Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive February 2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Weight and Apparent weight

Hi physicists. It seems to me that expert attention is needed at these articles. Please refer to the various concerns voiced on the articles' talk pages. 86.136.27.202 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

GA Reassessment of Astronomy

Astronomy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Isotopes of hassium

The half-life information is contradictory in Hassium and in Isotopes of hassium; the former is from Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (86th ed.). Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. ISBN 0-8493-0486-5., but those data are from 2002 at best and are hardly up to date. This page is a nice summary, but I can't quickly find the original source. Anybody knows a reliable source for Hs isotope data? Materialscientist (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think most of the data comes from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: see here for their page on hassium. The original references for each nuclide can be accessed here. I tried the IAEA site as well, but in directed e back to LBNL. Physchim62 (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD of interest (optics)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHOSFOS. Pcap ping 21:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot which automatically updates unreferenced biography of living persons daily

RE: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 34#Unreferenced biography of living persons bot to get projects involved in referencing.

Hello wikiproject, I requested a bot which will update unreferenced living people (BLPs) daily. User talk:Betacommand is willing to create this bot. Since you already have a /Unreferenced BLPs page, this shows your project really cares about this issue.

I just need a list of projects who would like to test this bot. Please let me know here if your project would like to do this. Thank you Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 19:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

hello, is this something your project maybe interested in? Several hundred, probably several thousand articles on physics will be deleted if they remain unreferenced. Okip (formerly Ikip) 19:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Okip - I don't think anyone would object to you doing this, but I'm not really sure how useful it will actually be. It only took me a minute to generate the current list (by copying it from the cleanup listings generated by Wouterbot). What will make the difference to whether articles are deleted or not is people going through the list and fixing them (or removing the unreferenced tag if it turns out to be incorrect), not a whizzy new list-creating system.
The deletion problem is less severe than you suggest - I think there were 161 physics articles tagged with BLP unreferenced when the database dump was taken, of which at least 70 have now been dealt with. Most of the remaining ones are stubs of pretty borderline notability. Djr32 (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Great, I am really glad you have this under control. No need to do this if no one thinks it is necessary. I was thinking of project football, who have over 5000 articles. Glad you are taking care of this, best wishes. Okip (formerly Ikip) 22:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Aether drag hypothesis

Have just improved the history, updated and added references tag, links and citations to the Ether Drag page. I also hope to be able to fill in the long standing 'citations needed' gaps shortly, unless anyone else can.Docjudith (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ARBCOM/Speed of light revisited

Since this project is directly affected by the case, I though I'd let you know of this. The amendment request can be found here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Speed of Light. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First bounds on the Higgs boson from hadron colliders

Hopefully, this will interest the Physics community here. Three papers were published today (Feb. 12) in Physical Review Letters by researchers of the CDF and D0 collaborations at Fermilab. The papers describe new limits for the mass of the Higgs boson. In addition, there is a "Viewpoint" commentary in "Physics" (APS). Here is the external link: APS - "Physics" - Viewpoint There are three articles at the top of the page with the articles available in PDF format. There is also a referenced article that follows, which looks interesting, but I haven't read it. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's very interesting, but if I'm reading things right, they're only excluding it to between 2 and 3 sigma based on data in-hand, right? Saying that it's certainly excluded in the 160-200 GeV range would seem premature, given that.
Thanks for the links! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Proton decay in the Pati-Salam model

I recently added a link to the original Pati-Salam paper, Lepton number as the fourth "color" to the Pati-Salam model article. The article is presently completely incomprehensible, IMO, to anyone who does not already understand it. I was hoping I could make some small improvements, but I'm puzzled by some of the things in the original paper.

Pati/Salam say that B-L (which they call "fermion number") is preserved (although they define L as -L, so they call it B+L), but at the end of the paper they also say that the proton decays into three neutrinos and a pion:


p
  		 →   3
ν
  		 +  
π+

But this seems to violate B-L. Do they mean 2 anti-neutrinos and a neutrino, in addition to the pion?

The paper is quite hard to read (e.g. they unaccountably switch the order of the muon and muon neutrino in their multiplets, which necessitates the insertion of a Pauli matrix into some of their gauge field matrices), but perhaps it will make more sense to someone here! --Michael C. Price talk 11:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Responding to "Do they mean 2 anti-neutrinos and a neutrino, in addition to the pion?". No, my guess is that three neutrinos is exactly what they mean. If you regard each quark (rather than each baryon) as being equivalent to a lepton, and each anti-quark as equivalent to an anti-lepton, then their equation balances. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
JRSpriggs, you may be right. I just checked and I see they define baryon number as 1 for the conventionally colored quarks, instead of the modern convention of 1/3. --Michael C. Price talk 08:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait. Quarks are leptons now?
I get three baryons, no leptons, for (B-L) of 3 for the proton, and one baryon and one antibaryon for the pion, for (B-L) of 0. If the decay produces three antineutrinos, it balances (L of -3, (B-L) of +3 for the RHS). Disclaimer: I haven't read the paper itself. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
ObDisclaimer about calling a "quark" a "baryon" ;). Baryon number of 1, I meant. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"A not derivable from E and B"

Anyone feel like helping me out over at Talk:Aharonov–Bohm effect#Feynman's views? -- BenRG (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Help regarding infraparticle

This article is the best on the encyclopedia, and it was turned into a stub. The article is a first-principles explanation of a very difficult topic, and I am afraid the unlike Wikiproject mathematics, there are not enough Wikiproject physics people who will defend the best content from administrative style destruction. Is there anyone who can help?Likebox (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

On a related matter, is anyone willing to rewrite Scholarpedia articles for here, so that they are open to public comment? This will require writing articles of the same sort as infraparticle, and scholarpedia exists precisely to defend articles from political attacks by people who don't fully understand the topic. We could do the same thing on Wikipedia, with the appropriate critical mass of editors (like mathematics). But if it is impossible, it will not be worth any physicist's time to contribute any serious content to this project.Likebox (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem is as far as I can see it's an unsourced explanation of a topic, so OR and doesn't belong. Find sources for it, then write it based on them. It will also help you recruiting other editors who can use the source, and others it references or that reference it, to build on your work. Something that's almost impossible with original research.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
To JohnBlackBurne--- it is not OR if it doesn't have a source! It is OR if a source does not exist. This material is very old, and the explanation that is given is crystal clear, and written by a top-notch science contributor. I could tell it was correct by checking it (although I thought it was crackpot nonsense at first).
You must understand--- science is a big topic--- if you don't know what something is about, leave it alone. People who know the field will delete stuff that is truly OR.Likebox (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The deletion of accurate content for lack of effort to find sources is intolerable. I did not believe that editors would do this for technical discussions of such high caliber, but it happened. I am very disappointed by the decision of editors to attack material that they clearly did not understand.Likebox (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Like it or not, this is one of Wikipedia's core principles (per WP:V). By all means lobby to change the policy, but until then, finding sources should go hand in hand with writing articles. Other sites have different core principles, which may or may not lead to building better encyclopedias. This is great; diversity is a sign of health, and it's a big internet. That fact doesn't change what Wikipedia's policies are. Rather than complaining about how non-experts are removing material here, how about asking some of the experts you're in contact with what the standard references/sources for this topic are? Problem solved, without fuss, if you do that. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
But a reasonable case must be made that the explanation is likely nonsense (if not then I can justifiably invoke IAR to overrule OR, V or any other policy). Many Wiki pages contain unsourced explanations. There is nothing wrong for an explanation in Wikipedia to be unsourced in the sense that no articles on the topic give that explanation. There can be many innocent reasons for that. E.g., research papers will not give explanations that are obvious to researchers in the field. They are not writing for undergraduate students, yet Wikipedia cannot assume that its readers have more advanced knowledge than this. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The article is not adequately sourced, it is at at best OR, at worst fringe drivel. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

(deindent) You cannot be serious! The article has a source now--- I found it and listed it in the talk page. Absent your review of the relevant literature, I don't know where your opinion comes from. Calling an article on 30 year old well-accepted physics "fringe drivel" or "OR" is irresponsible. I would like to know how you came to your conclusion.Likebox (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To Christopher Thomas: WP core policy is designed to make sure that material is verifiable and not original. I didn't know the source for this, but I found it eventually, and listed it on the talk page. It is intolerable to delete material without reviewing the literature and looking for proper sourcing--- this is lazy editing at its worst. The source is not famous, but it is not obscure either.
Unfortunately, the people who came to the page just deleted it based on a feeling they had that this is OR. How do you deal with this feeling responsibly? You look up the literature, see what is sourceable, see what is not, and make corrections to the article accordingly. I did this years ago, and I realized that everything is OK. I provided a reference which should be sufficient for the time being.Likebox (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that looking for sources before deleting is a polite and constructive thing to do. However, the present consensus of Wikipedia administrators seems to be that the onus is on article writers, rather than subsequent reviwers, to dig up such references. I respectfully suggest that until you successfully lobby to change that convention, you will find it easier (and faster) to save articles by sourcing them (as you eventually did here) than by arguing that such sourcing must be done by others. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The article was written years ago by an expert contributor who left. Frankly, it didn't need any more than the one source provided by headbomb--- anyone who can read it can verify the material. This article was the only source I actually read about the subject for a long time.
When deleting material from a technical article, it is not only impolite to not check the sourcing, it is vandalism. Most of the science sections of the encyclopedia are not sourced like history articles, and should never be. The sourcing of science articles is for controversial statements, while 99% of science is uncontroversial, and all the experts agrees on everything. This 99% is what is represented here in this article, not the controversial 1%. I finally found the (original?) source for the argument, but the argument itself was a self-contained non-controversial exposition, which referred only to common-knowledge of everybody who knows quantum field theory. It's deletion bodes ill for every other article.Likebox (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It is important to note that this is still not resolved. The article is still a stub, despite the new source. I believe that the editors that deleted the text are dead set against it. Text which explains mathematics clearly is a popular target, because all such text sounds like OR to non-mathematical readers.Likebox (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation

As somebody has written on the talk page, "Right now, this article looks like a cobbled-together bunch of physics material. It took me a while to notice that the article even contains the Schrödinger equation, and it's not at all clear how the earlier sections help to justify the equation."

