Talk:Centers of gravity in non-uniform fields/Archive 2. Talk 24May11 Article-Edit War

New Article - Please Read Before Editing
The present article, as submitted today by me, is a physics article based on a definition given in a REAL textbook on the subject, used to teach REAL physics upper division classes in MECHANICS by REAL physicists, and written by a REAL physicist who is still alive and winning prestigious awards in physics (Symon), and is additionally supported by a REAL encyclopedia (Britannica) whose owners would be literally lynched if they dared to screw-up something that had anything to do with Isaac Newton. Before revising, editing, or vandalizing this article, discuss your proposed changes here and have your scholarly references and sound argument at the ready.

The previous article on this subject met with an apparently well-deserved deletion, but was also unfortunately redirected to a subject that had nothing to do with it. Unfortunately some of the writers or editors seemed to have confused concepts of center of mass and center of gravity. I don't really want to see that happen again, nor to engage in silly debate over just how confusing some high school textbooks have become to those who don't understand the subject but think writing a wikipedia article on it would somehow unconfuse matters. I say the article is right, but can be added to and improved. Let that be the goal. GenKnowitall (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of Major Edit - Call for Orderly Process
The major edit by Melchoir is objected to as disorderly and is being summarily reverted by me immediately. I call for an orderly and good faith process of editing which has so far eluded this article and its prior incarnation. Let there be order. I have called in an admin to supervise process (and editors) if matters become disruptive. Prior discussion has contained representations made in bad faith, failure to provide good faith response, and lacked scholarly support, now article vandalism by undiscussed major revisions. Let there be some discipline and scholarship. The contentions contesting the Britannica citation were not demonstrated as meritorious, but were instead, whatever true merits it may have had, argued in bad faith. One does not get to the truth or good wikipedia article that way. Melchoir is now apparently disputing his own article, what the heck is that about?

Now Melchoir's new proposed article has some merit, improves prior scholarship, and I am even somewhat pleased by it, he shows moxie (which is apparently his style), but it also contains objectionable material. But let there be an orderly process, consensus or (clear and reasonable disagreement) between scholars, not a foodfight by bigots. Gentlemen, I call you to order. We will get there, and a good article too, if you have faith in the process, just be ye in order.

Netheril96's objection concerning the Symon reference was clearly not meritorious AS TO SYMON, he failed to respond on topic and instead morphed his argument into a challenge along the same argument line as Melchoir's Britannica objection. I must say Netheril96 objection was somewhat better stated. Netheril96 apparently likes Melchoir's submission, but no surprise there as they were both eventually making the Feynman argument, which this STILL not quite rightly done. Order, gentlemen, and scholarship you are not authorities.

The article will improve, editors will improve, wikipedia will improve, and subject will advance if scholarly discussion in good faith is done. I am confident. Let us show how it is done in physics. Proceed with reason, not reversion.

First things first. Do we agree on the Symon cited definition as a bone fide definition used in the field of mechanics, yes or no? If so it is IN the article and the article is distinct from center of mass. Is that agreed or not? Second, if there are alternative definitions then let us discuss them here, not just dump them in the article. Perhaps, Melchoir will propose a Feynman supported definition and we can discuss how it should fit.

I am reverting changes Now. Please use the Wikipedia editing process and good faith discussion to improve the article. GenKnowitall (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Responses to the Call for Orderly Process

 * The only one that disrupts editing is you. Aside gross characterization of everyone who disagrees with you as disruptive and in bad faith, you don't point to anything that is truly objectionable.
 * You can't support your comments, and I can. That's one difference. I'm not characterizing disagreement, I'm not doing that, I don't think you mean that because only an argumentative twit would so understand my comments which call attention to objectionable editing behavior, such as a refusal to concede a point on an objection you started then abandoned without concession or resolution. Are you used to making wild claims which when answered are abandoned for new wild claims, and so on ad nauseum? Because I think that is grounds for a complaint about your editing participation, don't you? You have yet to answer my request regarding the Symon definition. Are you going to do that? GenKnowitall (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is evident from new references added that the subject is highly contentious even in academic circle, so per WP:Neutrality, all points of view should be addressed and that was properly done by Melchoir. I do agree with Feynman's view most, but that attitude was not shown in the article, and which one is better was left entirely for the readers to choose. What you do, on the other hand, is to force one view on everyone and you call that "order"?--Netheril96 (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So far, you have conceded no point, entered no debate, proposed no sensible resolution, and cited no authority for your view. Get on board fast, or folks may lose interest in your hot air. This is physics. Do some physics. GenKnowitall (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have already made concession that Synmon's can now be included in the article, as opposed to summary dismissal before Melchoir's revision. I discontinued discussion because I saw no point, when someone else addressed my concern by including other authorities' view. And it is really hard to communicate with you; you said a lot but I can't find any meaning except for "objection". Now, enlighten me, on what grounds do you object to Melchoir's revision? That it fails to comply with WP:NPOV by giving credit to fringe views? Or mere procedural wrongdoing that Melchoir didn't consult with you before revising?--Netheril96 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Enlighten you? Now there is a challenge, one I must decline. I remind of the obvious: We are editing an article I submitted, adding to it based on proposal and discussion. I have insisted, because of the previous editorial history of this article, that the proposals be specific, supported, and discussed in an orderly way. You are invited to participate, not make meaningless snipes.  If you are participating then responsive reply is requested. Here, if you have conceded Symon this is the first you have said it, but "can now be included in the article" is not an acknowledgment of anything. If  you decline to reply and participate, then just say so. If you are not competent in the field, then fine, step aside.  You may reserve your view on whether the Britannica citation is correct, but YOU raised a Symon objection, meritless as it plainly appears, and begin to appear a person who makes meritless objections to things. Are we to take you seriously and acting in good faith? SO: Do you now agree the Symon definition is properly stated and cited, at least as far as Symon's textbook? Do you agree it is a bone fide definition used in the classical physics discipline of mechanics. A clear and proper statement of your position on this would be proper.


