narrow definition in Wikipedia, and it means 'are there secondary and tertiary sources that talk about this?' Getting secondary sources is the only way to "win" at Wikipedia. Good luck. Wxidea (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- So, now Indépendance des Chercheurs is blocked for one more week and therefore excluded from this discussion. It also seems that any net surfer with a IP beginning by 83.199 is prevented from writing in Wikipedia articles. By looking at the Indépendance des Chercheurs user page, one finds :
- All this noise against an unconventional Physics concept presented in articles that have been cited by the main authors in the field, and that has been presented to the most specialized conferences and published in their refereed proceedings is clearly unreasonable. If the idea had been emitted by a member on an influent lobby, there would not be such a discussion. Even when The New York Times or the CERN Courrier :
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28696
refer to the work by Gonzalez-Mestres, they actually cite papers on superbradyons, and in particular this one :
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9704017 90.46.103.102 (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - As I mentioned above, I checked the six papers that the main defender of this article posted here and none of them contains the word "superbradyon". The blocked editor and his IP friends seem to have a fundamental and invincible misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, how it works and what qualifies as an article subject. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Frank Mottley (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Those who want the delete the article lack arguments and are just tryng to hide the relevant arguments against deletion. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is becoming less and less reliable using such methods.
Clearly, this discussion shold be stopped as its creation itself was not impartial. 90.46.110.196 (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- The argument invoked by Frank Mottley is wrong. As previously explained, Gonzalez-Mestres himself did not use the word "superbradyon" right from the beginning, and even later he introduced it in a "soft" way. But once he has made this choice, being the author of the original papers, there is no reason not to follow it.
An example of a paper by another author using the word "superbradyons" is here :
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-97332010000100012&script=sci_arttext 82.123.246.234 (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- The attempts to hide comments against deletion should stop. This discussion itself should be suppressed, as the deletion proposal does not make sense. It has been clearly partial, and we know nothing about the possible conflicts of interests involved. 90.24.180.36 (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously, "standard string-model" people asking for money and positions would be happy if the article on superbradyons were suppressed, as superbradyons can be a reliable preonic alternative to some aspects of a string model clearly in bad shape. 82.123.172.155 (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Fails notability requirements - specifically lack of coverage by secondary reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do not delete. Bibliometric criteria are not serious, and most scientists are against them. The quality of Wikipedia will never be very high if it follows bibliometry that is the only tool many editors can use but it is also a wrong way to examine scientific work.
In this case, it has been stated that the original papers on superbradyons were quoted by the main authors in the field. Nobody has contradicted this assertion, but it has been said that the word "superbradyons" does not appears in these papers. So what ???? What matters is that articles explicitly devoted to superbradyons (called "superluminal particles" in most papers by Gonzalez-Mestres himself) have been cited by the relevant scientists. This shows that their content has been judged important enough, and that thay carried an important scientific message.
Bibliometry is by the way particularly nonsense, if one thinks about the many falsified, "very wrong" or superficial "results" published by the most influent "refereed" reviews. Everybody knows the role of lobbying in evaluation, refereeing and citations. And why should researches working for public institutions publish in private reviews, allowing corporations to exploit their work in this way ? 83.204.179.101 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If Gonzalez-Mestres has made such a significant advance in his field, why does it matter whether there is an article about it in Wikipedia? This is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and as such, any ommission by us can be of no consequence. If we get it wrong, that is our problem, but it can be of little concern to any serious scientist. The very fact that so much effort is being put into arguing that the article be retained suggests to me that it cannot be mainstream science, or if it is, it cannot have had recognition within the field. Either way, Wikipedia policy is not to include such topics, partly on the basis that without appropriate external reliable sources, we are unqualified to determine the validity of the article. Surely no reputable scientist would want Wikipedia to be open to unreviewed fringe science? Would this add credibility to mainstream articles? Of course not. There are plenty of forums for the publication of new and unreviewed research, but Wikipedia isn't one of them, and neither should it be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Or, if he's made such significant advances, why does he have to rely on arXiv to get his groundbreaking theories published? It's always the same--someone doesn't make the cut and it's everyone else's fault. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If Gonzalez-Mestres has made such a significant advance in his field, why does it matter whether there is an article about it in Wikipedia? This is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and as such, any ommission by us can be of no consequence. If we get it wrong, that is our problem, but it can be of little concern to any serious scientist. The very fact that so much effort is being put into arguing that the article be retained suggests to me that it cannot be mainstream science, or if it is, it cannot have had recognition within the field. Either way, Wikipedia policy is not to include such topics, partly on the basis that without appropriate external reliable sources, we are unqualified to determine the validity of the article. Surely no reputable scientist would want Wikipedia to be open to unreviewed fringe science? Would this add credibility to mainstream articles? Of course not. There are plenty of forums for the publication of new and unreviewed research, but Wikipedia isn't one of them, and neither should it be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Further explanation. Some arguments are becoming more and more strange. Here is one of them :
"If Gonzalez-Mestres has made such a significant advance in his field, why does it matter whether there is an article about it in Wikipedia?"
