Jump to content

Talk:Salvatore Pais

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Salvatore Pais's design for the U.S. Navy
Salvatore Pais's design for the U.S. Navy
Salvatore Pais's design for the U.S. Navy
Salvatore Pais's design for the U.S. Navy
  • ... that Salvatore Pais's design for a "UFO-like aircraft that uses 'anti-gravity' technology" (pictured) has been patented by the U.S. Navy? (Forbes)
    • ALT1:... that Salvatore Pais's design for a "hybrid aerospace/undersea craft" (pictured) has been patented by the U.S. Navy? (patent)

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - Struck first hook because this is not an RS
  • Interesting: Yes

Image eligibility:

QPQ: No - TBD
Overall: Notability not evaluated. Second hook ok without picture. Please do not move DYK nom subpages, it leads to unexpected results (if you click the review link, you will see what I mean) buidhe 22:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the image is simply there to provide a general impression of one of the possible shapes of the craft. Why isn't the picture suitable for the second hook? It is the thing mentioned in the hook. Forbes source removed from article. QPQ shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of Alts (2nd pic relates to Alt 3):

Giving this a fresh review as it's been some time and there have been over 50 edits to the page since being nominated:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Previous issues have been addressed. This article is good to go. Prefer ALT2 over others, personally find it most interesting. ~riley (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done and see ref 8. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patents as sources

[edit]

A patent is self-published and cannot be used as a source for anything. See WP:SOURCES. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pais' work referred to as "UFO patents" in media

[edit]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

References

  1. ^ Brett Tingley; Tyler Rogoway (June 28, 2019). "Docs Show Navy Got 'UFO' Patent Granted By Warning Of Similar Chinese Tech Advances". The Drive. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
  2. ^ Brett Tingley (December 17, 2020). "Emails Show Navy's 'UFO' Patents Went Through Significant Internal Review, Resulted In A Demo". The Drive. Retrieved December 10, 2022.
  3. ^ Matthew Gault (February 3, 2021). "U.S. Navy Has Patents on Tech It Says Will 'Engineer the Fabric of Reality'". Motherboard. Retrieved December 10, 2022.
  4. ^ Mercedes Streeter (February 4, 2021). "U.S. Navy's 'UFO Patents' Could Revolutionize Propulsion, But Probably Not". Jalopnik. Retrieved December 10, 2022.
  5. ^ Ariel Cohen (February 8, 2021). "What Is Behind The U.S. Navy's 'UFO' Fusion Energy Patent?". Forbes. Retrieved December 10, 2022.
  6. ^ Vince Iral (February 17, 2021). "The Navy's 'UFO patents': Failed attempts to unlock alien technology?". Parola Analytics. Retrieved 2022-11-11.
  7. ^ SpyTalk (June 25, 2021). "Did the Navy Try to Design Its Own UFO?". The Daily Beast. Retrieved December 10, 2022.
  8. ^ Paul Ratner (September 24, 2021). "A New Nikola Tesla? Engineer Devises "UFO Patents" for the U.S. Navy". Interesting Engineering. Retrieved December 10, 2022.
  9. ^ Salvatore Pais on Quantum Gravity, UAP Patents, Pais Effect, and the Superforce [Part 1 of 2]. YouTube. Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal. March 30, 2022. Archived from the original on November 10, 2022. Retrieved December 19, 2022.
  10. ^ Sal Pais Λ Stephon Alexander on Singularities, Negative Energy, and the Origins of the Universe. YouTube. Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal. October 20, 2022. Archived from the original on November 4, 2022. Retrieved December 19, 2022.

Enix150 (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing of recent edits

[edit]

None of the sources used in this edit are reliable. The 'forbes.com' cite isn't actually forbes. (See WP:FORBESCON). Parolaanalytics is consulting company's content marketing blog. The Daily Beast is an opinion source, and one that doesn't do well in WP:RSN discussions. This is not the level of sourcing we'd need to suggest that Pais has invented aircraft that fly in apparent violation of the known laws of physics. MrOllie (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But he personally wrote a letter!!1! He did not let one of his minions do it!!!11
Indeed that paragraph does not belong here. It's ufologist crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, usually I would delete the WP:PEACOCKy "Dr." stuff because of MOS:CREDENTIAL (No academic grades except where they are useful), but the paragraph is doomed anyway. It is only there because of stubbornness. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, these sources are dreck. jp×g 06:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pais Interview