 * So would you object if I restore the 430984802 version of the article? Of course, I'm not saying that 430984802 is the final word on the subject, but it sounds like we agree that it's a step forward. Melchoir (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course I know about your view of the subject before I posted the article, and how things went last time. I read the notes, do you seriously take me for a fool? Not really, I trust. I insist on editing process to avoid the previous editorial malfunction. I will suggest, since you have already reasonably conceded Symon, that you be invited to offer approximately one paragraph (or so) definition derived from Feynman (or an authority of your choosing) concerning CM to introduce the alternate view into the article. The overall subject introduction is NOT included and will come later after some agreement has been reached concerning the definition and its place in the article. Will that satisfy you as a starting point. Place it in discussion, in a separate section, and I will be pleased to join you and aid in a supported addition to the article. GenKnowitall (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have read both the last version by GenKnowitall and the last version by Melchoir. I felt that Melchoir wrote a discussion, but starting half-way through the argument while GenKnowitall didn't really expand on the difference between Centre of Gravity and Centre of Mass. IMO, we should use GenKnowitall's version as a start point, followed a short section to explain the difference between Centre of Gravity and Centre of Mass, possibily using the "mountain" example in one of the references. Ideally the new section could be repeated in the article "Centre of Mass". Some of Melchoir's material could be added as the next section. Finally, we should always remember that somebody is going to read these articles, so what is written should be targeted at them - in the case of this article, 16 to 18 year-olds (or people trying to recall what they were taught at that age) rather than fully-fledged philosophers or university professors.
 * BTW, GenKnowitall, you wrote some good stuff - please register and include a short note so that we know a bit about you - sufficient at least so others know where to pitch their discissions when replying to you. Martinvl (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what you're envisioning, but it sounds like you're proposing that the article still begins with the current definition, "that point in space which, to an observer at P, is the apparent source of gravitational attraction"? That doesn't satisfy Neutral point of view. Melchoir (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your proposal to make this accessible to a high school student is predicated on one incontrovertible definition on what is center of gravity, upon which we can then elaborate and expand this article. But that has clearly been ruled out by Melchoir new references on alternative views. This article can only serve as a collection of all kinds of views on the definition of CG held by authorities.


 * Actually, since center of gravity rarely has any practical use in non-uniform gravitational field, and the concept is so messy, it should have been deleted in the first place, as had been done multiple times before.--Netheril96 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Rarely"? "any practical use"? Actually, the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain, Netheril96. Unlike your platitude I'm pretty sure I can dig up a reference on that, if you need one. Or you could just 'google it' like melchoir suggests. You are not an authority, Netheril96. Deletion decisions are premature, and here probably meritless, they only worked last time becuse the articel was so mucked up by incompetence. You are past becoming disruptive without contributing. Please participate constructively in the EDITING of the article, or if you must babble, please place your comments under the Peanut Gallery category below where they can be properly ignored. GenKnowitall (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On Martinvl's comment: Your comments are sensible. To clarify: The basis is the article I submitted which has now been agreed as correct as stated by both Melchoir and Netheril96. An objection on the Britannica citation has not been proved but is still unresolved and reserved, but I think will be resolved with clarification in the addition process. The submission by Melchoir has been reverted and is NOT presented for discussion. I have asked and insisted on orderly editing process of submission and discussion An alternative definition has yet to be formally proposed by anyone, but Melchoir appears to have something based on an approach by Feynman, which Netheril96 seems also to cherish and apparently claims, in an nearly incoherent rant, will balance POV. I have no objection to such a proposal, have twice invited it for discussion, expect I will be commenting on it, but so far, after several specific invitations, such has not been offer as proposal. I again invite a properly cited alternative definition proposed for addition HERE for discussion. Adjustments for age appropriate description may (hopefully) follow.  That is the proper way to proceed to a balanced and informative article. GenKnowitall (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Britannica Citation