Also, as somebody else has written, the relative phases appear to be all wrong in the diagram of an electomagnetic wave.

Is this article serving any useful purpose?

Or is it a candidate for AfD? Jheald (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete it-- it has lots of wonderful diagrams and charts which can be incorporated into other articles. Although the content is less than wonderful (Maxwell's equations are the worst example of a wave corresponding to a particle--- you need to use the vector potential A to describe photons, some components are unphysical, and there is no nonrelativistic limit). But the article can be cannibalized. If the article is deleted, all the good stuff disappears into the ether. Besides, this isn't urgent--- the article isn't doing any harm at the moment.Likebox (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned images aren't instantly deleted, so this isn't an all-or-nothing situation. Make a placeholder page in user-space or in a subdirectory of WP:Phys space, and they'll stay indefinitely (mine certainly have). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
This looks like it started as a details-fork from Schrödinger equation. Some of the material in it looks like it may be useful for context, so deletion should probably only happen after careful consideration of what can/should be salvaged. If there's enough for a useful article, rewriting would be the better option. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
(misplaced comment removed by author)
These types of comments are not constructive--- all articles start out unsourced. This one is not very good, but it is neither OR nor drivel. It is a mishmash of various physics topics which can be reviewed and delegated to appropriate places. The words "OR" should not ever come up when discussing material that everyone knows is OK. The words "OR" refer to original ideas which are inserted in the encyclopedia, not to explanations of well known scientific content.Likebox (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The electric and magnetic fields should be in phase (as shown at File:Light-wave.svg), but the wave should be moving right to left (rather than left to right as shown). JRSpriggs (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Disparity in numbers in the articles on the Fundamental interactions

Strong interaction, Weak interaction, and Fundamental interaction all make statements about the relative strength of what are generally referred to as the four Fundamental interactions. Strong interaction does not currently seem to agree with the other two, but according to this Weak interaction might still be wrong as well. Electromagnetic interaction and Gravitation make no statements of relative strength, and Fundamental interaction also has the note "The exact strengths depend on the particles and energies involved." No matter what it seems like the numbers are off somewhere, and that someone should correct them. It's not clear what references are used to create these numbers. Talk on this also occurs here and here, and some references are talked about there, if that helps at all (probably not). I'm sure the real answer is pretty complicated just based on what is being said in the articles; either way it falls to someone who knows a lot more about this subject with access to good sources to figure this out and correct it. Thank you for your help. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not strictly comparable because the interactions have coupling constants with different units and depend on distance differently. So the statement that "The exact strengths depend on the particles and energies involved." is correct. Usually it is said that their strengths tend to become more nearly equal as the violence of the collision increases. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It might still be useful to pick a specific test case and use it to illustrate relative strengths, while at the same time giving these caveats. The forces acting between two protons within a nucleus of some light element would be one example (with the added caveat that we'd be measuring the residual strong force rather than the inter-quark strong force). The forces acting between two quarks within a proton or neutron would be another good example, except that (as far as I know) we don't have a good enough model of strong interactions within nucleons to give good numbers for this. We'd have to dig up citations for sources giving these specific examples, of course, which could be tricky.
The part that gives me pause is the weak force. Does it cause a force to be applied at all, or does it just provide a mechanism for things like beta decay to occur? If it's the latter, we'd have to do something closer to comparing the weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational components of the potential energy within a system rather than comparing the magnitudes of literal Newton-style forces. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the weak force does apply a force. The exchange of a W or Z particle transfers momentum and energy between the two interacting particles. What may make it confusing is that W also transfers electric charge which appears to make the identity of the particles change. Also the very short range (and quickness) of the force is unlike the gradual effect of the other forces. Beta decay can be thought of as a down quark emitting a W– and an electron-neutrino absorbing the W–. In the process the down quark becomes an up quark and the electron-neutrino becomes an electron. Also the electron-neutrino reverses its course from moving backwards in time to moving forwards when it is an electron. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand the exchange of energy and momentum during a reaction. To clarify, what I was referring to was a scenario similar to considering two protons (or two lead weights, or what-have-you) held near each other (or co-orbiting, etc): a scenario where the system is in a steady state, and forces are being applied. Beta decay is a transient event, which changes the objects that are interacting, so it's hard to construct an easily-understood example where the force applied can be compared to that from other forces. Hence, suggesting a potential energy comparison as an alternative that it's easier to construct cases for. Am I overlooking a Weak-force case that's easier to use in examples? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you are overlooking Z-boson exchange. This behaves very much like the exchange of a photon, with the exception that the Z-boson is massive. Z-boson exchange causes force between any two charged particles, that decays exponentially with the distance. TimothyRias (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dipole moment

From the search box I noticed that Dipole moment shows up three different ways:

Dipole moments redirects to the Wikipedia article Magnetic moment.
Dipole moment is appropriately a disambiguation page, and
Dipole Moment redirects to the article entitled simply "Dipole".

In addition, Dipole has wiki links to articles in the first paragraph that the reader can go to: dipole antenna, dipole magnet, dipole graph, and dipole speaker.

I am endeavoring to fix this problem at this very moment. I am intending to create one disambiguation page. I just wanted to let the Phyics community know - and please feel free review and edit. I will leave a message here after I am done. Hopefully, this won't take too long. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected them all to the disambiguation page. Wherever dipole moment points, so should the plural and capital variations. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've also created dipole (disambiguation). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
That worked well. Thanks for jumping in. It saved me some confusion (figuring out what goes where). This turned out to be very straightforward editing. The next step, as I see it, is to eliminate the links to the disambiguation page and and the three redirects (with a bot). Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
moved from User talk:Headbomb, Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently we working on two different disambiguation pages. I put everything here: Dipole moment (disambiguation) the url is here. How do you want to work this? Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather have one for the dipole moment, and one for the dipole (which itself has a link to the dipole moment), simply because when people are looking for the dipole moment, they aren't looking for dipoles. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. I see, now. One is "Dipole" and one is "Dipole moment". That works even better. Good idea. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I finished with the editing for Dipole moment (disambiguation), for now. Please take a look and feel free to streamline the page if you have any ideas on the best way to do that. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a small problem. If I did a page move from "Dipole moment" to "Dipole moment (disambiguation)" all the (70+) article links would have followed. However, since I did a merge to an existing page, the links did not follow. My AWB bot is not catching the "Dipole moment" links so I can link each instance to the proper destination page. That is - when I do "What links here" with the "Dipole moment" page my bot is not stopping for the disambiguation, even though I have Enable disambiguation" checked for the "Dipole moment (disambiguation)" page. Any suggestions? Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest asking at WP:BOT or WP:AWB Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Good job on streamlining the "Dipole moment (disambiguation)" page. It looks a lot better and it much easier to quickly understand what is on the page. I think you are correct in saying some of the content that was edited out, might find a better home in some of the (name space) articles. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've also added a dab-link to multipole expansion since that is the general case. In doing so I noticed there exist separate pages for multipole expansion and multipole moments. I suggest that these be merged. TimothyRias (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No Confidence

I wish to express no confidence in Headbomb for any sort of leadership position in the project. Since he is self appointed, I request quick consensus to change his status to participant for now.

I also propose and to hold open contested elections, open to all participants (including Headbomb), for a leadership position of "coordinator" within 30 days. This should take place over a reasonable time period to allow editors to present a platform for where they think the project should be headed, then the voting should be by runoff or instant runoff when candidates are ready. The new director will take over any tasks that headbomb now overseens.Likebox (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, every time Headbomb presents himself as the enwp physics coordinator, it should be pointed out this is just his own assumption. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I am proposing that we should have any coordinator elected by members. Is this what you would like to see? If so, would you support changing headbomb's status to "participant" for the time being, until suitable elections are held?Likebox (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? What exactly do you wish to achieve by this? What benefit would it bring to physics articles on the encyclopedia? Do you have any idea of the role of a coordinator of a WikiProject? Physchim62 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me convey my experience with WP:ELEMENTS, DYK and WP:CHEMS, they don't have any official leader or coordinator, and work fine by consensus. May I propose to this project adopting the same approach? Materialscientist (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't suppose any of the wikiprojects, physics or otherwise, really need a "coordinator", but when Headbomb gave himself the title then I assume other editors just rolled their eyes and carried on with their own editing. The thing is, wikipedia takes up enormous amounts of time, so if Headbomb or anyone else wants to spend their time on tidying and maintenance, then I say leave them to it. I don't suppose there would be many volunteers for these tasks. That being said, a hell of a lot of time would be saved if editors left things alone that they don't understand. Just because anyone can edit wikipedia, doesn't mean anyone should. Although I felt compelled to write this, I also realise it will be fruitless as there will always be people trying to edit things they don't understand, as it makes them feel important, and there will always be conflicts between people of different levels of expertise. Why am I even writing this ? On the other hand, more drama! Coo, cuckoo coup. Cool. How many wikieditors will in years to come regret the amount of time they spent here. Qurq (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No coordinator would be fine by me, and I would be Ok with making all decisions by consensus. The problem with having a coordinator is that this gives the impression that one of us speaks for all of us. This gives Headbomb's opinions undue weight in administrative proceedings. I am willing to take over any such administrative duties, and perhaps others are as well.Likebox (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There should definitely be an online journal for publishing routine stuff that wouldn't ordinarily get published but is needed for wikipedia. What would it be called though ? Qurq (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess you saw User:Likebox/WikiProjectPhysics_Platform. I was thinking of publishing in ordinary journals--- there are very well respected journals with a pedagogical/review focus, like the American Journal of Physics.Likebox (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough.