And why not, then, especially in a "free encyclopedia" open to all contributors ? It is now clear that the papers on superbradyons have been cited by the most significant specialists, as well as by the CERN Courier and indirectly by The New York Times. By the way, when The New York Times writes :
In the late 1990's Dr. Luis Gonzalez-Mestres of the National Center for Scientific Research in France, and, independently, the Harvard theorists Dr. Sheldon Glashow and Dr. Sidney Coleman proposed that a small violation of relativity would allow high-energy cosmic rays to evade the G.Z.K. energy limit on travel.
this is based on somehow partial information. Actually, the idea was clearly formulated in this April 1997 paper by Gonzalez-Mestres :
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9704017
followed by contributions to several conferences and cited by the CERN Courier.
There is no similar article by Coleman and Glashow until August 1998 :
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9808446
A paper that, strangely, does not quote the Gonzalez-Mestres original idea.
Lee Smolin writes in The Trouble With Physics :
"Remarkably, it took until the mid 1990 for us to realize that we could indeed probe the Planck scale. As sometimes happens, a few people recognized it but were in effect shouted out when they tried to publish their ideas. One was the Spanish physicist Luis Gonzalez-Mestres, of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris..."
The relevance of the "ideas" by Gonzalez-Mestres is clearly acknowledged. But it is not true that Gonzalez-Mestres was prevented from "publishing" his results if one takes into account, as "publications", the arXiv.org and conference papers. See, for 1997 :
http://arxiv.org/find
Lee Smolin is clearly partial, as in the same book he mistakenly attributes to Coleman and Glashow the original idea of a possible suppression of the GZK cutoff as a consequence of Lorentz symmetry violation. But Smolin is a former Harvard doctoral student of Sidney Coleman.
More generally, there seems to be indue lobbying and pressure trying to block an author like Gonzalez-Mestres, who in 1997 was a well-kown member of the joint local unions of the Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire at Collège de France in a situation of strong conflict in the laboratory but also more globally. The conflict involved several important issues, including a "big money" nuclear energy amplifier project that several members of these local unions criticized and that was finally not supported by the French Parliament. Some details can be found in the Gonzalez-Mestres biography.83.204.240.150 (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Another question is that of the way papers are published. The so-called "refereed reviews" were necessary a century ago for material reasons. Publishing scientific articles in classical reviews was expensive, and controls to limit publication were introduced. But nowadays, internet has made possible more open, cheap and very fast ways of publication with possibly a free public debate. Therefore, the old "refereed" reviews are no longer necessary. Open internet publishing is much better to prevent plagiarization, influence practices and other problems that were often denounced some decades ago in the case of "refereed reviews" when the author had to wait months until his work was known by most of his colleagues. Only open sites like arXiv.org can offer a total protection against plagliarization, as the paper submitted becomes public in a few hours.
Furthermore, open archives like arXiv.org are of free access, which is in general not the case of "refereed reviews" where only institutions can afford themselves buying the whole set of very expensive subscriptions. Why, then, to help these private entities to win money ? Also, in arXiv.org you can complete or modify a paper at any moment after the first publication, and all versions are permanently kept by the archive. Such a facility is really excellent.
This is known to be the point of view of Gonzalez-Mestres and of the Indépendance des Chercheurs collective, but similar considerations have more recently been expressed by Garrett Lisi in a totally independent way.