 * The Britannica citation doesn't support the definition given here.
 * Symon: Given an extended body $M$ and a reference point $P$, the center of gravity of $M$ relative to $P$ is a point $G$ such that the gravitational force exerted at $P$ by $M$ is the same as the gravitational force exerted at $P$ by an equivalent mass collected at $G$.
 * Britannica: Given an extended body $M$ inside an external gravitational field $g$, the center of gravity of $M$ is a point $G$ such that the gravitational force exerted on $M$ by $g$ is equivalent to the gravitational force exerted on an equivalent mass collected at $G$ by $g$.
 * Do you see how these are different? Melchoir (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment, Melchoir. It is late here, so I will consider the comment and give later reply. GenKnowitall (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Replying to Melchoir 24 May comment: Yes, I think I see. Thank you for the thoughtful comment and your courtesy in using the talk pages and in offering discussion to improve the article. You are contending that the Britannia citation does not support the definition given, and have given argument in support. If I concur we can discuss what action should be taken, removing the reference or rewording/revising the article or alternatively the point may be withdrawn as answered.   We keep in mind that discussion may help others understand the article better. PRELIMINARY:  I believe I understood your point,  but there is a fundamental problem with your argument that should first be resolved. ASKING:  (0) Do you concur that CM and CG are different concepts in physics?  (1) Do you agree the Brittanica citation at issue is http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gravity ? (2) Do you agree the Symon reference supports the definition given?  If all these answers are "yes", then (a) I have re-read the Brittanica citation for consistency with the Symon definition and still find it consistent, therefore find it in support (b) I have not read the Brittanica article to determine if it is also consistent with the interpretation you have offered, which is from the reference point of a "gravitational field",which is interesting but also appears provocative from the classical physics POV. I do not normally object to thoughtful provocation or alternative definitions appearing in a classroom or in an article, nor to modernization of concepts, if all is made clear,  but here I will suggest, arguendo (for purposes of discussion, inviting clarification), that MY Brittanica citation does not appear to say what YOU say it says. If it did say that, or even if it was consistent with your representation, we might still discuss that with some care. Thank you again, I look to your clarification. GenKnowitall (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (0) In principle, yes; but not enough to support a separate article. We'll get to that.
 * (1) No, I'm referring to the link you added to the article in this edit yesterday: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/242556/centre-of-gravity
 * (2) Yes, from the snippets I can see in Google Books, the definition given is Symon's definition.
 * Let me give you an example of the difference between your two sources. Brittanica states that the center of gravity of the Moon is "slightly displaced toward the Earth" and implies that it would be displaced even if the Moon were spherically symmetric. Symon's definition does not allow external fields to affect the center of gravity of an object; under his definition, a spherically symmetric Moon has a center of gravity that is at its geometric center, for any observer. Melchoir (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (0) Ok. We agree CG and CM differ. Combined article is another subject. I think you see how I view that. We can discuss though.
 * (1) oops. how did that get in there? ghosts in the machine. yes, I meant the link given for the on-line Britannica. We are agreed here.
 * (2) I can quote it to you verbatim but both your version and my version appear correct with Symon, in my opinion. I might actually prefer your word-smithing to my own, but we might get to that. We appear to agree here.
 * Interesting distinction, but a moment on that if you please, as you now raise two distinct problems, proposed as errors if that does not offend. First, you are correct to say that under Symon a spherically symmetric object has CG (and CM) at its center, but disagree where you assert that Britannica says different. Instead the Britannica article states "The location of a body’s centre of gravity may coincide with the geometric centre of the body, especially in a symmetrically shaped object composed of homogeneous material.". Further it states that "the Moon’s centre of mass is very close to its geometric centre (it is not exact because the Moon is not a perfect uniform sphere)" (my emphasis added). These are consistent with Symon. I do not think you have the article quite right, but to further explain a spherically symmetric object has a central CG (and CM) from EVERY point of reference, easily shown by calculus, including for every imagined gravitational field derived from external matter which assumes classical Newtonian inverse-square law gravitational forces obeying the third law, which we are presently assuming, yes? That was also demonstrated by Newton in his Principia. You may rebut by demonstrating a classic gravitational field for which that is not so, however. I am skeptical you can do so, but certainly remain open to a demonstration. I withhold for present explaining the second problem. I merely conclude that Britannica is consistent with the article (Symon's) definition, therefore is properly cited in support. GenKnowitall (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The relevant part is "slightly displaced toward the Earth". This is a direct quote from Britannica. Melchoir (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Melchoir, the shape of planetary bodies is a complex subject we need not address because "the Moon is not a perfect uniform sphere" is also a simple direct quote from Britannica, unchallenged by me, and is especially relevant to the issue at hand because if the moon were otherwise a perfect sphere then under Symon its CG would be at the center for ALL observers, not "slightly displaced". Thus assuming (arguendo) Britannica is correct that the CG is "slightly displaced" then EITHER Britannica is inconsistent with Symon as you have contended OR  "the Moon is not a perfect uniform sphere". As you can see, Britannica asserts the latter and therefore does not prove the former. Does that make matters more clear? If you have any references supporting your "gravitational field" alternative definition wouldn't now be a good time to offer them up? GenKnowitall (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You really don't have to talk down to me about the shape of planetary bodies. I've published an article in the Astrophysical Journal founded on the premise that a spinning planet isn't a sphere, and considering one of the consequences for its gravititational interactions.
 * You claim that Britannica's "slightly displaced" center of gravity may be explained away by the shape of the Moon. But that's a red herring, and Britannica itself does not claim such a connection. It says "its centre of gravity is slightly displaced toward the Earth because of the stronger gravitational force on the Moon’s near side." Melchoir (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not talking down, discussing with you and others, as I mentioned earlier. Not so many people can have this discussion. So no offense is intended on my part, and none need be taken. Further I have no idea of your credentials, I must consider what you say, not what you are. That is how we must work here. I nonetheless congratulate you on your publications, sincerely, even if they have no present relevance because, as I explained, "the shape of planetary bodies is a complex subject we need not address". If it were relavant, we would not need to consider spin to explain non-spherical distortion of a planet or Earth's Moon, isn't that so? It is for this reason your reference to a red herring is itself a red herring because, as you profess to know and understand the implications,  "the Moon is not a perfect uniform sphere".  So if, as you contend, the article makes no connection, then a refutation cannot be simultaneously inferred. You thus prove your argument specious and argumentative. That could demonstrate bad faith argument, which I suggest is unwise to do here. So you should now offer a reference that actually supports your contentions, that you are by self-confession trained to provide (if one exists) and which you have been previously asked for and have ignored,  or concede what you you have been unreasonably evading, what you should now concede, that the Britannica citation is correct. May we please have one of those now? GenKnowitall (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's back up. Do we agree that Britannica states that the center of gravity of the Moon is displaced towards the Earth, relative to the Moon's center of mass? Melchoir (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Relevance of the question? Boxed in? No, 'backing up' is not amusing, rarely productive, it may waste my time which I value, and is done only for good cause shown. Here you have offered no reason, no good cause, no direction or proposition to demonstrate, no reasoning, only a simple question which requires no fantasy flight of inference to obtain from the simple text of the on-line source, and which has been previously quoted and carefully discussed.   If you need time for research, that is automatically granted upon withdrawal of your objection. Take all the time you need. Thereafter, with someone at your professed skill level I would expect that if you find something it will be cogently and efficiently provided as a professed scholar should know how to do.  If you have a point that is supported, now is the time to offer it plainly and to provide real support, or withdraw your objection. In any event I thank you for your comments. GenKnowitall (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Symon defines a concept of the center of gravity of an object relative to a point. His definition does not depend on external gravitational sources or fields. Britannica states that the center of gravity of the Moon is influenced by the gravitational field of the Earth. These are obviously contradictory treatments. They are talking about different things using some of the same words, and I'm trying to get you to realize as much. Since I seem to have failed so far, I need to ask questions to figure out what you do agree with.
 * Meanwhile, if you want other attestations for a concept of a center of gravity relative to an external field, try this query. Melchoir (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vague references to google search terms is not scholarship, Melchoir, nor authority for anything. I've already signaled a warning in my "READ ME FIRST" article that high school texts commonly approach this subject from the standpoint of a flat gravitational field, thereby confabulating center of mass and center of gravity. This was the malfunction of the previous article, a malfunction you participated in I might remind. So enough Melchoir, put your mind in careful gear.   Sentence 1 and 2 are agreed. Sentence 3 is about what Britannica states, but is a restatement made through the lens of some alternative view you hold which you have refused to either state or cite any authority for. Not trying to be rude, trying to be CLEAR. AT MOST, and the only issue you have raised, is the possibility that Britannica is AMBIGUOUS, but I have not even agreed with that proposition since an non-spherical moon would have the properties stated by Britannia when using the definition of Symon. Do you see that? In short, Britannica is consistent with Symon and is properly cited in support.  I cannot imagine a person who is published as you state you are needing a mathematical demonstration of that point, but do you? GenKnowitall (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(rewrap) Here's the problem. My contention is that introductory physics textbooks are the only sources that ever discuss a "center of gravity" that's distinct from the center of mass. Engineers and astrophysicists alike have no use for this concept. If you care about the field of a non-spherical body, you should be expanding it in a series of 1/r^n potentials and spherical harmonics, with the origin at -- you guessed it -- the center of mass.

So it's not the case that there exists an authoritative treatment of "center of gravity" that I can point to and say, look, Symon is wrong! I can only point out that Symon's definition, although a reasonable one, conflicts with the rest of the literature. Google Books should be enough to make that point, but if you really want me to pick out sources, I can do that too.

