Talk:Hemolithin

Dubious and unverified, this article should be deleted

Hemolithin immediately looks like a dubious result to me, and others agree. The arxiv paper is not a reliable source (WP:SOURCE), I think this page should be deleted.Maneesh (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Maneesh: Thank you for your comments - and efforts - as presented in the main article: "Although some scientists seem supportive of the study, other scientists may be less so." - in any case - Comments Welcome here - or - more importantly at the moment => on the discussion page at "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemolithin" - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done - NOTE: re Article for Deletion (AfD) discussion => "The result was keep. KaisaL (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)" - added by Drbogdan (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

It has been over a month since I put the RfD up and I've since seen precisely no evidence supporting the news articles that stemmed from the unreviewed paper describing this magical molecule. I was stunned that there was such a consensus against WP:SOURCE. How long are the molecules claimed in unverified papers allowed to stay up as WP entries?Maneesh (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Maneesh: Thank you for your comments - followup verifiable studies may take awhile - for a variety of reasons, including the current Covid-19 pandemic (rethinking priorities and related), I would think - but yes, I *entirely* agree - verifications (or the lack of verications) is very important with this of course - but seems waiting and seeing may be the best way forward at the moment - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Drbogdan. What do you think a sensible amount of time is to wait for a verified source? Maneesh (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Maneesh: Thanks for your reply - and question - no idea re a specific time - I would think someone will want to study this soon - however - a lot may be up in the air at the moment - let's just wait and see - no urgency or harm done that I can see in waiting this out - after all - just the idea that the article is here on Wikipedia may inspire a followup study sooner than later I would think - hope this helps - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, to be sure, we are not waiting for a follow up study. We are waiting for the current unreviewed study to be reviewed and verified in something like a scholarly journal. That has not happened yet. Maneesh (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Another month passes and there is precisely no verified source (WP:SOURCE) for the first supposed extra-terrestrial protein (WP:EXTRAORDINARY).Maneesh (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are you complaining? There are about 10 different, independent news articles about the protein and its discovery. Certainly it is notable. 64.246.159.246 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Those are articles about the paper, which has only been posted as a preprint. There is no verified source that supports the existence of hemolithin. Molecules, particularly ones like hemolithin, don't really exist unless they are have been characterized and verified in something like a scholarly publication. This hasn't happened, all of those reports are reports of the unverified paper.Maneesh (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The concept easily meets WP:GNG. Wikipedia relies on sourced material from others, and there is plenty of that here. As User:awkwafaba elegantly said in the AFD request: "Wikipedia is not here to prove a hypothesis is correct or not. We only give the information. We have articles like cold fusion and Loch Ness Monster, and we do not remove those on the basis of their reality as true technologies or organisms, respectively. Readers are coming to Wikipedia to find out about hemolithin, and they deserve to know." If you can find 3rd-party sources to support your viewpoint that this is bunk, please add them to the article; that would be very worthwhile. On the other hand, rehashing the AFD is not helpful, nor is offering opinions or original research. 64.246.159.246 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It does not meet WP:GNG: ""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. ". There is *no* reliable source that describes this molecule, there are notable reports about the announcement of this molecule. This is not about proving a hypothesis correct, there is no verifiable source that describes hemolithin (correct or incorrect). Maneesh (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Drbogdan's comment about the Covid-19 pandemic still applies, even if some governments are ready to sacrifice their people for the rich. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Well put. I think perhaps some of the confusion is around Wikipedia's POV. Wikipedia adopts a neutral POV and not a scientific POV. If ultimately hemolithin turns out to be a nothingburger, and independent reliable third-party sources write that, then that should absolutely be put in the article. (Just the same as it is for bigfoot.) If hemolithin is confirmed as a real thing, an astrobiological molecule (which is entirely plausible at the moment), then that too should be included in the article if independent reliable third-party sources write that. In the mean time, the WP article adequately conveys that this is a subject in flux, and the article's sources say so. That's fine. If there is consensus for it, perhaps the equivalent of {{current}} can be added to the article. (IMHO, that is not necessary as the article already adequately conveys the in-progress nature of the results.) Articles like COVID provide a good analogy. 64.246.159.246 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This is just wrong. Hemolithin is just an unverified idea that someone has posted to the internet and other people have parroted in sources (with no followup two months later). Journals are still publishing lots of papers, it's simply speculation to suggest an unverified idea has not been published due to the crisis. It is not clear to me as to what sort of sensible policy there could be suspend WP:SOURCE during the crisis. Hemolithin is quite different from say arsenic life, which was published in a verified source and almost immediately discredited. It is also quite different from Perlman's Poincaré conjecture proof, which was simply posted to arXiv; where there was a clear, notable consensus amongst credible expert mathematicians. Hemolithin is not published in a verified source the way arsenic life was, nor does it have the notable consensus behind it like the proof of the Poincaré conjecture. Maneesh (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the primary source (the arxiv paper) with secondary sources (what other sources have written about the arxiv paper). A primary source does not establish notability; secondary sources do. The article clearly meets the notability guideline. It is also clear you have a very strong opinion about the subject of the article. Please don't let those strong feelings get in the way of making the article better. If you can find reliable secondary sources that support your opinion, those would be a good addition to the article. Also please remember that science isn't instantaneous, and science doesn't happen according to an artificial one-month deadline. COVID isn't a reason to suspend the rules; that's not what anyone here is suggesting. COVID is a good example of how scientific understanding is always evolving; however, the presence of ambiguity and the lack of resolution isn't a reason to delete articles. Have patience; the science will catch up eventually. Maybe consider taking a wikibreak if this is really getting to you. 64.246.159.246 (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Those secondary source are little more than press releases. Your analogy about COVID makes very little sense, the the page says clearly "Editors are prohibited from adding preprints as sources for content in this article.", for obvious reasons. The hemolithin article is merely a preprint. Please don't presume my emotions or feelings on the subject, or try to stifle correction by suggesting editors who disagree with you should take a wikibreak.Maneesh (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"Those secondary source are little more than press releases." That's a very strong, subjective statement; that disparagement borders on uncivil. Vice and New Scientist would disagree with you that they merely serve as outlets for press releases. In this particular case, they even serve the ends you seek: they give critical commentary on the nature of hemolithin, and provide the sources to back up the criticism in the Wikipedia article. 64.246.159.246 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It's quite civil to call a press release a press release. If you want to use those sources to describe the 'hemolithin announcement', that might make sense. Hemolithin, the molecule, does not exist any more than any other molecule that someone can draw on paper that hasn't been characterized in a scholarly source where the MS, NMR, X-ray crystallography etc. have been verified. There are notable molecules are hypothetical (e.g., iodabenzene), but the scholarly sources describe those molecules in detail often as a part of a hypothesis in computational chemistry. Hemolithin is not such a molecule. What has happened here is an unverified source has triggered notable commentary, but the underlying subject itself hasn't been verified the way molecules need to be. Making wikipedia entries about such molecules before they have been verified makes wikipedia an accessory to science by press release.Maneesh (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Another month and still no verified source for hemolithin. The paper remains a preprint some 4 months after being released as a preprint the only commentary is some associated press releases that came out at the same time.Maneesh (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Please understand that "All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively.", according to "WP:OWN" - as noted above, a thorough discussion regarding the article was held in collaboration with other editors, and can be summarized as follows: NOTE: re Article for Deletion (AfD) discussion => "The result was KEEP. KaisaL (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It is important to remind editors that this molecule is not, by any adopted standard of verifiability, real. Let us see how long it is ignored by WP in the face of these reminders. How will WP differentiate between unverified papers that are, according to some hidden knowledge, merely delayed in their verification vs. simply denied/rejected? Maneesh (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maneesh, please consider the good advice in WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. Other editors here are not in agreement with you. Please consider how you're approaching this; persuasion is an art. WP:CONSBUILD might be helpful for you. Please avoid things such as WP:REHASH and WP:IDHT. If you truly feel that everyone else here is in the wrong, please consider taking some of the actions suggested in WP:DR. 64.246.159.246 (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