And who can guarantee the independence and impartiality of the editors of "refereed reviews" belonging to private owners ? Of course, if you are working in a big experimental project with 300 or 3000 people signing each paper, you do not have to worry about publication, as the influence of the collaboration will in any case settle matters. The situation is more or less similar if you work inside an influent "mainstream" lobby. But this is not necessarily a good feature of these reviews, whose actual quality is clearly decaying 83.204.240.150 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- None of this is of the slightest relevence to this discussion, which is over whether the article meets the requirements of existing Wikipedia policy. Unless you have something to say which directly addresses this, I suggest you refrain from making further comments - it is doing your case no good whatsoever, as we could not change policy here, even if we wanted to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- On ArXiv: "Also, in arXiv.org you can complete or modify a paper at any moment after the first publication". That is precisely why they don't count. The more one claims that the peer-review process impedes science, the more fringey one gets. But all that, as Andy noted, is beside the point. The sooner this is closed, the better. If you are interested in this matter, keep an eye on the biography of LGM as well. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- To AndyTheGrump : What you say is just not true. Any open-minded and sensible policy must take these elements into account, including Smolin's explicit reference to the original ideas by Gonzalez-Mestres in a book that has been a best-seller. By the way, Wikipedia dit not refrain from writing about Garrett Lisi and his "never-refereed" paper.
Precisely, the work by Gonzalez-Mestres showing how one could "probe the Planck scale" started with superbradyons in 1995. All papers can be found at arXiv.org and have been quoted by the best specialists.
Maybe you are making Wikipedia's case worse. But how to know the identity, personnal, professional and lobbying relations of most Wikipedia administrators ? Perhaps some of them cannot be very happy with what has just been written. 83.204.177.54 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- To AndyTheGrump : What you say is just not true. Any open-minded and sensible policy must take these elements into account, including Smolin's explicit reference to the original ideas by Gonzalez-Mestres in a book that has been a best-seller. By the way, Wikipedia dit not refrain from writing about Garrett Lisi and his "never-refereed" paper.
- On ArXiv: "Also, in arXiv.org you can complete or modify a paper at any moment after the first publication". That is precisely why they don't count. The more one claims that the peer-review process impedes science, the more fringey one gets. But all that, as Andy noted, is beside the point. The sooner this is closed, the better. If you are interested in this matter, keep an eye on the biography of LGM as well. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- None of this is of the slightest relevence to this discussion, which is over whether the article meets the requirements of existing Wikipedia policy. Unless you have something to say which directly addresses this, I suggest you refrain from making further comments - it is doing your case no good whatsoever, as we could not change policy here, even if we wanted to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Another question is that of the way papers are published. The so-called "refereed reviews" were necessary a century ago for material reasons. Publishing scientific articles in classical reviews was expensive, and controls to limit publication were introduced. But nowadays, internet has made possible more open, cheap and very fast ways of publication with possibly a free public debate. Therefore, the old "refereed" reviews are no longer necessary. Open internet publishing is much better to prevent plagiarization, influence practices and other problems that were often denounced some decades ago in the case of "refereed reviews" when the author had to wait months until his work was known by most of his colleagues. Only open sites like arXiv.org can offer a total protection against plagliarization, as the paper submitted becomes public in a few hours.
- IP 83.etc, are you prepared to declare your "identity, personnal, professional and lobbying relations"? Even if it should turn out that you (plural?) are perhaps also a currently blocked editor? I'm perfectly willing to disclose to you that I am not a grump (but don't ask my wife), and that I am not paid for or currently employed by anyone who has anything to do with neutrons, protons, electrons, tachyons, and histrions. I admit that twenty years ago I was in love with a person who went to CERN for a semester, but this never became a relationship (personal, professional, matrimonial, or otherwise).
Seriously, does anyone have any thoughts about what to do with this stream of IPs? Drmies (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- To Drmies : What you call the "peer-review process" belongs to the past, just because expensive ways are no longer necessary to publish scientific information and because the "peer-review process" is full of dangers of lobbying, discrimination and misconduct actually impossible to control.
Why should one keep giving to all these reviews money that is needed elsewhere ? Transparency and public discussion are better than any "peer-review". The fact that you can publish in arXiv.org several versions of a paper that everybody can read and compare is something that conventional reviews cannot do, and it is a clearly superior way of publication. This, of course, is relevant in connection with the article on superbradyons, even if it may go against some personal and professional interests.