I'll grant you that my opening statement about Britannica is an original interpretation of the text. (You should note that Britannica doesn't refer to a reference point, either.) It's clear to me that Britannica is referring to the Earth's gravity acting on the Moon. Let me ask you this. Consider the phrase "the stronger gravitational force on the Moon’s near side". Do you think this phrase refers to the gravitational force exerted upon a particle in the Moon's near side by the whole Earth, or the gravitational force exerted by a particle in the Moon's near side upon an observer at the center of the Earth? Melchoir (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (rewrap appropriate) Here is the problem. Your "restatement" of the Britannica article were not only original, they were actually "fantastic" fabrications. Such fabrications do not create a genuine dispute, they fabricate one out of thin air. That could be bad faith. Your formulation was interesting, however, creative and I liked that, and so I went along to see what you could do and whether you could cite an authority which used it. You didn't and you haven't. Creativity is cool, as I said, but without compensating discipline it cannot long survive in the physics we know and love, look to Newton and Einstein, creative genius with discipline. Beautiful.
 * Now attend to discipline: You continue to evade and fail to respond to my replies in rebuttal, wandering off into ever-more vague and widening circles of philosophy. We are not on a walk in the woods Melchoir, although I am sure we could enjoy such discussion, as did Einstein, we are here attending to the business of editing this article. Its past time for you to focus on what I have been explaining, and make appropriate reply. Symon is no exotic source, he is an acknowledged and distinguished authority in the field, with a textbook used throughout the United States. Before you contest him you will need someone of equal or greater stature. For example, if you are who you say then you have taken upper division physics MECHANICS, so what does YOUR book say??? Well?? Reply!  Before you dispute the Britannica citation you should verify that it actually doesn't support the material, not just fabricate some disagreement based on your "original" thoughts. So please reply to my preceding point about the consistency of Britannica with Symon... do the math if you have to, or politely ask me to show you, but don't ignore it because that will not be good faith discussion. Britannica is properly cited, isn't that correct? If you think not you should demonstrate it is inconsistent with Symon, prove it up as I have suggested, not just waive your arms. You are a trained and disciplined scholar and know what I am saying, or not, which?
 * As to "conflicts" you have failed to demonstrate any authoritative conflicts. You have already agreed that CG and CM are not the same concept. I have also already warned you, please attend, that sources which confabulate the two concepts at the high school level do not ACTUALLY conflict with Symon, they merely confabulate by seeming simplification. I will EXPLAIN the confusion to you if you like, its not that hard once exlained, but so far you haven't even cited one of these sources to raise the issue. If you do, however, have a good faith belief that it actually supports you, then I will explain, nicely, how it actually supports Symon. Now, please make RESPONSIVE reply on the issue of the Britannica citation.


 * Fine, I've pulled the mechanics textbooks out of my bookshelf. The two textbooks by Feynman and Goldstein refer to a center of gravity; I've added them to the article with quotations and page numbers. On the other hand, the following textbooks define the center of mass but not a center of gravity:
 * Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics
 * Marion and Thornton, Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems
 * Kleppner and Kolenkow, An Introduction to Mechanics
 * Jose and Saletan, Classical Dynamics: A Contemporary Approach
 * I haven't decided what to do with them. Melchoir (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and most importantly:
 * Murray and Dermott, Solar System Dynamics
 * This book is the closest thing to being "my textbook". It's an entire book about Newtonian gravity in the real world, and it doesn't mention a center of gravity. Melchoir (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK then, better. Yes, I know. No CG anywhere in that book. Therefore CG doesn't exist, "poof, voila" only CM. That's about what happened last time editing this article, right? Still, we have similar interests (although I have others too). We don't always get to do what we love the most, but a few lucky ones do, and if that is you then my very best regards. I've reverted your changes for now, for process violation, but I expect we may bring them back into the article in an orderly way. Lets try. GenKnowitall (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First, "CG doesn't exist" is not what I wrote. Second, editing an article under dispute is not a process violation. On the contrary, I find that when a talk page becomes gridlocked, in order to move the article forward it is helpful to have concrete versions to compare. Third, by "orderly way" you seem to be suggesting that you hold some kind of veto power over the article, and other editors need to get new material approved by you. Hopefully that's not what you think, but if it is, see Ownership of articles. Melchoir (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I submitted the original article and am here actively discussing in good faith and willing to collaborate with other supposed scholars. If you don't intend to collaborate here, then perhaps you would prefer to author a book? Happy to quote it if it is good. Again, melchoir, the article will be improved by good faith collaboration, good physics, and some common sense editing. You should not try to hijack the process or article again to impose your view. Please do reply to my requests for agreement above, that will be a sensible beginning. GenKnowitall (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Symon ISBN
Melchior's edits to the article seem very reasonable to me, and I would say they should be re-instated, particularly the citations to various textbooks. Melchior's above comment, "If you care about the field of a non-spherical body, you should be expanding it in a series of 1/r^n potentials and spherical harmonics, with the origin at -- you guessed it -- the center of mass." is also correct, and the article should probably state something to that effect. You are behaving as of you had ownership of this article, GenKnowitall, which is not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere. Also, the ISBN for Symon in your preferred version appears to be incorrect. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. Parejkoj.  I have called for orderly editing, which IS the collegial process, with specific proposals for addition to be discussed here. If you have specific proposals to add, put them in a section for discussion.  I have been assured by a professional librarian that the ISBN for Symon is correct. Please verify your claim, and either make it or withdraw it formally. That is courteous, collegial, and advances the article.  If you have further proposals concerning spherical harmonic whatchamdojiggies and other mathematical models used to do stuff in physics, you may make them but these are probably premature to discuss while the basic definitions are under debate. Please give responsive reply to sort out your ISBN objection, and if not withdrawn please make your objection specific, ie what makes you think the ISBN is wrong?  Thank you. GenKnowitall (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Parejkojam, I am rechecking the ISBN. The book is an 'ancient text' (but still available on amazon) issued before the ISBN number system (1970). I have been informed that the Catalog number was adopted as the ISBN number, but that may be technically incorrect. I am now informed that books prior to 1970 have an adaptation which is recognized as the ISBN, in this case ISBN B003XYZQKYY applies. I'm checking further but my librarians are heading home for a three day weekend. If you are able, please see if that ISBN works. Thank you for your comment. GenKnowitall (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears your objection is correct Parejkojam, the ISBN is not correct. I am further advised that an ISBN number for that book was not, apparently, assigned and that the Library of Congress Control Number of 6000-5164 (adding two zeros to the 60) is what is used. If you concur with this then the ISBN error should be corrected. You may, or I will do that. Thanks for your comment.