What I've written above is plainly true. I'm not sure I can do much if you are persuaded by it or not other than state the truth concisely as I have done above. Please do consider it. Maneesh (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Many months later and the the WP:EXTRAORDINARY 'hemolithin' remains a fictional molecule not verified in any credible WP:SOURCE. Nothing substantial showing google scholar despite the claim that this is the first extra-terrestrial abiogenic protein(!). This article should be moved to 'hemolithin announcement' or something similar to avoid misleading readers into thinking that hemolithin is known to exist in any manner that approaches standard levels of proof required by chemists to show that molecules exist (MS, NMR, IR, X-Ray etc.). Maneesh (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Maneesh: and others - Thanks again for your comments - seems the text in the main article - as well as the comments posted on this talk-page - would be sufficient to alert readers re the current status of the content - no need to change the text or title as noted - esp since this article (and related title) has been thoroughly discussed earlier (see comments above and related discussion) and concluded via (WP:CONSENSUS) to be ok - iac - Thanks again for your comments - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Well over a year later and the author of the unpublished preprint continues to add to this article (EDIT: and remove the claim that hemolithin has not been published in any scientific journal without linking to where it has been published). Hemolithin is not supported by any WP:RS, it is an imaginary molecule that is WP:FRINGE and really should be deleted. Maneesh (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