By the way, I am not suggesting to suppress any article. If I were, I would state my identity.83.204.177.54 (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- My name is Andy, and I am a grump. Those who know me would confirm this. Since I am not attempting to 'suppress' anything, I see no reason to declare my identity, in the same way that the stream of IPs chose not to, though in any case, this particular 'collective' does not require disclosure. I have never worked for CERN, and I wouldn't know one end of a tachyon from the other. I have never been paid to lobby anyone over anything, and donate my time freely to Wikipedia, as I consider it a resource of benefit to all. I happen to think that requiring secondary sourcing for articles is one of the keys to Wikipedia's success - otherwise it would rapidly degenerate into a morass of fringe science, crackpot conspiracy theories, and who knows what else. That this policy excludes some things that may be of real value is unquestionable, but we have no method to determine which of the many attempts to include 'new ideas' are valid, so we stick to what we know works. If you don't like it, you don't have to contribute, but if you want to edit Wikipedia, you have to follow Wikipedia policy. If you want to change the way science works, you are in the wrong place... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- To Drmies : What you call the "peer-review process" belongs to the past, just because expensive ways are no longer necessary to publish scientific information and because the "peer-review process" is full of dangers of lobbying, discrimination and misconduct actually impossible to control.
- Delete: little evidence of third-party sourcing, or even published (as opposed to pre-publication) sourcing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- No serious argument for deletion. Clearly, we know nothing about AndyTheGrump, Hrafn, Drmies... and most Wikipedia administrators and editors. Therefore, any lobbying and conflict of interest is permitted. Their comments manage not to answer the real arguments. Well-known refereed Conference proceedings are ignored, as well as citations by prominent authors, and the word "publication" is used in a completely demagogical way. A scientific work must be reputed to have been "published" when everybody can read the papers in a source consulted by all scientists in the field. This is the case of articles in arXiv, but not of the so-called "peer-reviewed" merchant reviews where, by the way, conflicts of interests are impossible to check.
Furthermore, the coincidence with the incidents around the French and English articles on the "Bogdanoff affair" is very worrying.
83.204.242.146 (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly, you know nothing about AndyTheGrump, Hrafn, Drmies... and most Wikipedia administrators and editors. Therefore your ludicrous comments about lobbying need to be seen as what they are: irrelevant personal attacks intended to divert attention from the fact that the article does not meet Wikipedia standards regarding sourcing. Your wild conspiracy theories are of no relevance, and can only reduce your credibility. I suggest that it is in your own best interest to stop posting this drivel, and stick to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- And your comments manage not to answer why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has guidelines that apply to every article, no matter what. This article does not meet those requirements, so according to Wikipedia policy, it is now being discussed, and when the discussion period is over, it will be deleted. Also, a conflict of interest is not impossible to check, especially when users state their affiliation with the subject matter. You've filled this page with reasons why the article should be kept, but none of your arguments address the very simple fact that the article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. By you, it doesn't matter if the IP comments are one person or several, the fact remains. As a tip, the more you write (and repeat), the less people will read. Everything you've said has been said in the first IP comment, everything else is either a varied repetition of that comment, or an off-topic discussion of sockpuppets and other things that do not belong in an AfD. This is not a collection of votes, so writing more will not help you, and may in fact hinder you, because if this article gets too long, a useful comment by an IP editor might be overlooked simply due to the sheer size of the page. - SudoGhost™ 12:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- To AndyTheGrump and SudoGhost : No, these are not personal attacks as you are not identified as individuals, and it is legitimate in any case to ask about possible conflicts of interests of anonymous who are asking Wikipedia to delete an article. Even if you were explicitly identified, it would be normal to raise the question of possible conflicts of interests. Especially in a field like Particle Physics where lobbying has became a chronic disease with all these big collaborations, imposed "fashions" and so on... The failure of the Superconducting Supercollider project was already, to some extent, a failure of the "big lobbying" policy in High-Energy Physics.
By the way, if you look at the Transparency International site, you will see that the problem of lobbying and conflicts of interests is being taken more and more seriously in all fields. The Wikipedia "rules" are very deficient from this point of view. According to basic ethical considerations, this discussion should be stopped just because of its coincidence in time with the incidents around the "Bogdanoff affair".