Symon Definition Discussion
Center of gravity is always associated with torque. You don't need to know the point of exertion to calculate the translational motion; you only need it when rotation is taken into account. By this article's definition, center of gravity in a uniform gravitational field would be anywhere, rather than the center of mass.--Netheril96 (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Symon uses a reference point with respect to the gravitating body. If you have another definition you may cite it here. Thank you for your comment. GenKnowitall (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Netheril96, have entered the discussion with the above comment and, if I understand the history markers, entered a dispute tag in the article. That seems improper and I dispute that marker is appropriate as there is presently no bona fide dispute over the article accuracy. If you placed the tag you will please immediately remove it. It may be a genuine dispute will appear, at which time I will not object to an appropriate tag, but at the moment neither Melchoir or you have raised any genuine dispute regarding content, and indeed Melchoir has agreed that the Symon definition IS properly stated and cited. Here your comments have confused Symon's definition with one of your own, but you have stated no alternate definition  or cited any authority. Your confusion does not create a genuine dispute.  Please attend to that tag immediately. GenKnowitall (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tag removed as inappropriate. No genuine dispute with Netheril96. Notice given to author. Do not place inappropriate tags or vandalize the article. Raise discussion points here.GenKnowitall (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * From center of mass, The term center of mass is often used interchangeably with center of gravity, but they are physically different concepts. They happen to coincide in a uniform gravitational field, and my reasoning is based on this.--Netheril96 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And that center of gravity and center of mass coincides in uniform gravitational field is in Britannica's entry too. My point is that the two definition, one in uniform and one in non-uniform field, are inconsistent.--Netheril96 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Thank you Netheril96 for the above two comments. These do not yet raise a factual dispute in the article. Wikipedia is useful but not, regrettably, an authority, please do not treat it so. It is late, so I should reply more fully tomorrow. Meanwhile please consult any undergraduate physics text in mechanics, in English if you please, and cite its page references to 'center of gravity', with any definitions given. State whether you believe these are consistent, or inconsistent, with Symon and explain if needed. This should advance discussion between us. Thank you. GenKnowitall (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't a debate on the merit of the article content the meaning of factual debate? And this discussion is moot, now that my concern is properly addressed by new references. Which definition is the best can now be left to readers themselves to decide.--Netheril96 (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Its not 'moot' unless I concur, which I don't. I've reverted what we should first discuss (see Call to Order above) . This isn't really a debate per se, it is an editing process which employs debate as a means of resolving editorial decisions. But if you cannot focus on the issue, what good are you here? The issue you raised was an objection to SYMON. You have now morphed that to the Britannica objection, which I admit is better stated than melchoir managed, but stick to the subject so we may in good faith resolve editing decisions. Do you now withdraw your supposed objection to the Symon definition, and confess it is properly stated and cited (whether or not you personally disagree with it or think it useful or whatever -geez ). Good faith requires that you concede what you reasonably should, not just refuse to concede any ground at all, which is bad faith argument. OK? So do we have some agreement here, or not? GenKnowitall (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What is a Genuine Dispute?

 * There's no such thing as a non-genuine dispute. There are just disputes, and we're in one!
 * I've agreed that Symon's definition is properly cited, but I don't agree that it is used appropriately. We shouldn't refer to Symon's definition as "the center of gravity", because his definition is not widely used, and it conflicts with other sources. As far as I can tell, Netheril96 is right in that most textbooks that speak of a "center of gravity" mean a location that can be used to calculate torque; note that this is yet another definition, apart from Symon or Brittanica.
 * So yes, the present article is factually inaccurate, because it suggests that all definitions of center of gravity are equivalent, when they aren't. It's also misleading in another way: it gives the reader the wrong idea about the state of the literature. Melchoir (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you disagree, Melchoir, and that you lack an understanding of the meaning of the term 'genuine dispute', but (explaining) vague and unsupported claims do not raise a genuine dispute. Ignorance does not create a genuine dispute, only a dispute. You should attempt, in good faith, to identify a specific point of genuine disagreement, which should have support on both sides, and more usefully get your 'opponent' to agree on the issue in dispute. Until a genuine dispute arises that tag is improper and if it is not removed I will remove it myself and if necessary call in an admin. A previous genesis of this article was subject to gross incompetence and editorial malfunction, and it appears we are heading that way again for much the same reasons. Lets try to avoid that this time, shall we?
 * You are otherwise swinging arms wildly Melchoir, without ANY support, about "conflicts" and "widely used". Specifically, your contentions about "widely used" need to be discussed before claiming a dispute. Did you want to discuss that or its relevance to the wikipedia? Then make a separate heading above, state your point, show some REAL support (not google search terms), and I may decide to reply. GenKnowitall (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is such a thing as a non-genuine dispute, but it isn't anything like what GenKnowitall says. A non-genuine dispute is where someone claims not to agree with another, but he knows that he does agree (it's especially non-genuine if both parties claim to disagree with each other, knowing that they don't).  Non-genuine disputes are not uncommon, but no one has raised one here.  Bryan Henderson (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bryan, I just noticed your comment, so in case you are still monitoring... I agree that what you describe would be a "non-genuine dispute" but it is not the only kind, and what you have described is more insincerity and dishonesty, probably the worst form of bad faith, which we try to pretend never happens here. Another example will illustrate "genuine dispute" of another kind,  the wikipedia seeks to be factual and requires some basis other than mere sincere belief for its content, thus admonishes against "original research". Submissions that have no support AT ALL is improper and should eventually be removed, there is no "genune dispute" there, but if references are offered a "genuine dispute" may still be presented and resolved that the references are not actually supporting.  GenKnowitall (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Draft version
There's a draft version of this article located at User:GenKnowitall/Center of gravity (physics). Perhaps a history merger should be performed with that into this? 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would take that as an abuse 65.95.13.213. Drafts are drafts to avoid unnecessary disruptive discussion. Instead the submitted article is before us and its fundamentals under discussion. That is the topic for review. GenKnowitall (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:GFDL states that we should keep work available for review, including past versions. What's abusive about adding the production history of this article to the article history? 65.95.13.213 (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are any copyright or licensing problems if GenKnowitall wants to copy original text from one page to another. (If multiple editors had been collaborating in the draft space, then that might be a problem.) Melchoir (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted to Melchoir revision
I reverted from GenKnowitall's revision to Melchoir's revision. Melchoir's convincingly demonstrates with many sources that there is more than one definition in the literature for the phrase "center of gravity", and summarizes them all well. Whereas GenKnowitall's revision only gives one definition and ignores all the others. So Melchoir's revision is better.