I endorse Headbomb's title as WikiProject head, and hereby propose that he be given the additional title "dictator-for-life", complete with a silly hat. This new position will retain all of the sweeping powers of his present position as head of WP:PHYS: none.

WP:PHYS is, and has always been, a consensus-based project, like the other WikiProjects and like Wikipedia as a whole. Headbomb lists himself as "self-appointed WikiProject Physics coordinator" on the "participants" page, which I read as half being dry satire (as there are no positions of authority in the project), and half being an indication to new or prospective users that he's a good person to go to with questions about this wikiproject, which I endorse.

Now, let's *please* stop beating a dead horse and/or attempting to stir up drama, and get on with what we're actually here for: maintaining and improving the physics articles in Wikipedia. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to make a point--- but headbomb has edited against consensus at Infraparticle, edit warred to get his way, and then brought up administrative action against me at WP:ANI for completely frivolous reasons. While the members of this project do not think that the title "coordinator" is meaningful, outside administrators do not share this view, and will act to resolve disputes in different ways according to the title. I agree that WikiProject physics is consensus based, but administrative Wikipedia is based on a heirarchy of editors with different status to speak for different communities, and I believe it is wrong to invest that power in headbomb without holding an election.
All I am saying is, no election, no coordinator. Just make headbomb be a participant like everyone else.Likebox (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the editing practices of Headbomb. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

I agree with Christopher. Headbomb may call himself whatever he wants. I find it highly implausible that any administrator would give Headbomb the benefit of the doubt in a dispute because of this title. From what I've seen, administrators don't even give each other the benefit of the doubt! Anyway, Headbomb has been doing nice programming-administrative-organization-type work related to this project and the project page, etc.--work that is unobjectionable and that no one else wants to do. Presumably his "title" helps motivate him to keep doing this type of work. So let's not complain! If you have a problem with his edits or editing philosophy, that's fine. But it's no reason to complain about his "title". :-) --Steve (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You (Likebox) seem to think that me being a coordinator gives me some sort of special voice in this project. All it means is that I actively scout for things of interest to this project, report relevant discussions, and make sure things like WP:AALERTS are running fine for this project, help new and old users find their way around, maintain {{physics}}, coordinate with other projects such as WP:AST, WP:ELEMENTS, WP:JOURNALS, or WP:CHEMISTRY, and do various other tedious activities like category organization.
It's interesting to see that someone says "whenever Headbomb present himself as the WP:PHYS coordinator", since I never do that exactly because I don't want any special considerations (other than on the member signup page, for the reasons Christopher Thomas lists). All "coordinator" means is I keep informed about all aspects of this projects, and that people with ideas can run things by me if they are unsure of an idea of theirs, or don't know who to talk to about. If that requires an election so be it, but it's a rather silly thing (not to mention a very pointy thing) to have a vote of confidence on my ability to find discussions and know what's going on with the taskforces and other close partners of the physics project because you couldn't be arsed to provided sources for the material at infraparticle. I suggest you disengage and move on with your life, rather than waste the time of this project's members by holding pointless votes whose outcome have zero effect on its functioning. The other members of this project will attest that I have never once argued anything based on my status of coordinator, and they are not mindless sheep who are afraid to disagree with me. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I insist that titles be granted by consensus. I know that there are editors who support headbomb's editing policy, and editors that oppose. I will state my points of opposition:
  1. The physics project has been incapable of producing detailed mathematical pages on specialist topics. The two that are here, infraparticle and BKL singularity have both been subject to challenge regarding sourcing, and might end up being moved to another venue. This limits the scope and usefulness of Wikipedia, and prevents the mission of being a repository of all knowledge, including specialist knowledge.
  2. Headbomb's clean-up focus is valuable, but contentwise, it can be too concerned with WP policy. Making articles into Good Articles or Featured Articles is the last step of a long and arduous process, which begins with sketching the contents, finding experts to write it, sourcing the content, adding illustrations, passing review etc. It is pointless to focus on the easiest last steps when for 99% of the articles the difficult first steps have not been taken.
  3. Headbomb has recently challenged material that was advanced based on lawyerly techniques that involve policy considerations only, although this seems to be an isolated occurence.
  4. Headbomb has brought frivolous administrative actions against myself, and other editors, and seems to believe that dispute resolution begins at AN/I rather than ends there. This type of litigous activity is detrimental to the project.
I am not complaining about Headbomb, I am complaining about his title. Would you mind if I took on a title of my own choosing?Likebox (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
As long as you follow User:Headbomb's example and add "(self-appointed)" to it prominently, go right ahead. He has made it very clear in the one place it was used that this title was not awarded in any official capacity. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Headbomb does not always include "self appointed" in his style, see here for an example. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've appointed myself "lead coordinator", I'll write a short request for more technical content, and hope to have your approval.Likebox (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You've joined the project yesterday and think you can lead the project? You want "my title" out of a fit of rage because you disagree with what happened at infraparticle, yet don't even know the first thing about this project, or what it is that I even do as a coordinator! Talk about breaking WP:POINT. I'll let others revert this farce, because you seem to think that this gives you some kind of editorial authority.
I don't know what exactly you're trying to do, but this politicization of the project is nothing but disruption, and you're heading into another block much more than you're heading towards being elected to anything. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, a self-appointed Fuhrer accusing the opposition of "disruption"... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have several years experience on a WikiProject that has a Coordinator and a number of other positions. I coordinate mediation where needed, and one of the roles there is to coordinate the reappointment or decision on a new appointment of the lead coordinator. I think that any such appointment has to be decided by consensus. Voting is not a good idea. But first, I think Likebox needs to calm down and let this drop for a few weeks. This all comes out of a disagreement about infraparticle and that needs to be put into perspective. I am not going to get into that argument, but some of you make recall that I have often tried to get physics articles to at least have a clear lead that the layman can understand what the article is all about. I have a Ph D in theoretical and physical chemistry and I have published in APS journals and others with "Physics" in the title. I have no idea what infraparticle is all about. Could one of you write a lead that explains it? Back to the coordinator. I suggest that in a few weeks, we return to a discussion of whether a coordinator is needed and if so, try to reach consensus of who should have the role. Now is not the time. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that leads must be comprehensible. Ifraparticle's first paragraph was comprehensible, but this was reverted out when it was stubbified and protected. --Michael C. Price talk 10:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no need for the position of "co-ordinator" to be voted on. Surely co-ordinating is an activity that any and all of us can do? Likebox and Headbomb and anyone else can be coordinators simultaneously. --Michael C. Price talk 17:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want Headbomb's title. I want a title that simply suggests that I am his superior, without taking away any of his tasks. The reason: Headbomb has used his title to pretend to speak for the community in administrative matters: see this case. This makes it difficult to get things done. I prefer if any title is granted by election--- it confers real power. Until such a time, I would like my title to be "lead coordinator", and my role would be to coordinate the efforts of expert editors to get technical content up, as I suggested.
I have been contributing technical content to the encyclopedia for 5 years. I wrote the good parts of Schrodinger equation, Feynman diagram, Old quantum theory, Matrix Mechanics, etc, etc, and I am very familiar with mathematical editing. I know the special problems that come with mathematical text.Likebox (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I have also, in collaboration with expert editors, been coordinating the mathematical parts of this project for years now, and I think I wrote more mathematical text here than anyone except Lantonov. So if you want a Lead Coordinator for expert text, I suppose you should ask Lantonov.Likebox (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and everyone here does stuff like that. This does not make you special in anyway, nor do you actually coordinate the editing of these article, so don't claim you have any sort of editorial authority or are my superior in any way. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No, not everyone. Myself and Lantonov. Nobody else, and certainly not you (I know, I looked over your edits).Likebox (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out that I am not claiming I am special, I am merely suggesting that any title is not meaningless, and must be conferred by contested elections, because there is always the potential danger that a power-hungry non-mathematical individual might abuse such title to get others blocked for frivolous reasons.Likebox (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


You don't need elections for a descriptive title to which no one finds inaccurate. I coordinate stuff (aka all the subpages of WP:PHYS, templates, tagging efforts, bot runs, inter-wikiproject meta-collaborations, and so on) thus I am a coordinator. I speak for the project when stuff like this are concerned and no one ever had a problems with any of my decisions regarding the tedious aspects of the project. I have a pretty good judgement of what I can say on behalf of the project, and what I need to bring to attention to all members. No one ever had a problems with my decisions concerning the layout of WP:PHYS, how {{physics}} should work, how WP:Physics/Recognized content should be configured, how WP:AALERTS should be configured, and all that tedious stuff. If someone has a question about them, or have an idea about doing something differently but aren't sure if it'll break anything, they come to me, since I'm the go-to guy (aka coordinator) for all that crap.
Now if you look at my use of that "As the coordinator of WP:PHYS" line you so ojbect to in that ARBCOM request (and which is not in the link you gave but rather here, you'll see that I've not use my "title" to get anyone banned. I said, and I quote "As the coordinator of WikiProject Physics, what Dicklyon did is pretty much a routine non-controversial request for help (certainly not fitting of your "Federal Case" hyperbola), and it's certainly what I expect editors to do. If there's a problem at a physics-related page, come to WP:PHYS, request opinions by uninvolved parties, extra sets of eyes, etc... If anything, the behaviour was exemplary.". Now if someone finds that what Dicklyon did, that is coming here to get other editors to participate and comment in a dispute/revert war, is not exemplary behaviour, then I don't know what is. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) If you find this title simply descriptive, then I suggest that you don't mind my title, since it simply describes my efforts at coordinating mathematical texts over many years, to make sure that they are consistent across articles and mesh together (Hawking radiation,Unruh effect,de Sitter Schwartzschild), that different editors can work together on mathematical articles (Higgs mechanism), that technical content not be misrepresented (Mass-energy equivalence), that prominent authors have their technical work properly summarized and linked (Albert Einstein,Stanley Mandelstam,Geoffrey Chew,David John Candlin,Tullio Regge, etc), that equations be correct and consistent (Path integral formulation,Ising model), and that editors like Lantonov be properly recognized for their enormous contributions (BKL singularity). All these activities cover the central aspect of physics editing.Likebox (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please ask Headbomb to stop