Obviously, the superbradyon article meets reasonable requirements, but it bothers some lobbies for other reasons. And I am convinced that more and more people will read my comments and other criticisms expressed in this discussion, as the Wikipedia problem is becoming more and more obvious. 83.204.242.146 (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, when you refer to somebody by name, it is a personal attack. Here's one back: we aren't interested in the deranged conspiracy theories of an IP-hopping *redacted*. Go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- To AndyTheGrump : No, there is no personal attack, as you are an unidentified anonymous. But even if your name were known, it would be normal that the question of possible conflicts of interests be raised when you try to get an article deleted. And Transparency International is not a "conspirationist" organization, they just worry about ways to prevent indue lobbying and conflicts of interests. They have written very interesting litterature, that in my opinion should be applied to the Wikipedia administrators.83.204.176.151 (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- *redacted*. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you.83.204.176.151 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, the appearance of impartiality is an important requirement, even in Justice. You can, for instance, look at this :
In the case of Wikipedia, there is obviously no reason for the administrators to be anonymous.83.204.176.151 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- It seems you're suggesting that you're opinion should hold no weight, as you obviously are not impartial in this discussion. As far as I know, no administrators have even commented in this discussion, so I'm unsure as to what point you're trying to make. You've still yet to show that this article meets Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion, that each and every article has to meet. Nothing you say outside of addressing that and fulfilling that criteria will help, as is the case with any article that is under an AfD discussion. - SudoGhost™ 16:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, the appearance of impartiality is an important requirement, even in Justice. You can, for instance, look at this :
- Thank you.83.204.176.151 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- *redacted*. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- To AndyTheGrump : No, there is no personal attack, as you are an unidentified anonymous. But even if your name were known, it would be normal that the question of possible conflicts of interests be raised when you try to get an article deleted. And Transparency International is not a "conspirationist" organization, they just worry about ways to prevent indue lobbying and conflicts of interests. They have written very interesting litterature, that in my opinion should be applied to the Wikipedia administrators.83.204.176.151 (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, when you refer to somebody by name, it is a personal attack. Here's one back: we aren't interested in the deranged conspiracy theories of an IP-hopping *redacted*. Go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- To AndyTheGrump and SudoGhost : No, these are not personal attacks as you are not identified as individuals, and it is legitimate in any case to ask about possible conflicts of interests of anonymous who are asking Wikipedia to delete an article. Even if you were explicitly identified, it would be normal to raise the question of possible conflicts of interests. Especially in a field like Particle Physics where lobbying has became a chronic disease with all these big collaborations, imposed "fashions" and so on... The failure of the Superconducting Supercollider project was already, to some extent, a failure of the "big lobbying" policy in High-Energy Physics.
- And your comments manage not to answer why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has guidelines that apply to every article, no matter what. This article does not meet those requirements, so according to Wikipedia policy, it is now being discussed, and when the discussion period is over, it will be deleted. Also, a conflict of interest is not impossible to check, especially when users state their affiliation with the subject matter. You've filled this page with reasons why the article should be kept, but none of your arguments address the very simple fact that the article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. By you, it doesn't matter if the IP comments are one person or several, the fact remains. As a tip, the more you write (and repeat), the less people will read. Everything you've said has been said in the first IP comment, everything else is either a varied repetition of that comment, or an off-topic discussion of sockpuppets and other things that do not belong in an AfD. This is not a collection of votes, so writing more will not help you, and may in fact hinder you, because if this article gets too long, a useful comment by an IP editor might be overlooked simply due to the sheer size of the page. - SudoGhost™ 12:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly, you know nothing about AndyTheGrump, Hrafn, Drmies... and most Wikipedia administrators and editors. Therefore your ludicrous comments about lobbying need to be seen as what they are: irrelevant personal attacks intended to divert attention from the fact that the article does not meet Wikipedia standards regarding sourcing. Your wild conspiracy theories are of no relevance, and can only reduce your credibility. I suggest that it is in your own best interest to stop posting this drivel, and stick to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- delete - No third party coverage, no evidence for notability.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. term used by one person. WP:MADEUP. -Atmoz (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong arguments for deletion. The term is not used by "one person", see for instance :
Furthermore, the basic papers on superbradyons have been quoted by the main authors. The original work has been acknowledged (including by Lee Smolin in a best seller) and presented at the main specialized conferences, with refereed Proceedings.
But obvioulsy, the anonimous people asking for this deletion do not seem to care about precise arguments. They only repeat slogans. And we know nothing about personal and professional interests of all these people. This is just not serious.