A source has been added by the author of the preprint to suggest that something material about hemolithin has been published. I don't find a single instance of "hemolithin" in that source. Maneesh (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

And now even the stable edit that was clear about hemolithin not being published in any reliable source has been removed. This is really silly. Maneesh (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

As before, the "Hemolithin" article, after a thorough "WP:AfD" discussion, was found to be sufficiently worthy to KEEP - since that discussion (4 March 2020 to 12 March 2020), other relevant "WP:RELIABLE SOURCES" have been added to the article, including from "Science News", "Earth & Sky", "Phys.org" and the journal "Physics of Fluids" - this seems even more reason that the "Hemolithin" article is "WP:NOTABLE" and worthy of a KEEP - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

References

And what does the "Physics of Fluids" article say about "hemolithin"? Maneesh (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: You have reverted the edit where I removed mention of this source (as the source doesn't mention "hemolithin") and did not respond on talk when the issue was raised (see dates). Maneesh (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: has again reverted edits that have removed what are obviously unrelated or junk news external links. Maneesh (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent comments - after a closer look, seems the noted external links could be better - no problem whatsoever - re other recent concerns, my earlier comments (and related AfD discussion) seem sufficient atm - nonetheless - Comments Welcome from other editors - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• I largely agree with Maneesh here. It's been 16 months and 'hemolithin' still hasn't been reported in any peer-reviewed journal. Some of the X-ray crystallography that was in the original preprint has been published, but a) in a journal that specialises in a completely different topic (fluid dynamics) and b) without any evidence of a protein containing lithium. The main claims remain unpublished and unsupported by any independent sources. Author Mcgeoch continues to edit the page, including adding citations to their own earlier work without discussion on this talk page, violating WP:COI. Single-purpose IPs are also removing material that casts doubt on the discovery, which is probably also an author with a COI. The more reliable popular media reports (e.g. New Scientist) all state that the work hasn't been published or peer-reviewed, and themselves cast doubt upon the result. The even less reliable sources (e.g. phys.org) are just churnalism of the press release, so not independent of the authors. If there was another AfD I would !vote for deletion. Modest Genius ^talk 12:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I was disappointed that so many editors were willing to ignore WP:SOURCE on such an obviously WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim in the earlier AfD. If a few other editors are willing to support the AfD, I would be happy to put it up again.

I'm glad there is a consensus on the external links. Your earlier AfD discussion does not address the the recent 2021 "Physics of Fluids" publication that is prominent in the article now. The paper *does not use the term "hemolithin"*, what is it doing here? Maneesh (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hemolithin is a possible protein found in meteorites, or, more generally, a possible space polymer, reported to contain amino acids, iron and lithium - the article in "Physics of Fluids" was published by the very same researchers that first published studies about Hemolithin in "arXiv" - the word "hemolithin" appears 11 times in the "arXiv" study; none in the supporting "Physics of Fluids" study - however - seems the two studies are related nonetheless - even in overlapping key wording in the texts - for example, the text in the published "arXiv"[full PDF version] study contains 22 instances of "meteorite", 29 instances of "polymer", 9 instances of "protein", 14 instances of "amino acid", 43 instances of "iron", 25 instances of "lithium" - in comparison - the text in the published "Physics of Fluids" study also contains similar wording: 15 instances of "meteorite", 63 instances of "polymer", 5 instances of "protein", 8 instances of "amino acid", 22 instances of "iron" and 3 instances of "lithium" - there may be other similarities (perhaps many more) in the two studies as well - but the similarity in content texts may suffice atm I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