He keeps removing my self-chosen title of "lead coordinator", leaving behind my comments. I don't like this. I have put thought and effort into choosing a title and role for myself. I did not do so (solely) to make a point--- I genuinely feel that this title is what is good for me, given the other title that the project has granted by self-appointment. If you wish, we can remove all titles, and have elections, but please ask him to stop, because he is vandalizing my user-description.Likebox (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How about I ask both of you to stop? Voluntarily remove both of your self-appointed titles, and get back to improving wikipedia (both by editing content, and sourcing the edits). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree to remove both titles and stop.Likebox (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree to remove both titles for the duration of the RfC. This is what you wanted, and hopefully will end this silly nonsense quickly. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep both titles, or none, forever, or until you get a consensus that such an office is needed and that you are the best person to fill it.Likebox (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Headbomb & Likebox both have a conflict of interest w.r.t. each other's titles and hence should refrain from editing eachother's titles, self-appointed or otherwise. --Michael C. Price talk 22:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC on coordinators

  • Taking care of the physics project's appearance and navigability
  • Implementing and managing things like Article alerts, the Wall of Recognized Content, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Cleanup listing, and Newly created articles
  • Coordinating various bot runs on physics articles
  • Managing and finding resources for physics editors
  • Tagging and assessing articles, templates, books, etc.
  • Finding and reporting discussions and activities relevant to the project, and notify other projects of physics-related activities relevant to them
  • Support newcomers and oldtimers with their various questions concerning the editing of physics articles (such as how to use citation templates, how to categorize)
  • Since this isn't about content contributions, at least IMO, I won't post any. People can find some of them on my user page if they really think this is important for behind-the-scenes stuff, although it's not up to date.
Yes


No
  • No - In the project help on the project page there are several people listed as available to help and none of them are in all of the sections listed above. Any experienced editor can give help and any educated person in any field of physics can help to some degree. This does not allow them to take on any title, nor does the project have positions of title - this RfC is badly worded and would lead to an assumption that there are titles to be given out or earned...Chaosdruid (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Other
  • This is not how you find consensus for positions: first you let the community define the position, the you apply for it as a candidate, you give the candidates a reasonable amount of time to gather support, then you hold a vote, and a runoff between the leading two contenders. This thing was put together in a biased way, and I encourage people not to vote here.Likebox (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Since I'm involved, I won't vote yes/no, but obviously I think that "coordinator" is an accurate description of what I do here, otherwise I'd never have identified as a coordinator. My interpretation of a "yes" outcome will be that you acknowledge that I perform these activities, and that as far as you're concerned, you're happy that I'm taking care of the non-article stuff (such as maintaining {{physics}} and WP:AALERTS for this project and its taskforces) so you can focus on articles and whatever you like doing. I would also retain, as Christopher Thomas put it, "all of the sweeping powers of [my] present position as head of WP:PHYS", that is "none", and no special considerations whatsoever as regard to content (for instance if I thought we should redirect article X, but others thought we shouldn't) or direction this project should take (for instance if people wanted an optics taskforce, and I disagreed that we should have one, I would create one and give it as much attention as I give the other ones, despite me being against it on a personal level). If the outcome is "no", I'll be disappointed, but I'll live. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Haven't especially noticed his contributions except recently in meta-discussions like this one, but I've not really been here long or much: I've more to do with maths and maths related things. So no real view.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • A lead coordinator coordinates the activity of pages relating to lead and other chemical elements with similar properties.
Yes


No
  • I first came across Likebox on Talk:Speed of Light where he seemed intent on raising an argument that had got two editors banned, variously trying to argue a strange interpretation of constancy of the speed of light and saying that Brews ohare and David Tombe should not have been topic banned, the latter being totally inappropriate on the talk page. As such he lost my respect both for his understanding of physics and his behaviour on WP, the latter conformed by an ill-judged attempt to get Brews unbanned. His history of blocks and bans suggests this is nothing new. So no, I don't think "lead coordinator" is a good title for him.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop this nonsense--- it's a meaningless self-appointed title, and there is no reason to have this discussion or RfC. If you want an official position, work on creating one, and filling it properly. That means: first define the position, then get consensus that such a position is needed, finally ask for candidates, then hold a vote.

    The banning of User:Brews ohare is the reason I came to speed of light, and these editors have a grudge from the resulting ArbCom case. It is precisely for reasons like this that votes on Wikipedia are careful, they are held rarely, and only under controlled circumstances. Normally, Wikipedia is not a democracy, for good reason.

    As I said, I have written dozens of physics pages, and I am a long-term Wikipedia editor with thousands of contributions, in good standing. I have gotten into disputes over the years, the latest was over nonsense, and this type of activity--- attempting to block editors for nonsense, is what led me to challenge Headbomb in the first place.

    I think the consensus here is that WikiProject physics does not need a leader of any sort. I would prefer if the project pages reflect that. But if one editor is allowed to choose a title according to their whims, why not another?Likebox (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  • No - In the project help on the project page there are several people listed as available to help and none of them are in all of the sections listed above. Any experienced editor can give help and any educated person in any field of physics can help to some degree. This does not allow them to take on any title, nor does the project have positions of title - this RfC is badly worded and would lead to an assumption that there are titles to be given out or earned...Chaosdruid (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Other

Remarks

  • When I say hold a vote, I mean a real vote, not this kind of crap: a vote means that someone disinterested holds the vote, the lead in to the vote does not bias the decision, and that platforms are on userspace, not in public.

    This is not a vote--- but I assure you that any title you would like, which is not meaningless would have to be acquired by one.

    In addition, I think that the vote should be restricted to the project. An RfC is open to anybody.Likebox (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is open to everyone, and everyone is welcomed to participate in this project. Plenty of people are involved in physics and don't bother to sign up. I don't know why you think their voices are worth less than others. I've said my piece. I have the first half, you have the second half, both worded in exactly the same neutral way, I've not put any words in your mouth, and have advised people to wait for your statement before voting on whether or not they think you should identify as the Lead Coordinator. You wanted an RfC about the use of titles, I've acquiesced to not identify as a "coordinator" while this RfC takes place. You've got your RfC, if you're not happy about, you're free to make your case again me. (BTW, I moved your statement here, as I doubt you meant to include it in the "yes" section.) Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note that you are also free, as anyone else is, to add questions of your own. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason this is no good is because if there is only one position, then I would like it to be filled in a contested election. You are holding up/down votes with one candidate for each position. That's the Soviet way, not the Wikipedia way.Likebox (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
And? If the project doesn't mind both you and I idenfying as coordinators, that's their choice. I don't know why you want their options to be limited. They are free to support both you and I, only one, or neither. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you have a habit of blocking users that get into disputes with you. That makes it difficult to hold an up/down vote on your self-appointed title, and is also the reason that you should not take a self-appointed title in the first place. You are an ordinary contributor, just like everyone else. As long as you feel you can take a title without a vote, I will feel the same freedom.Likebox (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No I don't, because I can't block anyone (nor would I if I were an admin, since I wouldn't be impartial). Note that you broke your ARBCOM restriction of 1RR at infraparticle, and it's you that first tried to get me blocked, not I that tried to get you blocked even though I could have made an ARBCOM/Enforcement request against you. The ANI request I made against you was because I thought you had deceptively sourced infraparticle, and that is certainly something that should be reported and blocked. It turned out I was wrong, and that I misunderstood what you meant. When this was pointed to me, I admitted that I was wrong, and took the initiative of finding someone to unprotect the article (at Count Iblis' suggestions), and I myself reintroduce the non-stub version. I'm willing to let the past be the past, but you're doing your best that I don't. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) I do not have a 1RR restriction by ArbCom. I have a warning to please keep from making tendentious, POV pushing, OR pushing edits. Count Iblis thinks I have 1RR restriction, unfortunately, because I have voluntarily stuck to 1RR since then, but there was never such a decision. I went to 2RR with you and Finell (although only 1 apiece), because you two were so obnoxious and the material was so good.