Also, the impartiality requirements should obviously be much more severe for the administrators, as well as for groups of people tryng to kill an article, than for those who give arguments against the deletion.83.199.70.74 (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per original nom, WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:FRINGE, and (based on doing a little checking on the WHOIS of all the IP editors) WP:CANVASSING. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The IPs seem more interested in building their own fantasy-version of what they think Wikipedia should be than in learning what Wikipedia's policies actually are. In any case, none of them has presented a single policy-based argument for keeping the article, instead indulging in ad hominems, irrelevancies, distortions of the facts, and wishful thinking. (Fortunately, Cirt semi'd the page, so that abuse will stop.) On the other hand, all the arguments for deletion have been policy-based, as, for example, in A the RA's comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, quite straightforward really. Melchoir (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - The person (scielo.br ) that used the term superbradyon- Ramy Naboulsi (aka Rami El-Nabulsi) had 20 papers removed from arXiv for plagiarism- http://www.library.illinois.edu/administration/scholarly_communication/issue55.htm
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2010/09/fabien-besnard-on-ahmad-rami-el-nabulsi.html Bhny (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do not delete. I have just restored bold characters that had been suppressed with an obviously partial way in order to hide claims againts deletion. Given the behaviour of some Wikipedia administrators, I can understand that Indépendance des Chercheurs has made mublic these two artlcles :
Wikipédia et police de l'internet (I)
http://science21.blogs.courrierinternational.com/archive/2011/05/19/wikipedia-et-police-de-l-internet-i.htmlWikipedia and internet police (I)
http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/scientia/190511/wikipedia-and-internet-police-iBy the way, it is quite incredible that somebody can write :
"The person (scielo.br ) "
When Scielo is a well-known electronic scientific library. In any case, the paper quoted has been published in 2009, six years after the incident reported. [[User:Jaumeta|Jaumeta] (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)— Jaumeta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Some people are using clearly dishonest ways, especially by systematically removing bold characters in comments againts deletion. This is the change I just made, and SudoGhost konws it very well when he sends me this message :
Jaumeta (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination). Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 20:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Some people are using clearly dishonest ways, especially by systematically removing bold characters in comments againts deletion. This is the change I just made, and SudoGhost konws it very well when he sends me this message :
- Comment The real content of the discussion is clearly altered and falsified by the removal of bold characters of comments againts deletion.
This discussion, as well as the deletion proposal, must be immediately stopped.Jaumeta (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- You added words to comments, placed comments out of order, and placed emphasis on other users' comments. Unless you mean to suggest that you are each and every one of the IP editors? - SudoGhost™ 20:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do I hear some quacking? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- You added words to comments, placed comments out of order, and placed emphasis on other users' comments. Unless you mean to suggest that you are each and every one of the IP editors? - SudoGhost™ 20:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment You are joking, I just compared versions and I could realize that somebody has systematically removed most bold caracters against deletion, so I just restored the correct version before May 18 at 17h45 or so. You have again restored the falsified one.Jaumeta (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- At this point it may be moot, since the AfD closes in less than 24 hours. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have found several bold sentences against deletion that had just been suppressed, and I have restored them. DECENCY DICTATES TO STOP EVERYTHING. Jaumeta (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- You have yet to provide any policy-based argument against deletion. Unless you provide a convincing policy-based argument against deletion, this article will be deleted no matter how many times you remind us that we are horrible human beings who hate democracy and freedom. Kevin (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have found several bold sentences against deletion that had just been suppressed, and I have restored them. DECENCY DICTATES TO STOP EVERYTHING. Jaumeta (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There has just not been a single argument for deletion. But it seems quite clear that there is no real discussion, just a decision taken in advance right from the beginning inside a closed group, for reasons other than scientific or based on any editorial policy.
Obviously, the "Bodganoff affair" and possibly some personal interests of anonymous administrators and editors are behind all that. Furthermore, the way you speak just shows that you just do not care about any ethical consideration.