[edit]

JFYI. The man himself speaking about the patents, (trying to explain) the physics behind, and also addressing all the criticism. Probably good to extract a few quotes from and put those in the article? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5E6QyAhTB3o 2A02:8106:208:9200:25EB:89F2:BD87:750F (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: He also talks about being Romanian(-born) and coming to the US at age 13 and that his first language is Romanian and having a hard time (quote "confused about language") with English language

Edit2: Part 2 of the interview, with additional guest Stephon Alexander https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PE4C7OI7Frg

No, we should not include youtube links to obscure self-published videos. MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing mentioned here is obscure since it is referring to the topic of this article and is the only pair of interviews with the subject of said article. Plus WP:SELFPUB criteria applies to content within the article rather than to the External links section per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Enix150 (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an obscure selfpublished youtube channel with essentially no viewership. It falls under WP:LINKSTOAVOID points 10 and 11. MrOllie (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't obscure, the channel has 223K subscribers, but they are also not reliable since the owner of the channel Curt Jaimungal is described as a filmmaker and presenter. He studied maths but is not a professional scientist, nor is the channel or Jaimungal associated with any academic institution or reputable publication as far as I can see. It's a pity, given the paucity of sources about Pais, but who knows how the chat was edited and what editorial controls there are over its content? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy, I agree we can't know what went on behind the scenes, but that is why I didn't cite the videos within the article and instead placed them into the External links section. I would also add that I don't think Pais would come back six and a half months later for a second interview if they had misquoted him in any way. I think the notability of the interviews comes not from the interviewer but from the interviewee. He is still actively employed by the United States military and his research still backed by academic institutions. Enix150 (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie, please take another look at WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Point 10 is about avoiding social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, not AV sites like Youtube. Point 11 is about avoiding blogs and fansites, which, again, Youtube is not. Enix150 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a distinction without a difference. The medium doesn't matter - a social media video should be avoided just as much as a text post or a still image. MrOllie (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mr. Ollie. This is an obscure YouTube video, on an obscure YouTube channel, like thousands of others on YouTube. It has no claim to notability. WP:LINKSTOAVOID numbers 2, 10, and 11 apply. Also, the presenter has no academic standing in the Academic community. Most likely, he sees himself as a social media or internet influencer, and without much influence at this point. This is also a way for Pais promote his currently WP:FRINGE ideas. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Quinn, 223K subscribers isn't exactly an obscure channel, but either way in this case the notability of the interviews are dependent not upon the interviewer but the interviewee. He is making bold claims and his research continues to be backed by the United States military and academic institutions. This makes his only two public interviews at least notable enough for an External links section. Enix150 (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Enix150: 3 editors have commented here to oppose your addition of these links - on a page where you got an edit warring block only a few weeks ago. Continuing to edit war about these links is an incredibly bad idea. I encourage you to self revert. MrOllie (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your comment in the edit history, there is a consensus of three to one against adding these external links. I also advise you to self-revert or else you might see a Bad Moon Rising! Also, 23K subscribers does not constitute acceptability as a reliable source. These videos are user generated and the host has no coverage in reliable sources as being an expert in the relevant fields. And the 23K could represent a significant proportion of bots as subscribers. Then this would be all smoke and mirrors We don't know and can't tell. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Quinn, OP was the one who suggested it, so two against three is hardly a consensus. Also you're misreading the number of subscribers by an order of magnitude, it is 224K now, not 23. Claiming they are bots is an unwarranted and unfounded claim. Enix150 (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and reverted based on consensus [1]. Based on the posts in this section and the below section, the edit warring about minutiae, and based on my experience, Enix150 is looking like a disruptive editor. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie, two editors against three is hardly consensus. And the previous edit war you started was over a different section unrelated to this. Enix150 (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is excessively editing to keep a preferred version, no matter which section you edit. This is what Enix150 is doing. Also, three to two is a consensus. And it appears that Stephon Alexander has not been participating in this discussion. It may be that he wants to steer clear of an edit warrior such as Enix150.
223K, 2,323K, or 5,500K it doesn't matter. This is not the criteria we use. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the definitions. Stephon Alexander was one of the subjects of the interview, not a Wikipedia user. I believe you are, again, severely confused by this conversation and should perhaps refrain. Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming they are bots is warranted. This is a common trick used on social media to inflate the supposed influence. And, as Mr. Ollie mentioned, this is not the place for Pais to personally promote his Fringe theories. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to try that argument if we have to go to the edit warring noticeboard, but experience tells me it will not go over well and you'd get a longer block. It is a great thing to be open to compromise and discussion, but discussion is not a filibuster you can use to keep your preferred changes in the article. MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Quinn and MrOllie: This is an old discussion, but I am somewhat confused by what's being claimed here. Is it... not permissible to link to the subject of the article doing an interview about his own research, and the same stuff that's talked about throughout the entire article? What part of the external links policy is being referenced here? I assume you refer to EL §4.1 #2, but that is a rough guideline, with caveats given, which seem to apply here. jp×g 06:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Just came across this and I'm not really getting the arguments against including these interviews as external links. The youtube channel is "fringe because all the subs are probably just bots" and "this guy sees himself as a social media influencer"...? Wtf? No one is trying to link to his IG "merch page" and he's not some kid posting gopro clips of himself lighting farts on a college dorm room couch, or doing wipe-outs on a skateboard. He has filed several notable patents on behalf of the US Navy, has done research and development work for them, the Space Force and is now doing the same for Air Force. There is only two known interviews with the guy, both are available to link to, but they can't be included here because two guys don't think the links to said video clips should be included for... reasons? This right here is a wiki-bureaucracy failure. - wolf 03:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: with your input, consensus has now shifted to including the interviews. Thanks! Enix150 (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: Yes, that's obvious as you've again removed those links, (only 9 hours later). You were asked to clarify your reasons, just above by JPxG. That was 9 weeks ago and you've yet to respond to him. Why is that? - wolf 03:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: Is there a policy or guideline justification behind your edit or...? jp×g 06:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As was mentioned above, the argument against these links is ELO #2, 10, and 11. Regarding #2, his research is way out there. At around 13 min 30 seconds, Salvatore admits his research was rejected by science journals very quickly. This is unverifiable research. It doesn't matter if one of his projects was explored by the US Navy and then dropped. Regarding #11, this is essentially a video blog - it is a podcast. And the interviewer is not a recognized authority in the Physics field, which is a caveat noted by #11. However, I admit, the interviewer does seem to have a physics background. But maybe he is another crackpot. I'm not going to argue about #10 right now. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