You did not admit that you were wrong until it was obvious that nobody was buying it. As regards infraparticle, you would have been blocked for edit warring, even without violating 3RR (which has happened to me in the past) simply because of your admission that you were edit warring. But once I realized your fourth edit wasn't a revert (that was a too quick glance at the diff--- it looked like a revert superficially), I asked them to not block you. It would ruin my spotless record of never having gotten anyone blocked.Likebox (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right, the 1RR is indeed a volunatry decision by you to be able to better deal with the rather vaguely formulated probation. Jayjg exploited that some time ago in an edit war about WP:ESCA, and that's when I suggested that in the future you could defend yourself better by always sticking to 1 RR. Count Iblis (talk)
Dude, I have a life and do other things than watchi ANI like a hawk. I found out from Fut.Perf. at 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC), and retracted myself after finding out I was wrong. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A compromize

Why not start WikiProject Theoretical and Mathematical Physics as a sub-Wikiproject of WikiProject Physics? Likebox will set that up. Headbomb will do his usual work, nothing will change here. The only thing that will change is that Likebox will start a drive to get a few hundred articles on various topics in theoretical/mathematical physics started or substantially expanded. It is well known that subjects with require a great deal of mathematical exposition are not covered well here, if at all. This is in contrast to pure math articles. And in some cases a physics topic is completely written from a very abstract mathematical POV, like Yang-Baxter equation. Count Iblis (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the idea of a T&M physics taskforce, although I'd rather have one out of interest in T&M physics than as some compromise in a silly dispute, otherwise it'll just die out and the efforts spent in setting it up could have been better spent elsewhere. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Anything that can address articles such as Pati-Salam model (unreadable IMO, for the reasons Iblis mentions above) gets my support. --Michael C. Price talk 00:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thats the most sensible thing I have read over the last two days...I concur wholeheartedly !
I am apalled that the leader of the project states:-
"Some articles are of interest to grade-school students, others only to advanced graduate students and post-docs: all such communities should be served." (and thats the article leader NOT a political bullshit leader)
It is necessary that some of the mathematics are brought back for those that want them - it is not a problem for us to have articles with drop downs containing the maths for those that want them - those that do not can simply NOT drop them down...or even link to another article with the maths separated into that, similar to the way we split other large articles up in to
"Maths of XXX"
See main article "the maths of XXXX"
Chaosdruid (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
How is that an appalling statement by any measure? Are you saying that some communities should not be served? I'm not following you at all here. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree Headbomb, I couldn't follow Chaosdruid's logic, although I agreed with the conclusion.--Michael C. Price talk 00:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue I have is with administrative abuses by the self-appointed leader, not with the position itself, or the tedious tasks involved. I don't want people to feel that Headbomb speaks for the project, as this will dissuade expert editors from joining. I want a title-free environment, everybody equal.Likebox (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It is appalling that there is a reduction of the content simply because some people may not understand it. The physics projects aims include providing information at all levels and to dumb down articles is to intentionally fall short of those provisions.
It remains to be seen whether that is a temporary ill-founded mistake on the part of some editors or a general malaise amongst the public. If we want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia which includes physics at a high level then we must endeavour to retain information that can be understood at all of those levels.
I agree that there is no need for everybody to have to read the Pati-Salam model and it is indeed disheartening to see that there is no explanation of it in lay terms - something which needs to be addressed for the understanding of the layman as well as the pure maths post grad doctor and so bring them closer together in their understanding.
Chaosdruid (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Chaosdruid, serving all communities doesn't imply deleting maths content. Just means better presenation along the lines you suggest. --Michael C. Price talk 01:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Michael. I don't know how you think it implies such. For instance, in the quark article, we talk about the CKM matrix. I doubt that this section is accessible for anyone at the undergraduate level (other than those who had a solid QM class and went beyond curriculum), but we still talk about it because it is vital to the comprehensiveness of the quark article. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
At the professional level, I can assure you that there are only two articles: infraparticle and BKL singularity (there might be one more decent article, but mentioning it might incur prompt deletion) which cover things sufficiently advanced to not be common knowledge.Likebox (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Likebox, think of it this way. Had a Wikiproject theoretical physics existed last year, the problem of dealing with Brews could have been delegated to you. Then with Brews on your plate, you would have done your best to persuade Brews to behave himself differently in discussions. Had the case still gone to Arbcom, your opinion would have counted for more, simply because based on your work, an Arbitror would have seen that you have a proven record showing that you are qualified to judge what is good for the project. Of course, that extra weight Admins would give you is now seen as a problem in case of Headbomb now, but that is not going to change anytime soon. Count Iblis (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Count--- I really don't like dealing with such things, and I don't like leadership positions. But I feel that Headbomb is a sufficient drag on the project that if he decides to take one for himself without a vote, someone else has to take one too.Likebox (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Michael - "serving all communities doesn't imply deleting maths content" how did you think i said that ?
I clearly stated "to dumb down articles is to intentionally fall short of those provisions" and "some of the mathematics are brought back"
It seems that you misunderstood what I said - I am saying that we need to uphold the statement that "all communities are served" by not deleting maths content
@ Headbomb - you are agreeing with Michael ? you are also not understamding what I said, then are agreeeing with the conclusion of someone else who didnt understand - this is ridiculous. You dont know how I think it implies such ??? thats because I didnt !!
I know the articles you quote talk about it because it is vital - thats what I was bloody well saying !!
Please do not jump to incorrect conclusions both of you
Chaosdruid (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Chaosdruid, I have not misunderstood, since I agree with your statement: "I am saying that we need to uphold the statement that "all communities are served" by not deleting maths content". So, what gives? --Michael C. Price talk 02:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC) - It seemed you were saying that I thought that serving all communities implied deleting maths content - otherwise why tell me that it did not ? Chaosdruid (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Political protection for technical content

I would like to ask physics contributors opinion: do we expect Wikipedia to cover scientific content at the same depth as Britannica? Or is Wikipedia going to be a layman gloss with a few links? I really want to know the answer, because if there is not going to be serious content here, I don't want to stick around.

If editors would like serious content, including good in depth explanations of technical scientific topics, there had better be a large number of physics editors willing to write these articles and defend them from attacks. To delete "infraparticle's" content is as ridiculous as deleting "quantum vacuum" or "infrared divergence". The only difference is that infraparticle had a wonderful technical exposition of the subject, written by an expert, while the other articles are stubs.

If competent editors expect their work to be deleted by people who do not understand what they write, these articles will stay stubs forever.

I am asking if people are willing to make a "technical physics cabal", devoted to writing scientific content, and making sure that it is not deleted by uncomprehending editors. The guide should be the essay WP:ESCA, which describes how to write technical content and make sure that it is correct and non-original. To join the cabal, write an article with equations in it. The cabal will mediate disputes on articles with equations in them. Without such a political system, it seems pointless to me to ever write technical content here again.Likebox (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy. All that Wikipedia's policies ask is that, when an expert writes an article, they include citations to sources as well. This really isn't very difficult; I know that in my own field of expertise, I can pull up journal or textbook references trivially. The articles that you perceive as being "under attack" are ones where the author didn't bother to do this. If you want to save them, it's straightforward to do so: either search for the references yourself, or ask the original author or another expert to do so. This is the best of all possible counterarguments to "delete because it's unsourced", so I'm puzzled as to why you feel complaining about it here is a better use of your time.
If you want the other members of Wikiproject Physics to help you save articles, the most effective way to encourage that would be to post a list of articles tagged as poorly-sourced and ask for volunteers to search for sources. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason is that the arguments in sources need to be modified for the encyclopedia, and these modifications, when done by someone competent, often look like "OR" to other people. Articles that are fully sourced come under attack all the time, by editors that do not bother to read the sources with understanding.
"Infraparticle" was unsourced, because the contribution was common knowledge to a technical subfield, with many many references. The sources are scattered, and difficult to find, and there is no guarantee that the arguments in the article are an exact duplicate of the arguments in the sources. It's the same ideas with different language. Non-expert editors often complain about expert editors contributions because they do not see that the ideas are the same as those in the sources. But this is the first time that I have seen such a contribution deleted wholesale. Unless there is meaningful protection for content with equations in it, this content will not (and should not!) get written.Likebox (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Op-amps are well understood too, but I'd still pull out a copy of Sedra and Smith before writing an article about them. It is neither difficult nor onerous to provide sourcing for the vast majority of articles like this. Case in point: You dug up references for infraparticle in far less time than it took you to argue your case here. Even in a hypothetical case where sources are scattered, a partly-sourced article is unlikely to be summarily deleted, while an unsourced one _is_ likely to be summarily deleted. A modest effort gives you a large improvement in outcome.
I agree that objections to article arguments not matching source arguments do happen. These usually result in talk-page traffic, and revision of article text to reflect the form of the sources or acquisition of additional sources with clearer form. This may, on occasion, result in a stylistically worse article. That's still a far cry from the dichotomy that you paint at the beginning of this thread, as the articles still have technical depth.
Long story short: You didn't have much trouble sourcing infraparticle. Sourcing it makes it (and articles like it) far less likely to be summarily deleted. Where's the problem? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The article is STILL DECIMATED. The editors that took away the material will not reintroduce it, even with a new source. The source I gave is of no help--- I will have to argue with the people there about exactly where to find every single assertion in the source. There is no reason for this argument, because each assertion is uncontroversial physics, I repeat: there is absolutel no controversy in the literature about this article.
The problem is that, for technical fields like theoretical physics, with a long history of deductive arguments, you are not going to find an exact source for every argument presented in "infraparticle". What you will find is the source I provided--- a discussion of Gauss's law and modified currents for theories with infrared divergences, and parallel constructions which are not matching equation for equation.
But the mathematical content on the page is a paraphrase of these sources. It can be checked on its own, and the stuff it is talking about is the exact same stuff as the literature source. I repeat: you will not have technical content if you require exact match between mathematical deductions and sources. You will have none. If you do this, this is the end of technical science on Wikipedia.
Mathematical arguments are thoughts in themselves. They can be paraphrased into other arguments that say the same thing, but don't look the same. When someone who is a Wiki "OR" strict constructionist sees these arguments, they will delete the material. The arguments here must be done by people who understand what they are editing, otherwise nonsense like infraparticle will happen again and again.Likebox (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding op-amps: The central difference between "op amps" and "infraparticle" is the technical level required to understand the subject. For op-amps, there are hundreds of thousands, or millions of experts. For infraparticle, it's only a thousand or so. If I were writing an article on "QCD sum rules". "infraparticle". Landau poles, or any other technical topic which is mathematical, I would not consult a single source for any of the mathematical deductions, because mathematics, without exception, can only be discussed from first principles. I would cite the original author of the deductions, when the discussion has been mathematically paraphrased so that an inexperienced editor might not be able to tell at first that it's the same thing.
For disputes in the literature, I would find sources. For matches to experiment, I would find sources. If stuff became controversial, I would explain it better. The sourcing of well known mathematical derivations is destructive from the process of writing the encyclopedia. "Infraparticle" is, along with BKL singularity, the only reason that any physicist should care about this project.Likebox (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps these two pet articles of yours are the only reason you care about this project, but that's ludicrous to suggest that these these two articles are the core of the project, as opposed to the more than 10,000 physics-related articles. This is WP:Physics afterall, not WP:BKL singularities & Infraparticles. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