Jaumeta (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see any administrators posting on this page, and, for that matter, not everyone here is posting anonymously - my real-world identity is disclosed on my user page. I do not consider the deletion of a page according to long-established policy to involve any significant ethical considerations, and you have not made any convincing argument as to why it would. You have just repeatedly attacked other editors and ranted about some secret conspiracy without providing evidence for any of your statements. I was the second person to endorse deleting this, and I had barely heard of the Bogdanoff affair before you brought it up. Kevin (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I currently count fourteen "Delete" !votes, all policy-based. "Keep" !votes are much more difficult to count because of the obvious meatpuppetry and arguable sockpuppetry, but none of those calling for the article to be kept have brought up any supporting arguments other than what amounts to jumping up and down and pointing at a self-published source and screaming "See, it's RIGHT THERE!". And the one -- count them, ONE -- non-IP user who is most insistent about keeping the article is wikilawyering in the hopes of getting an admin to throw the entire discussion out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is stated at the beginning of this page that this is not a vote, but an exchange of arguments. Furthermore, I see many comments against deletion full of well-developed specific arguments whereas most comments for deletion just repeat slogans. Several people making comments that the administrators do not like have been blocked without any serious reason. Banana republic ways like "duck test", "checkuser" and so on are used systematically against people who have the "bad" opinions, and the administrators involved are anonymous. Even when a "name" can be found among Wikipedia administrators, it is in general impossible to check if it is the real one, what the actual biography looks like and what the risks of conflicts of interests can be. Even worse, Wikipedia claims to have no editorial board. Jaumeta (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC) — Jaumeta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Unfortunately, yours is the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate the article's support through reliable, verifiable sources. You have, as yet, failed to do so, other than through a self-published source. Therein lies the crux of the problem with the article. And you're correct, Wikipedia does NOT run on votes. It runs on WP:CONSENSUS. And after re-reading the arguments for and against keeping the article in question, the consensus appears (to me, anyway) to delete, based on stated policies. There IS a way to get past the policy hurdles: find those secondary sources. That's the ONLY way, at this point, as far as I can tell. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- What Jaumeta calls "slogans" are actually what is required in a deletion argument at AfD, which is arguments based on Wikipeia policy. What he or she calls "well-developed specific arguments" are in reality appeals to factors that have no place in an AfD argument, totally unrelated to our criteria for keeping an article, which is why the closing admin will totally ignore them, and the article will be deleted.
It seems to me that the Superbradyon team has difficulty understanding the rules and accepted behaviors of the systems in which they try to participate -- they want Superbradons to be accepted as scientifically valid, without actually doing any of the things that garners scientific respectability, and they want Wikipedia to host an article about the concept without fulfilling any of the project's requirements for doing so. This raises a serious questions about competence, both in the Wikipedia and RL senses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- What Jaumeta calls "slogans" are actually what is required in a deletion argument at AfD, which is arguments based on Wikipeia policy. What he or she calls "well-developed specific arguments" are in reality appeals to factors that have no place in an AfD argument, totally unrelated to our criteria for keeping an article, which is why the closing admin will totally ignore them, and the article will be deleted.
- Unfortunately, yours is the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate the article's support through reliable, verifiable sources. You have, as yet, failed to do so, other than through a self-published source. Therein lies the crux of the problem with the article. And you're correct, Wikipedia does NOT run on votes. It runs on WP:CONSENSUS. And after re-reading the arguments for and against keeping the article in question, the consensus appears (to me, anyway) to delete, based on stated policies. There IS a way to get past the policy hurdles: find those secondary sources. That's the ONLY way, at this point, as far as I can tell. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - The newly created account Jaumeta retroactively removed the original signatures on comments which had been posted by numerous different IPs and replaced them with his or her own signature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note to Jaumeta - Bolded characters at the head of an entry indicate either a "!vote" -- that is, a capsule summary of the content of the comment, bolded for the convenience of the closing admin -- or labelling a comment or note as such. They are not intended to be used in the manner you are using them, so I am removing them from all the comments that you have taken authorship of except the first. (One !votes per person.)