A procedural matter: GenKnowitall -- you should revert revisions, both major and minor, only because you have a specific reason that the revisions made the article worse, and you should announce that reason at the moment you revert. You should not revert just because the reversion was not discussed beforehand. That's just the usual procedure here on Wikipedia (c.f. WP:OWN.). I don't doubt that you do have a specific reason that you think that Melchoir's edits made the article worse...I'm only criticizing the fact that you did not articulate this reason at the moment that you reverted Melchoir's edits. You should have. Anyway, you may articulate it now. --Steve (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your actions constitute vandalism and you should cease. You state you are a graduate student at Berkeley. You were on notice in the article to review discussion before editing yet you took the actions without discussion, or consensus. Your opinion as to the "convincing power" of anything has not been tested by discussion and is not an authoritative opinion. If you do anything further without appropriate review and discussion I will seek your removal. I hope that is crystal clear.
 * There are alternative definitions out there, that is beyond much debate. Alternative definitions should be presented here for discussion and included after consensus. Offer one if you have it. Your opinion, student, is garbage unless it is supported, or may god help you at thesis defense. I am now reverting your changes. You should not do anything like that again. GenKnowitall (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * GenKnowitall, Wikipedia operates on the WP:Consensus model. You do not have consensus to revert/replace the article. While Symon is undoubtedly a reasonable source, it's not the only one; we typically utilize many difference sources. (See WP:UNDUE). Gerardw (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Who reverted who is a question of priorty. The original article and discussion is on record. Which is best is a matter of discussion and consensus. Who enters and reverts without discussion is a matter for admins, I now think. GenKnowitall (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * GenKnowitall: I explained above why I thought that Melchoir's revision made the article better. You have not explained why you disagree--why you think the revision made it worse. Can you please do that? It's OK if you copy-and-paste something you said above. This is a new recent revision so it hasn't been specifically criticized by you. As far as I can tell, the main criticisms that you raised in conversations above were addressed by Melchoir in this latest revision. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm waiting for you to tell me.
 * You are free to try to "seek my removal", and you're free to continue insulting me, but I think you would find it a more productive and more pleasant use of your time to just explain to me (and everyone else here) why Melchoir's revision made the article worse and not better! It would be more pleasant for me too! :-) --Steve (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't insult you, Sbyrnes321. I called you a student, a title you use to describe yourself. Its a title I have used,with pride, for myself in my life. If you think that is an insult I am very sorry for you. I told you to read the comments so they do not have to be read back to you. The article is under discussion and melchoir made major revisions without consensus. I reverted with a full explanation.. see the comments.


 * I'm really tired of communicating with this condescending new user. Maybe some admin should just block him and force him to read Wikipedia policies.--Netheril96 (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * GenKnowitall (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF and WP:BITE. -- The Σ talkcontribs 01:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And WP:CIVIL. -- The Σ talkcontribs 05:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you doing sigma? GenKnowitall (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reminding everyone to follow the policies. -- The Σ talkcontribs 05:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a nice state of affairs, but it is a little late for that. We are past that and have now entered an editing war, compliments finally of Gerardw. Article editing has failed. This is what occurred last time on this subject. Refusal to engage in discussion. It concluded with a deleted article because it became indistinguishable from center of mass, and too mucked-up to retain. The same malfunction with apparently the same people for the same reasons. You are not an admin. An admin is needed to restore order, and perhaps impose sanctions, but the article is probably finished and remains controversial, incorrect, bereft of proper discussion or review. If there is physics here, it must be carefully sifted out with the rest of doubtful authority.   GenKnowitall (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) GenKnowitall, I read and re-read the above discussion but I can't find anywhere where you specifically pointed out errors in the text of Melchoir's revision. For example, Melchoir added a "torque" definition: "the center of gravity of a body in a non-uniform field [is] the point at which one would need to balance it against the force of gravity so that there is no net torque on the body", citing Feynman and other textbooks, and with direct quotes that appear to me to support the text. But you deleted this section, and deleted all mention of this definition. There is only one valid reason to revert someone's addition to a wikipedia article: Because you think that the addition is wrong. So I infer that you believe the torque definition is wrong and should not be explained in the article. What I'm looking for is your explanation why. Why should this information not be explained or even mentioned in the article, despite the many references such as Feynman which appear to be authoritative sources? Can you please show me where you explained this in your comments above? Or copy-and-paste the explanation here? Maybe you think it's obvious, but please please please show me the specific argument you made for why we should ignore these references. Showing me will not take you much time. Thank you in advance.