These articles were not written by me. I did not mention other examples, because they might get attacked. If you promise not to attack the pages, I'll list them all. I'd say there's more than a handful, less than 20, and there should be a thousand.Likebox (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced content at Infraparticle

This has degenerated into a revert war. Help would be appreciated. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I request all editors to read the material that is being deleted at infraparticle, and review it with respect to literature sources on "infraparticle". Unfortunately, infraparticles are not the most widely understood theoretical concept, and they are out of the domain of expertise of most editors. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it OR. It is impossible to satisfy the requirements of sourcing in this case with everyone, because reading the sources require understanding the field well enough to see that the arguments on the page are OK. I request that people help the other way.
I also suggest that Headbomb step back and consider what he is doing. Is deleting the best technical content on the site in any way beneficial to the encyclopedia?Likebox (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If it is indeed "impossible to satisfy the requirements of sourcing", then I'd say it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, per wp:source and specially per this:
  • "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.".
DVdm (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' anecdote refers to this story:

The defining moment for Sergey, however, was when he met future co-president of Google, Larry Page. Sergey was assigned to show Larry around the university on a weekend tour. Reportedly, they did not get on well to begin with, arguing about every topic they discussed, and even throwing a few pies at each other.
Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.

There is no comparison between detailed technical physics discussions and these types of unsourced anecdotes.

Keep these points in mind:

  1. There are sources for the physics, and I have supplied some of them.
  2. the sources need to be read and understood, and the article needs to be read and understood to see if what the article is saying matches what the sources are saying.

But this material is specialist material, so not everyone can easily check it. The point here is that you need to have people check it carefully, and to fully understand what you are deleting. If everyone delete everything that they don't understand, no technical knowledge will survive.

This material is so not OR, that it is extremely frightening that anyone would accuse it of OR. Read the argument, tell me what you think is dubious, and I'll source it.Likebox (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as it is impossible to satisfy the requirements of sourcing for paraphrased Chinese for a reader who does not understand Chinese, it is impossble to satisfy the requirements of sourcing for a paraphrased discussion of "infraparticle" for a reader who does not understand quantum field theory.Likebox (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
This is specialist, unsourced material. And that's what's it's all about. If you want to keep what is, in your opinion but not that of most others', the best thing on Wikipedia, source it. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I gave you a source, and you deleted the text summarily without discussing the source or your specific problems with the text!Likebox (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to argue about whether it is correct and comprehensible? It may the former, it certainly isn't the latter. When those issues are resolved then we can cite sources. --Michael C. Price talk 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The chances of the article being both correct and comprehensible are greatly improved if it is well sourced with inline citations, and if the text follows the sources. That is what WP:V is about, and this article is not an exception to bedrock policy. Further, the article's talk page shows that there is no consensus for adding the material until it is sourced. Those who keep reverting and edit warring to restore the unsourced material are, in addition to violating WP:V, hediting against consensus. There are sound reasons behind Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Following them, and if necessary enforcing them, avoids disputes and edit wars like the current one.—Finell 00:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:V is not followed in this ridiculous way in many physics and math articles. Per WP:IAR, we are not in the first place here to follow policies, we are here to write about some physics subjects. Policies only play a secondary role. Example: The Global Warming article never followed WP:V to give a source for the statement that only a few climate scientist dissent with the consensus view, despite repeated requests from the sceptics. On Wikipedia we take care not to subvert articles by Wiki-lawyering editors. Count Iblis (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Everything in that article can be sourced directly to Buchholz. It took some reading to find that article, but this could have been done and spared us this debate. It is deplorable that correct, extremely valuable, content was deleted in such an administrative way, just because the original author is no longer active.Likebox (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
My view remains that the article Infraparticle is of too poor quality for WP. Not every paper that has ever been published in the scientific literature deserves an article in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Any article that is a helpful processing of knowledge deserves to be here. Wikipedia is much like a textbook in that regard: it's shorter than the papers that go into it, because it compresses, relates and explains them. I'd be happier with this article if gave more examples. Obviously electrons are infraparticles, but saying that infraparticles have "strange quantum properties" makes them sound like this is a feature of this new particle class, not a feature of "ordinary electrons" (which is what seems to be meant). So more context is needed. Why was the term invented? What is it meant to solve or what problem is it meant to point to? Some of that is here, but not enough of it. Keep at it. Get it down to undergrad level in the intro, if you can. Heck, if Feynman could do it for QED, you can do some of the same here, at least to get going. SBHarris 03:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent)I agree that the article could be made more accessible, and one could work at that. But I am curious about Xxanthippe's position: how do you know how important this subject is? You thought it was OR or drivel just a few hours ago, and I presume you haven't done a literature search or learned anything about it.

I learned what an infraparticle is directly from the Wikipedia page that was recently deleted. It is one of two Wikipedia articles on physics (the other being BKL singularity) that I found was good enough to completely explain a subject I had zero knowledge about coming in. So, of course, I am attached to this article, and I consider it a model of clear mathematical exposition.

I believe that this article is one of only a handful of articles which are at a sufficiently advanced level to be useful to working physicists. That makes it the most important physics article in the encyclopedia. This article is consulted by experts, and only through use do expert editors come to realize the importance of Wikipedia and come to contribute here.Likebox (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot emphasize the importance of this issue to the project: if the editors here don't get their act together and decide to protect mathematical text from uncomprehending deletion, all the mathematical texts will get deleted, one by one. There is no chance that I will continue writing here if this happens. Nobody else will contribute mathematical content either.Likebox (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what Likebox has been saying and it reminds me of some of the past problems I've had myself when I edited articles associated with my field of research only to be stopped and outnumbered by other editors claiming I couldn't add mathematical detail and explanations since the average wiki-reader didn't know basic mathematics. Its very frustrating, especially when upon discussion it becomes clear that the objectors themselves only understand the most rudimentary parts of the subject matter if that at all.Chhe (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem is not, and has never been, presence of mathematical detail. The problem - from the start - has been unsourced content in the article. The remedy is simple: find sources as you add new material. The derivations in the original journal articles about the subject may be less tidy than optimal, but they're better than having no material at all. Cleaner derivations have almost certainly been published (academics love it when people know about their work, so they _teach_ grad courses on their pet subjects and make sure there's at least a chapter about them in textbooks they write on related subjects). "Synthesis" (WP:SYN) of new presentations of known material isn't necessarily bad, but for highly technical topics, you're removing the ability of other editors to check your work. This is contrary to one of the core principles of Wikipedia (verifiability). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
(I am sorry for butting in, but there is a long comment below, and I want to respond to this) It is important that challenge to material be in good faith, and compreheding. Saying "get rid of this, it's OR" is one thing when you know that it's a fringe idea. It's another thing altogether when it's just a bunch of math you don't understand. The OR policy is supposed to apply to the former, not to the latter.Likebox (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the term "original research" has been misused in many of the objections here. What seems to be the issue is violations of WP:SYN and WP:V, rather than WP:OR. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that there is an inherent problem here.
There is not enough capability for understading of even the basic principles of physics from the lay-man and that is why they must be allowed to understand if they so wish.
There are too many trying to reduce the mathematical component of articles simply because they do not understand the value of that component. It is, however annoying, a basic principle of WikiWorld that there is not enough room for all the content of all the world knowledge. That said, there is also the annoying fact that if a reference is not understood it can get ignored and dismissed. All physics written by those that are doing research will be OR even if it is primary source.
Wiki wants tertiary or secondary but will accept primary sourcing.
So, please tell me if I am wrong in that primary sourcing is allowed ?
Infraparticles and other topics are a mind blowingly complicated series of mathematical solutions and these can be easily followed through the various papers that have been produced.
The problem is that these papers have to be published in a recognised journal. If they are at the forefront of research that is not likely, and it may be years before they are published, as there are always papers that are in the pipeline, theories not yet disproved or researched to the fullest extent.
Another wonderful WIkiPractice is that of "recentism" and in the world of physics and quantum theory recent can be in the last year or two.
It is important, however, to maintain the necessary proofs using mathematics beyond the grasp of most school students. That being said, it is not detrimental to either put the calculations on an article called "Proofs of the XXX" or "hide" them with a drop down,
As for the unparticle massless boson charged uncharged infraparticle unWigner Lorentz symmetry - it is best left for the experts to argue over. And they will lol
There are many refs to be quoted for that particular subject, Chen, Frohlich, Pizzo, Schroer, Porrmann and Dybalski and these guys are from respected institutes such as CERN, Schroedinger institute, University of California Davis, Princeton, Institut fur Theoretische Physik etc
As Schroer says - uniparticles are "hypothetical bursts of scale invariant invisible ”stuff” which is formed in high energy collisions of ordinary particles"
SO, lets remember that black holes, big bang and many others are just theories and yet they still have their place in physics and in this encyclopedia.
Nevertheless, mathematical proofs of minority interest aside, it was VERY wrong to have put the article up for deletion. People are too quick to delete and not quick enough to save, provide refs, find explanations and cites and even bother to try to understand. TO retain Wikipedia as an encyclopedia means to NOT delete just because it cant be understood by people who do not want to understand
Chaosdruid (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
"We are all agreed that your idea is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough" Niels Bohr
"Everyone has to sacrifice at the altar of stupidity from time to time, to please the deity and the human race" Einstein