References

That's almost entirely WP:SYNTH. In your own words: none in the supporting "Physics of Fluids" study. The 2021 preprint that does mention "hemolithin" (oddly, not in the title) shouldn't be in this article either (WP:PREPRINTS). How are editors supposed to infer that the authors are talking about "hemolithin" when they seem to be embarrassed to use the word in their own paper? That the papers contain similar words has no bearing on anything. Maneesh (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - may be right about this - Welcome Comments re this from other editors - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The edits to remove the unsupported claims by the strange paper that does not mention hemolithin on the basis of consensus when no consensus was established to put them in. The WP:ONUS is on the editor who wants to add claims about hemolithin from a paper that doesn't have the word "hemolithin" in it. Maneesh (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The edit to remove the strange "timeline" on hemolithin, that doesn't have the word "hemolithin", has also been reverted back into the page. Maneesh (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: seems to be quick to revert but not clear if he intends to respond here. I believe the WP:ONUS is on you to show consensus to include the disputed content, not on me to delete it. You should not be reverting my edits that remove disputed content and asking me to show consensus. Maneesh (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Undiscussed removal of content by "User:Maneesh"

FWIW - seems "User:Maneesh" has again removed text content and references, without discussion or "WP:CONSENSUS" (per "WP:OWN"?) from the "Hemolithin" article ("link") - Removal edits are noted at the following => "Removed Content 1", "Removed Content 2", "Removed Content 3" and "Removed Content 4" - my attempt to "Restore" the Removed content has been "Reverted" by the "same editor" as well - the article has been thoroughly "discussed by many other Editors" in response to an "WP:AfD" presented by the "same editor", and "found to be a worthy article to KEEP" - my own comments re the issue(s) have been well presented at the "AfD discussion", and above in this related "Hemolithin" "talk-page" - Restoring the "Hemolithin" article "(link)" would be Welcome of course - as would - Comments from other editors - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The disputed content is from a June 2021 "Physics of Fluids" paper, the other problems with the article and previous AfD are not relevant. There has been no consensus on the inclusion of the "Physics of Fluids" paper . WP:ONUS is on the editor who wants to include the disputed content. Note: The "Physics of Fluids" paper does not have a single occurrence of the word "hemolithin" - how is it possible to include it in this article without WP:SYNTH? Maneesh (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The "timeline" diagram should also be deleted. It appears to have come through the author of the preprint here:User_talk:Drbogdan#"Hemolithin" - History section. It's completely vacuous diagram, it seems to say that this vaporous molecule could have been made sometime in the ~8 billion year span between we had the elements we know and when the earth was formed....right...that nails it down. It does not have a single occurrence of the word "hemolithin" and no WP:RS to support it. Maneesh (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hemoglycin - new term replaces Hemolithin

The Wiki covering of Hemolithin, a space polymer, now termed Hemoglycin, has had its doubters, mainly because the astrobiology community could not fathom that a polymer with glycine, Fe, Si O could contain hydroxyglycine units. This is [a] slightly absurd stance because hemoglycin is a completely abiotic molecule that forms in molecular clouds going on to protoplanetary disks, way before biochemistry on exoplanets like Earth starts. Hemoglycin via its glycine could seed an exoplanet (one conductive to support early biochemistry) but its main function is accretion of matter via it forming an extensive low density lattice in space in a protoplanetary disk. Thus, the research on hemoglycin should have no conflict with the ideas of astrobiologists as it is a molecule functioning long before life starts anywhere. Two Hemoglycin publications of 2021 and 2022 should be read and 2 more should follow soon. They are: 1. Julie E. M. McGeoch and Malcolm W. McGeoch. (2021) Structural Organization of Space Polymers. Physics of Fluids 33, 6, June 29th (DOI: 10 1063/5.0053302). https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0054860. 2. Julie E. M. McGeoch and Malcolm W. McGeoch. (2022) Chiral 480nm absorption in the hemoglycin space polymer: a possible link to replication. September 2022 Scientific Reports 12(1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-21043-4 License CC BY 4.0 This data gives the basic structures the polymer can form. Most importantly it gives facts on the light absorption by the polymer. First in a molecular cloud when only IR light is available and then once a new sun in a protoplanetary disk has formed the molecule can absorb visible 480nm light and possibly the molecule divides by this reaction. I hope this text remains on the site – we need many young mathematicians and physicists to take an interest in this molecule – specifically we want help in solving an indexing problem of the hemoglcyin lattice crystals – one axis is 5nm long with the Fe vertices of the lattice causing grating diffraction effects analogous to the Borrmann effect. The data to date cannot be indexed by the usual crystallography software. Contact us if you would like to help in the analysis.

NOTE: Originally added to the main Hemolithin article page by Mcgeoch (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: Copied from the main Hemolithin article page - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Updated the main article to the latest referenced text and most recent available studies - should be ok - at least for starters - please comment if otherwise of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

References