About insults: You're correct, the word "student" is certainly not inherently an insult! However, it can be insulting when used in the vocative case as a way to express condescension. You can re-read your comments to me, and then read WP:CIVIL. Maybe you think that you're following WP:CIVIL to the last letter! But I want you to be aware: Other people might disagree with you on that! --08:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested to help out
Hi folks, GenKnowitall requested me on my talkpage to help out here. I'm currently seeing some heated debate here on the talkpage, and some large changes on the article, with some associated reverts. I think I'd be able to mediate some, if everyone agrees to that, as it is practically impossible to mediate when people are unwilling to. So my question is are all of you willing to mediate on the disagreements on the article? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Only if GenKnowitall
 * finishes reading WP:NPOV and WP:OWN,
 * stops using words like "bad faith", "disruptive" and "vandalism",
 * discusses the merit of any revision
 * --Netheril96 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest WP:TLDR. Gerardw (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are these conditions you can agree on, GenKnowitall? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)In my opinion, when an editor begins with this: [] what is needed is education in the practices of Wikipedia. Just as it would be foolish to submit an article to a scientific journal without reviewing the submission requirements, starting with this contribution indicates a total lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is, the five pillars, and most specifically, understanding that Wikipedia is a social enterprise. You are certainly welcome to mediate this article, if you wish. It is a reasonable decision, tactically. Strategically I think it makes more sense to get editors on board with the standards of Wikipedia and how to deal with other editors. Otherwise one possible outcome is that every article Genknowitall edits will require a full time mediator. Gerardw (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. The issue at hand at the moment is this article. I understand that there is a wider scope to be considered, but I see that as something for another day. The scope I am proposing to mediate is this article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have fully engaged on the merits, as the discussion clearly demonstrates. Others have not, also demonstrated.  I am back at the invitation of an admin who has offered to "mediate" an editing war which has subverted editing and threatens this article.   But I am here to edit, not endure slanderous personal attack. Those will cease.  Anyone not willing to do so, should go do something else. For those who wish to make personal complaints about my conduct, go do so in proper place and manner, but I doubt the result will please you.
 * I am prepared to accept mediation by admin Martijn Hoekstra. He is not a physics authority, no one here is, but I have no reason to doubt his skill or impartiality as admin. Mediation means process which is enforced.   Admin Martijn Hoekstra has authority beyond an ordinary editor, privileges which I fully expect to be used if needed, but I think some additional protective authority is advisable here. For purposes of this mediation I propose editors here, and any joining, submit to his SUMMARY supervisory authority on this article for a period of 30 days. SUMMARY means he summarily resolves disputes on process and conduct (not content), period, based on wikipedia principles but with temporary god-like powers on matters of process (and conduct).   If successful a consensus article will have emerged, tempers cooled, and the result may stand the test of time. Or not.
 * To that end, and if otherwise agreed, I propose as process (1) reversion to the original article, to return the status quo, which except for objection to the Britannica citation, has been agreed by "opposing" editors Melchoir and Netheril96 as properly stated and a proper definition of CG. (2) Other definitions obviously exist, Melchoir has cited some, and should be added to provide POV balance, and (3) addition of introductory (high school?) appropriate material to follow. However,   a process of proposal, discussion, then editing should be used, not major edits made without some consensus, which hijacks the process and evades proper discussion and consensus. (4) archive the discussion to restart discussion (can be referenced). Those are my proposals on process. I'm here to edit a physics article,  not foodfight. GenKnowitall (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a comment, that I have a few more options in the Mediawiki interface (which is what an admin is), does not give me any special powers over disputes. I think I can help you out, but the fact I'm an admin changes nothing on that regard, and for mediation purposes, I certainly don't have any authority over any other editor. Some conditions on mediation have been made, and I propose that we all abide to those. I believe an adequate summary is: 1. Assume good faith. Also assume the assumption of good faith. We are all here to write an encyclopedia. 2. No personal attacks, or, for that matter, no comment on editors at all, comment on content only. 3. knowledge of, and abiding by WP:OWN. 4. Knowledge of WP:NPOV, though everyone always tends to believe their own edits are neutral, reading the full text is always a good idea. I think these are reasonable conditions. Is there anyone unwilling to mediation on these conditions? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think mediation concerning the content of the article is helpful. I think the main problem is process. GenKnowitall wants us to use a specific editing process, as he articulated here, and everyone else wants to use a different editing process, which I call the "wikipedia process" because it is generally used in wikipedia articles and encoded in its policies. For example, in the "GenKnowitall editing process", if I understand it correctly, it is appropriate for GenKnowitall to revert a major revision for the sole reason that it was not discussed and planned with him first, regardless of the merits of the revision. In the wikipedia process, it is not appropriate to revert the revision unless you think the revision was bad, and the reverter has some burden of proof to explain why the revision was bad. Instead of discussing gravity and textbooks, the recent discussions have centered on how GenKnowitall is unhappy that we are not following the GenKnowitall process, and everyone else is unhappy that GenKnowitall is not following the wikipedia process. --Steve (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Steve, thanks for you comments. Pragmatism is our friend here, and let's take it one step at a time. It's always been the wiki way to do things incremental, and that's how I want to get mediation off the ground to: one step at a time. So without any reference to problems that may arise, or difficulties you forsee, can you agree with the four points I mentioned as guiding principles for mediation? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with Martijn's four principles now and always. :-) --Steve (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * can I count you in for mediation then? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK --Steve (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether I think mediation is the best idea. In any case, I've read the policies and agree to the conditions, and I agree to participate. Honestly, at the moment I'm uncomfortable with 1b, "assume the assumption of good faith", given what has been said already. But I'll be content to assume that other editors are sincere when they agree to 1a. Melchoir (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Melchoir is a principle author of an 'opposing' view and article. His conduct has not been exemplary, but neither has it been egregious. I have mainly complained TO HIM concerning: unsupported representations (ie fabrications), being non-responsive to important discussion points needed to resolve issues he raised, and extensive revisions to an original article made without discussion.  These are not, and were not, by themselves, a cause for an admin call. Principle problems were by others who were not engaged in the editing process, entered as officious interlopers,  who's improper actions triggered a technical editing war, and who have additionally continued insulting personal comments which are not constructive and should cease. Third notice.
 * I am prepared to accept Melchoir's good faith assurances and reaffirm my own. Likewise for Netheril96, if he still intends to contribute.  (Good faith is honesty and sincerity, fair-dealing, in part. Honest representations, support for positions, genuinely trying to come to resolution.)  These agreements should be sufficient to restart the process. I have no objection to anyone else joining who does so in good faith, but an admin will now monitor conduct and process and mediate disputes as to those. Content is for editors to decide using collaboration and agreement wherever possible. This article has a troubling history, but perhaps editing will proceed while the admin naps. If so, thats fine. But those joining should agree.
 * Lastly, as I explained, most importantly, I do not agree to the current revision as a starting point, if that is where we start, then that is where we regretfully must end,  for I will not join a continuation of a foodfight where one side has, by misconduct, seized an advantage which determines the outcome. No disciplined editing can be done from that point and none will occur.  A waste of time. That does not mean the material is not included, it means an orderly process of collaboration, particularly over and considering key points of contention. Its not about ownership, its about orderly process. Returning to the status quo ante requires a reversion to the original article, then discussion of proposed included material. This produces the strongest and most balanced article, one that may stand. I am obliged to disengage until Monday for a family matter.  GenKnowitall (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like four principles I mentioned are agreed on then? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An editing war brought the article under admin supervision for a limited time, to see if that can succeed. Courteous, substantive, and specific complaints on process and conduct (not personal attack) must be allowed and summarily resolved.  Based on above I see Melchoir, Sbyrnes321, GenKowitall as agreeing to terms and to participate under mediation of process and conduct by Martijn Hoekstra.  Netheril96 has not, as far as I can tell, responded, but anyone may join and similar rules should automatically apply to them. That is how I understand it.  Procedurally and for reasons stated, to restart the editing process the admin should revert to the original article and archive comments to date. Three editors have agreed to the Symon definition of CG as properly stated, but further comment can be raised, if there is any. I invite editor Melchoir to submit a succinct and supported alternative definition for discussion, refinement, and consensus inclusion in the article, with other improvements presumed to follow.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenKnowitall (talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Gen, no need to be so formal, but I understand your desire to keep to procedure. In my experience though when discussion turns to metadiscussion, effective communication is bogged down to a halt or almost a halt. I would prefer it if we don't comment on editors at all, and keep discussion on the behaviour of editors to an absolute minimum. We are all here to build an encyclopedia, not to push an agenda, and and keeping that in mind, commenting too much on other editors is fairly moot. The agreements we make here can be broken by anyone, yet the penalty of doing so would be not reaching consensus. When that happens nobody wins, so nobody has any incentive to try to derail anything. In this light, I'm hoping you can agree with mediation where we decide not to comment on other editors or their behaviour. Can I count on you for this? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly no one is required to participate and anyone may misbehave. I appreciate your conciliatory comments.  I don't know what wikipedia is, not encyclopedia, certainly not authority, perhaps it is something different.  I came to edit a single physics article previously erroneously deleted, that is all. But it is clear that you care about the wikipedia and contribute your time to make it better.  Thank you for your contributions.  However, I stand by my prior remarks.
 * I'm no expert on wikipedia, but if fabrication of authority to support an objection to acknowledged authority followed by undiscussed and wholesale replacement of the entire article over objection is the "collegial", "collaborative", "wikipedia way", then I am glad to learn that right away.  If tag team reversions are joined by those who have no contribution to the article quality and enter for the apparent single purpose of starting a barfight (triggering a technical edit war) is the  "collegial", "collaborative", "wikipedia way", then now is the time for me to appreciate that.  I read the rules and didn't see that stuff authorized but perhaps it is in WP:OWN somewhere. This may be the "wikipedia way", or not, but I don't think this this stuff is about MOTIVES, but about CONDUCT.
 * Finally I turn to the consequences of such conduct. If there is NO willingness or ability to actually enforce alternative conduct then we are left with the consequence that whatever occurs is, in fact, the "wikipedia way". Otherwise problems that arise must be addressed promptly and there must be some consequence with meaning, at minimum the reversal of advantage seized by improper conduct. That is basic. Without that there are no rules, only pretend rules, platitudes for citing. An admin who appreciate that will be prepared to act as more than mere adviser, which is perhaps useful but not against improper conduct.
 * I have explained myself clearly and fully. My proposals are consistent with the "wikipedia way" which is actually professed in the rules. The original article is correct as a starting point, while the current article may have undiscussed problems which careful development would  reveal. The merits are also thus supported by reversion. If Melchoir is agreed, then we may proceed with my proposal and more carefully develop a consensus article. Actions will now disclose what has been decided, actions will decide what is the "wikipedia way". GenKnowitall (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I can't count you in for committing to talk about content rather than editors, we can attempt mediation, but chances are slim indeed we will succeed. Can I get a commitment from you to do this on content only? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Assurances? I prefer good conduct over assurances of good conduct. But I thought I had already given such assurances. Wikipedia process has failed on this article, twice it seems, despite the simplicity of the subject in a non-controversial field. The cause of the failure is for another place and time, but whether mediation of some kind can work here to produce a consensus article is an experiment in progress, an attempt I have agreed to engage in in good faith for purpose of producing such article, and which I can assure I have no intention or interest to derail.  Instead I have agreed to your mediation and given the same assurances of good conduct as others and expect to abide by the same rules. For limited times and circumstances I do not require these rules to be stated or that they be the exact same rules as wikipedia, generally so but make them up as you go if that works best, but these should be fairly applied. Your supervision is for a limited time for a limited purpose, an experiment, and won't destroy the wikipedia, so try your best. You mediate, you decide, you decide what is "fair", you decide when it is "over" and if it works then good, everyone wins, if not then alas, but good try. Wikipedia will survive.  Physics will survive.  Concerning remarks, if you say a remark is improper, then it should be acknowledged and withdrawn. But more specific assurance thus: if by "content" you mean "avoid personal remarks", then that is agreed, within sensible bounds except where necessary for example for: identifying remarks for reply or objection on the subjects of content or process, or other narrow purpose.  No comments that "bite". Others must, in good faith, adhere to the same rules.  If that is the assurance you seek, then I think I previously gave that but you again have it. I believe this is responsive reply. Advise of other terms if you think that is useful. GenKnowitall (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Aside : Setting things "straight".