IRC channel

I've just created an IRC channel for this project: #wikiphys (on Freenode). It can be accessed from the intro section of mainpage, and under the "Quick help table". Everyone's welcomed to join, of course. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a "Quick help table". Would you like to put a direct link here. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC).
Middle of the project homepage, third section "Quick Help"? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I still can't find it so I won't be able to contribute. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC).
Would it be possible to produce "digest" logs of public traffic via some automated method, which could be posted in a sub-page here? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It's most likely feasible, although that would involve the use of bots [and I'm no bot expert]. That being said, even if a bot could be set up, I'm not too sure public logs should be available as many people have issues with them. But any "scheduled/official discussion" would obviously be logged and archived in a WP:PHYS/IRC/Log/Date subpage of some form. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I question the wisdom of having a channel for WP:PHYS-related discussion that doesn't have a public record, as this seems to be a recipe for drama and accusations of cabal-like behavior, off-wiki canvassing, and so forth. Would a prominent login banner stating that all traffic is publicly logged remove the concerns that people would have with that?
I do admit that this is moot point, as people could easily coordinate with each other without the help of a #wikiphys channel. I just feel that it's important to project an impression of transparency where possible. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, don't look at me, I find it pretty weird too, I'm just telling you what the IRC culture is like. Most wikipedia and wikimedia channels aren't logged because this apparently creates a ton of problems. Take a look at [for example] #wikipedia-en's topic

"English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org | Status: Up | Channel guidelines at [link] | If you need a channel operator, say !op followed by your request, or join #wikimedia-ops | No public logging | For urgent assistance or help, type !admin followed by your request. | IRC community meeting on Feb. 24: [link] "

So I'd rather not stray too far from the mold. Of course, if no one minds then no one minds. (BTW, the channel is public, aka visible/joinable by anyone. I'm just speaking of the logs.) Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
My friend tells me that one of the main reason is that public logs aren't allowed is before of security issues (IPs can be exposed, and other such personal information). As such, I doubt it would be a good idea of have public logs of non-scheduled discussions. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, though scrubbing IP addresses and hostnames from the log wouldn't be too difficult. I concede that this may be passing the boundary of what would be considered a reasonable amount of effort to implement.
Another potential problem would be spoofing (use of a misleading alias). I can't think of any good mechanism to tie a user's IRC alias to their Wikipedia alias. This wouldn't cause problems under most conditions, but sooner or later I'd expect an ill-intentioned person to try it (it happens every so often at AN/I, despite being easy to catch).
I'm not trying to be overly-critical, here. Mostly, I'm just trying to spot potential sources of future drama before they happen. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we had enough of that for today. So yeah I guess public logs are out of the question. The logs of scheduled meetings (if we ever have any) would be reviewed and identities confirmed before being posted. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm just going to insert here that many users of IRC receive Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Wikiwhatnot cloaks via the process at meta:IRC/Cloaks. That process is fairly secure against spoofing. A note that I might make would be to change the name of the channel to #wikipedia-en-phys or something of that sort, as that shows a bit more relation. Your choice, naturally. --Izno (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes a different name might be possible, although it's already setup (it takes a good while to make sure that the channel is configured properly and properly secured against takeovers). I've opted for a name similar to #wikichem. As for cloaks and whatnots, it's somewhat of a hassle, and people looking for quick help might not be willing to go through that. I have a better system for confirming identities anyway. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's none of my business, of course, but this must be just about the worst timing possible for creating an IRC channel for this project. IRC is not generally known as a method for reducing tensions and assumptions of bad faith, or for raising the general level of maturity. Hans Adler 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just some remarks from WP:CHEMS. Our IRC channel rarely serves as a "quick help" function, for lack of people who actually use it. On the other hand, it has proved very useful for brain-storming sessions, which are publicized in advance, open to all and publicly logged, with the logs published on Wikipedia. The channel is always logged, but that is as a side feature of another of our initiatives (User:CheMoBot) and we don't publish the logs from outside of public meetings. We haven't had any problems with drama or assumptions of bad faith (as you might find, say at #wikipedia-en-admins), quite the reverse I would say! Meetings such as these allow people to interact in a more human way than simply leaving each other messages, and you get a slightly better feel for the other person's personality: my own personal impression is that they have reduced tensions while WP:CHEMS has been developing some fairly ambicious projects.

The one thing you must watch out for is that there doesn't develop a class of IRC participants and a separate class of non IRC participants: it is essential that those editors who take advantage of the IRC channel also strive to include other participants in the decision making of the project. The way WP:CHEMS gets over this is to use the meetings as a way to identify and define problems, but not to resolve them. For example, we can discuss the fact that some chemicals have ridiculously long names that clog up the infobox, but we can't decide straight away that we're going to hide them all behind "show" tags: the latter decision was taken by the project as a whole on the basis of the analysis of the problem and a discussion that concluded that the "show" tags were the least-bad solution. Physchim62 (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what I had in mind. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics}

Any bites?

While thinking about what to do here, I came up with a list of 115 things which need serious mathematical exposition. I chose the list freely out of my own interests.

It is easy to write a stub on each topic, with no serious mathematical content, but I think that filling up the project space with stubs is counterproductive, since whoever writes the final article won't use any of the stub text. Instead, I was thinking of going through the list one by one, and writing a real article from scratch, with as much depth as BKL singularity, which I think can be fairly called the only "Featured Technical article". Writing mathematical texts is not going to get anyone any barnstars, and it will never be FA or even GA, so this is thankless work in every way. But it will do a lot of good, I think.

One has to make the commitment to learn the subject in depth, study the literature until one can reproduce the results without consulting sources, then find an angle of attack, a perspective which allows you to frame the subject. Write the difficult stuff first, the mathematical exposition, then put in the fluff that is required to meet article standards, and source everything. Is there anyone who wants to go through this list along with me, or add to it?Likebox (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

With some luck I can do some serious work on hyperasymptotics during Easter holiday. I think all that Wikipedia has in this area is a very short stub on Borel resummation. Count Iblis (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Maths is not my strong point – just ask my bank manager – but good luck anyway. Physchim62 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
While this effort is useful and important, this might not be the best site for it--- how do we know all the mathematics is not going to get deleted? We need to make a strong conensus here to join unanimously to defend all correct mathematical content from uncomprehending letter-of-the-rules based deletion.Likebox (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
No, there is no physics cabal, and there is neither a need for one, or should there ever be one. Any article on any list that doesn't meet WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:N, should be sent to AfD, just like any other article would be sent to AfD on these same grounds. These are policies, not suggestions. Articles should be kept based on their merits, not on their membership to an arbitrary list. If you can't cope with these policies, then Wikipedia isn't for you, and you'll want to look for other venues to write for, such as blogs, personal websites, journals, magazines, and so on. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Lets put some nuance here. Any article that does not meet WP:N and cannot meet WP:V and WP:SYNTH should be sent to AfD. Article that meets WP:N, but not WP:V or WP:SYNTH should be sent to clean-up. The onus here is on the AfD nominator to argue that an article cannot meet WP:V or WP:SYNTH. An important role for this project is to keep an eye on AfDs and indentify articles that are notable, but badly written/sourced. The proper reaction to such a discovery, is not a yelling match calling the nominator an idiot, but finding some proper sources and improving the article to an acceptable state. TimothyRias (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The proper response is to not tag articles for AfD or sourcing frivolously, so as to not make busy-work for editors who have better things to do.Likebox (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I will not support or endorse any attempt to encourage editing in violation of WP:V. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This is important because WikiProject Mathematics already does this for many years, and this allows them to have real content, unlike us. The point is not to violate WP:V, but to reduce the possibility of uninformed deletion of verifiable content. Nothing I am proposing is non-verifiable, and I discourage any interpretation of the rules which calls the contents of BKL Singularity non-verifiable material.
I am proposing to create and defend content of this sort, and if this requires a physics cabal, then ok, so be it. For mathematics, it certainly requires an (informal) mathematics cabal.Likebox (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Which topics in the list I prepared do you think are non-notable, and which of them have too little material in the literature in order to produce a verifiable article?Likebox (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's be really clear here. We know there is a difference between verifiable content and verified content. I don't think anybody here wants to go and delete every unverified sentence and equation they don't understand. But I think it is really poor form to write a bunch of content and not provide references as you go, especially for highly technical content. It is odd to then get indignant because someone challenges the notability or verifiability of content. I expect anything I or anyone else here writes to be challenged on both fronts. If I fail to back it up, it should be tagged with a "citation needed", and after a reasonable amount of time it should then be deleted. Otherwise, along with some good content, a bunch of garbage and quackery will pile up. Likebox, I understand if you are upset because a chunk of your work has disappeared, but are you really opposed to providing citations? (Forgive me if you have and they were disputed; I am not trying to be provocative.) CosineKitty (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
None of my work here has disappeared.Likebox (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Based on the last several threads on this subject, the disagreements seem to be over who should be looking for the citations (the people who write the content or editors who are concerned about it being unreferenced), and on what constitutes a valid citation for a given derivation (in large part, how strictly the derivation given should match the ones given in the reference cited, for these articles). My take on the matter is here (second paragraph). Arguing that WP:V is frequently violated at WikiProject Mathematics does not, in my opinion, constitute a valid justification of violating WP:V (there or here). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it really possible to apply WP:V to advanced technical articles ? Most editors will not be able to judge whether a paricular article makes sense or not, even after having read the sources. Whether something satisfies WP:N is totally subjective and often comes down to a majority vote. The purpose of rules (including AfD) is to get rid of genuinely crackpot content, not for challenging things you don't understand. Efforts should be made to sort problems out by communicating with other editors, before resorting to rules. Saying "Any article on any list that doesn't meet WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:N should be sent to AfD" is just insane. AfD is not a venue for sorting out the problems an article has. AfD is for deleting content that shouldn't ever be on wikipedia in the first place. There are those who create and there are those who destroy. The destroyers don't care if content can be saved, they just look for rule violations and when they find one they pounce and think: "Yesss. I'm going to have this one.". Destruction is how they get their kicks, so trying to improve an article doesn't enter their head. The rules are used by these people as an excuse to destroy things and to not think. If a nominee hasn't made any effort to see whether an article's problems can be fixed before sending it to AfD then the AfD should be cancelled. Qurq (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty is with people who insist on inserting crackpot content and then respond to objections by saying that the objector does not understand the matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC).
And it's been an issue with Likebox in the past (Godel's incompleteness theorem brouhaha and the like). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That difficulty is surmounted by this quote from WP:AfD: "9. When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist.". I don't believe Headbomb makes sufficient attempts to confirm the non-existence of sources before nominating. Qurq (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I do make attempts to confirm the non-existence of sources before nominating. The problem with infraparticle at the time was that the content did not reflect these sources. See my original statement on the AfD:

"No references, reads like WP:OR, uses lots "if we assume, then...". AKA reads like OR, smells like OR and probably is OR. Subject itself is notable (as evidenced by a google search), but I have a hard time connecting what's in the article with what I find on google".

OR in this case, refers to WP:SYNTH in particular. People agreed with me (only one person thought it should be kept, out of six), to the extent that the article should at the least be stubified because they couldn't see any relation between what's in the sources and what's in the article. The problem here was never that sources could not be found about infraparticles, the problem was that what was written could not be verified. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure it's possible to apply WP:V. Per my statement linked above, it may take an expert to write an article about a highly technical topic, but a skilled non-expert should be able to verify it. In this context, that means anyone with a university-level physics background, as opposed to the few dozen or few hundred people in the world actively researching that field.
To put it another way: If you're writing something that's impossible for anyone on Wikipedia but you to verify, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The core principles are called core principles for a reason. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well said! CosineKitty (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
So we're setting the ceiling at university graduates ? Every wikipedia article must be comprehensible by someone with a degree ? It's not a question of qualifications - it's a question of how much time and effort is required to build up the necessary knowledge. Physics (and every other subject) is now so large that to exclude articles that require more than a degree's worth of knowledge to read, would be to exclude vast domains of human knowledge, and yet wikipedia is founded on the mission to provide free access to the sum of all human knowledge. Setting a comprehensibility ceiling would be a catastrophic mission failure. Qurq (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not talking about material that only one person can verify. Only crackpot material meets that definition. All material, even the highest level of expert material, is verifiable by hundreds or thousands of people.
The question of what "highly skilled" mean is subjective--- I think any person of ordinary intelligence should be able to verify the contents of even the most mathematical article, if the article is clear enough, the editors are patient in explaining things, and all the appropriate sources are given. Saying "it's over your head" is never a proper argument. But once the sources are provided, you have to make a good faith effort to learn the field, learn the common-knowledge and unspoken assumptions etc, and ask questions about it. In the course of verifying the material, you might have to spend a little bit of time catching up.
Once you're caught up, you ask yourself: does this mathematical article make sense? Does its content describe the same mathematical objects and make the same mathematical arguments as the sources? If the answer to both questions is yes, they you have verified the material. If the answer is no, then you shouldn't tag with "citation required", which is a useless tag for mathematical text, you should just move the material to the talk page, and argue the point there.
What is dangerous is to look at an article with dense mathematics and to say: well, I don't understand it, so it must be OR. This type of thing happens very infrequently, and until recently, it never happend at all. An article with enough advanced material was protected from the Wiki-police by it's equations, as surely as an deep underground bunker is protected from a nuclear blast.
I am not interested in continuing the administrative talk here, because everyone's position is clear. I would like to demonstrate by example the caliber of mathematical content we can have here if we just agree to use common sense when applying the rules. There is no need for special exemptions, just awareness.
If you want an article I wrote all the math on to go and delete, there's Schrodinger equation. None of it is sourced, I wrote all of it off the top of my head, checking a few things with pencil and paper.Likebox (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to have many more expert editors for this project to be successful. People like User talk:Korepin should be encouraged to make contributions to mathematical physics. Unfortunately, this message did not help. Count Iblis (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
If you build it, they will come.Likebox (talk)
I now remember who User:Korepin is! He is one of the foremost world experts in Bethe Ansatz/inverse scattering method (item number 48 on my list), and coauthored the best book on the subject "Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation Functions", which was a bible for me. If we are more tolerant, he could do some amazing work here. He wants his work to be better known (as do all academics).Likebox (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
He's got some good contributions, but many of them are blatant violations of WP:COI. Wikipedia is not the place to publicize one's own work and one's own person (as he did on Vladimir Korepin and elsewhere). He'll need to comply with WP:COI if he's to write more, otherwise he'll head straight to a block. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
So, I read the warning message to Korepin that was mentioned by Count Iblis. He was given a polite notice about editing an article. But it wasn't an article about a physics topic; it was an article about himself. He has contributed about half of the edits to the article. To be fair, his edits appear to be constructive and useful. But I hope nobody is so thin-skinned that they can't handle someone politely suggesting that they might have a conflict of interest in editing an article about themselves. If so, they might be too sensitive to work collaboratively.
I am also troubled by the idea of someone's editing here being motivated by wanting their own work to be better known. It is not Wikipedia's function to self-promote. Likebox, I do have to say you have done some very nice work, and I hope you are not taking this personally. I looked through your work on Schrödinger equation and you deserve congratulations and thanks for your work there. So yes, I want more experts here (which excludes me... I'm in the skilled undergraduate level). The case of Schrödinger equation illustrates a nuance of WP:V where it talks about citations needed for material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged". The content of that article is not likely to be challenged because it is so widely available in college textbooks. The content of infraparticle has been challenged (rightly or wrongly) by someone with a good understanding of physics and in good faith, so the rule applies. CosineKitty (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) Yeah, yeah, you weren't paying attention way back when. If others solemly vow to not go to the page with deletionist intent, I can go through all the difficult to source parts one by one. They would each have to be sourced to a very loose paraphrase. The context of the exposition required a lot of rearranging, and for some of the stuff, frankly, I'm not sure there is a source. I chose this article because there are a lot of people paying attention, and deletion is unlikely. For more specialized articles, the same points apply, but the issue is even more sensitive, because the sources are more terse and the number of people who protenct the page is smaller.

The material on Schrodinger equation is unlikely to be challenged, because there are lots and lots of people who understand it. The proof of positivity of the energy (which is one of the things for which I do know an exact source) was challenged, but to resolve the challenge required explaining the proof in more detail, not giving a source. This is why I support Count Iblis WP:ESCA as a guideline to technical editing.

If people are up for it, I could go through all the OR-ish points in the article, to show people what the difficulties are in writing mathematical expositions (but I need a promise to not use these words against the article, otherwise, what's the point?).

About promoting your own work: We don't have to read minds--- everyone has different motivations for editing articles. I edited a few articles here with the sole intention of exposing a bogus research field! Korepin can write about inverse scattering method without citing his own work. Somebody else will be sure to put the citation. It's only the citation itself that is COI. Of course, people are free to put other citations if the work is done by others.

What most academics really (desperately) want is just the stuff they found out to be widely known. They don't care as much about the attribution (at least if they have tenure, recognition, and several discoveries). Inverse scattering is a field, with (I guess) about a thousand experts, so there is no need to worry about COI for writing about it, like there is with a company producing a product.Likebox (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and most academics will find themselves on the wrong end of a block if they insist on pushing their material through Wikipedia rather than through peer-reviewed journals. Publication is no indication of being right, and pushing one's own work is no different that pushing one's own company. The company profits by gaining money, the person by fame/recognition (which often results in money too). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Pushing a notable topic is not the same as pushing your own work, and the best people to push a notable subfield are researchers in the field! You are not distinguishing between well accepted work and controversial work. When a body of work is well accepted, it is imperative that we cover it. If the worlds expert comes here and wants to write about it, it is ridiculous to stop them. However, it is reasonable to ask that they avoid COI by not citing their own work, and try to focus more on the work of others in the field. There is absolutely no way you should block a professor for writing about their topic of expertise, it would be ridiculous.Likebox (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
To Headbomb: in your most recent request for adminship, where you were asked "What does IAR mean to you", you should have said "If Korepin comes to the encyclopedia and writes a 200k article on inverse scattering method, I would not try to get him blocked for violating COI".Likebox (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No, but I would certainly get him blocked if he started pushing his own work and failed to remain neutral as he already failed to do with his own biography. Biased material is worse than no material. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:Don't bite the newbies

I saw some tags today. Just so people know what to attack on Schrodinger equation: I didn't write the "short heuristic derivation", which keeps on getting tagged (that was Michael Price), I wrote the "longer discussion" below it. I also did not write the section on "probability current", nor the section on the nonlinear Schrodinger equation (which I don't like to put in this article because it is a classical field equation). I wrote everything else.Likebox (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh will you stop with your damned persecution complex. People are trying to improve articles. Stop taking everything personally. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a persecution complex. I just know that only the parts I wrote have anything worthy of being challenged.Likebox (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I would also suggest, if you are really interested in improving articles, to go and learn one of the 115 topics well enough to write a mathematical exposition. There is no way to construe deleting correct expert material as a positive contribution. Unfortunately writing takes a lot more work than deleting.Likebox (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_February_2010&oldid=1079358437"