Learn the rules, please, either when they are told to you specifically, or by observation of what's going on around you. Wikipedia is not going to change its policies to please you, and all you're doing now is (A) pissing people off and (B) insuring the deletion of the article. The crap you've been spouting: conspiracy, Internet police, decency plays no part and has zero impact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting. If this can be taken as an admission by 'Jaumeta' to using multiple IPs to post 'do not delete' comments, his/her entire participation in the discussion is technically null and void, due to self-confessed sock-puppetry. Simplifies things for the closing admin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the sock- or meatpuppetry was obvious from the git-go, but it's nice that J. made it official. I'd strike through all their comments, but frankly the amount of b.s. here has pushed me over the top into "Eh, who cares?" territory -- especially since it'll be moot by tomorrow. I almost feel sorry for these folks, with their inability to get anything right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting. If this can be taken as an admission by 'Jaumeta' to using multiple IPs to post 'do not delete' comments, his/her entire participation in the discussion is technically null and void, due to self-confessed sock-puppetry. Simplifies things for the closing admin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note to the club of anonymous editors and administrators. I just tried to restore the bolds such as I found them in this version :
and had been systematically altered subsequently. It seems clear that some influent anonymous just did not like having "too many" bolded sentences against deletion. And Beyond My Ken and other people are just inventing "rules", as there is supposed to be no "votes" and so on, and it is said nowhere when and how the bold characters should be used. By the way, in some cases the sentences themselves had been suppressed. Instead of worrying about who did such a thing, the "influent wikipedians" seem to be planning further suppression of dissent.
It also seems clear that beyond the attacks against Gonzalez-Mestres or against the Bogdanoff brothers, there can be lots of personal interests. It is a fact, for instance, that the article on the so-called "Bogdanoff affair" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
still says "the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) issued a report" when actually there has been no report published by CNRS, and this was pointed out in corrections that have been systematically removed. See this article by Indépendance des Chercheurs :
Wikipedia and the so-called "Bogdanov affair" (I) http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/scientia/050511/wikipedia-and-so-called-bogdanov-affair-i —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaumeta (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Jaumeta (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)— Jaumeta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Do try to keep focused. This is a discussion regarding the proposed deletion of Superbradyon, not Bogdanov Affair. Also, blogs are not considered reliable sources. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is no reason not to consider blogs, especially when (I think this is the case) there is a newsletter sent to journalists.
You can find here recent public statements by Gonzalez-Mestres, as a member of Indépendance des Chercheurs, in a French media (Journal du Dimanche) concerning another subject :
Also, a look to this web page :
http://intsynd-lpc.pagesperso-orange.fr/
and to the archives of written questions to the government by members of the French Parliament can give you an idea of what happened at the Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire of Collège de France. See, for instance, this February 1996 letter asking the CNRS direction to consider possible phsychiatric procedures :
Jaumeta (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note to Jaumeta: we don't give a rat's arse about your conspiracy theories... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- What means "conspiracy theories" ? What is not normal is that a media like Wikipedia be ruled in practice by anonymous people whose possible conflicts of interests are impossible to check. And who are "we" ?
Why are the Wikipedia administrators refusing to correct the statement "CNRS issued a report" in the article about the "Bogdanoff affair" ? Why have the attacks against the Gonzalez-Mestres biographies and the superbradyon article been launched precisely when there is such a debate on the articles about the Bogdanoff brothers with a Wikipedia administrator (Alain Riazuelo) publically involved since years in the controversy ?
In particular, on may think that, as Gonzalez-Mestres and Indépendance des Chercheurs can reach the medias and the debate on the "Bogdanoff affair" is getting less "easy" than expected, some lobbies need to weaken the Gonzalez-Mestres professional reputation, including through Wikipedia.
Jaumeta (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you're rambling on about, but I don't care what the article is about, I'm judging the article on its merits as an article. I'm not judging the details associated with it (nor do I care). The subject matter does not meet the rules for inclusion as a Wikipedia article, rules with each and every article must meet. It does not meet the rules, so it should not be an article. There is no agenda, and I've never even heard of any of this before this article was proposed for deletion. The article has no reliable sources as per Wikipedia's rules (which apply to every article on Wikipedia), and so should be deleted. It's as simple as that. You have not shown that there are any reliable sources to establish notability.
- Your article is not "special" and does not get special consideration because you feel the rules don't apply to the subject matter. As none of the people who have argued for its inclusion as an article have addressed this, I'm not seeing why it should stay. As for the other articles, I'm not interested. If you have issue with them, discuss it on the appropriate talk pages, this is not the place for it.
- If the article satisfied Wikipedia's rules for inclusion, no editor, no matter what their "agenda", would be able to validly delete the article. However, this is not the case. Stop trying to cloud the subject with things that aren't relevant (nobody cares who "Bogandoff" is, he's not the subject of this article), because I promise you that nobody is going to include the article based on your "compelling argument" if it doesn't meet the basic rules for notability. - SudoGhost™ 05:30, 21 May 2011 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.