[edit]

This article appears to lend undue weight to certain ideas and controversies, and without contextualization to balance out such material. So, I have re-added the UNDUE tag per normal editing practices. Please do not remove this tag again. Also, this article's reliance for referencing to the The Drive website and patents (primary sources) also present NPOV issues. None of these are reliable sources. Independent third party sources are needed. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These independent third party sources are already cited in the article, but I agree they could be cited throughout: [1][2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ Ostrach, S.; Kamotani, Y. (June 1996). "STDCE" (PDF). Ntrs.nasa.gov. NASA. Retrieved December 10, 2018.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Troy Carter (February 22, 2019). "Navy files for patent on room-temperature superconductor". phys.org. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
  3. ^ "US Navy scientist files 'revolutionary' superconductor patent claim". Engineering & Technology. February 25, 2019. Retrieved December 13, 2019.
  4. ^ Stephen Kuper (November 1, 2019). "Player two has entered the game: US Navy files fusion reactor patent". Defence Connect. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
  5. ^ Jennifer Leman (October 10, 2019). "The Navy's Patent for a Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor Is Wild". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
Enix150 (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All these sources cover patents and one with passing mention of Pais. These do not significantly cover the subject (Salvatore Pais). Sorry to say, these amount to disparate sources that cover different topics regarding patents. To try to use these as sources that demonstrate this subject deserves a standalone article seems to amount to WP:SYNTH. So, this has nothing to do with sprinkling these sources throughout the article. If you haven't already, try reading WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to LK-99 (potential) superconductor?

[edit]

https://twitter.com/tinyklaus/status/1686591279377911808 Foerdi (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interview (spree)

[edit]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7aCrznDR6mw

https://youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6cC5TEPQ

https://youtube.com/watch?v=N94mw4ZXDmQ

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lkky3pKaseA

The man clearly wants to talk respectively "someone" wants him to talk more

Foerdi (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source

[edit]

@PA!Hirschfelder: I noticed your recent additions to the article, and I don't think hyperspace.engineer is a reliable source. Could you find a better source for the claims you added? jlwoodwa (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salvatore_Pais&oldid=1259183287"