 * Let's get a couple of things straight, GenKnowitall:
 * Editing policy: Edits to articles do not require discussion prior to being made. Reversion for the sole stated reason of a lack of previous discussion    is considered extremely disruptive.
 * Consensus: The fact that many editors participating in discussions on this talk page disagree with you, and none agree, means that they're right, and you're wrong.
 * Edit warring: Reverting against everyone else, to a version of the article no one but you supports, is considered disruptive.
 * Disruptive editing: The previously described behaviors constitute a pattern of problematic editing that will result in your removal from this article, or the entire project, if they continue.
 * Blocking policy and Banning policy: The next time you disrupt the article, I will post a request on WP:AN/I for a community sanction. Some possible results include your account being blocked for a period of time, you being banned from this article, and a site ban.
 * In summary, stop causing trouble, or you'll be banned. Chester Markel (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop making trouble, oh, is that what is going on? Chester Markel, lets get a couple of things straight. You don't have the facts, and have not correctly stated the policy anyway. So what are you?  You appear an officious intermeddler, in addition to being seriously mistaken.  The article is locked under the supervision of an admin. An attempted mediation is being discussed in discussion pages. You are on full notice of that as well as adminition against personal attack. If you intend to intrude in some "official capacity" then I suggest you take that up with the admin. In any event, no one prevents you from making a complaint against anyone using the proper procedure, but I advise that personal attacks and making frivolous complaints against users is undoubtedly disruptive itself. Don't you think? GenKnowitall (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the problem here is a failure to effectively set the ground rules of mediation. Compliance with policy is not optional. I wish to convey to GenKnowitall that objections to content premised solely upon a lack of discussion prior to inserting it are considered illegitimate, and won't be tolerated. But such efforts are undermined when we have someone who (to a new user) wears the admin and mediator badges treating whether development of the article should comply with the editing policy as a legitimate dispute. It would be helpful if we had an admin, acting in that capacity, telling GenKnowitall that the next time he reverts the article just because changes to it weren't discussed with him first, he will be blocked. The alternative is to "mediate" whether or not the editing policy should be followed, or whether it means what it says, for a month or two, then hand the issue off to arbcom, which will impose a much stiffer sanction than an administrator would in the first instance, because of the delay in cases reaching them, during which problematic behavior will have continued. That's in no one's best interest. Chester Markel (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Be concise and stop dancing around the point. Please. -- The Σ talkcontribs 02:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Chester Markel, I understand your comment, and understand you feel the need to explain to me what things you "won't tolerate". Got all that. No need to repeat yourself. Still, honestly, we have an admin on the job and you have no role here that I can see, so if you have some real complaint about anyone, wouldn't it simply be better to go make it in the proper way. GenKnowitall (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

GenKnowitall, I want you to take a look at this. And don't let this discourage you from being concise, you're doing a great job at that. -- The Σ talkcontribs 03:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not do this. If we start pointing fingers, there is no reasonable chance of this resolving any other way than on ANI. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Suppose that we just discuss the content of the article, then. There's an objection to the text currently in the article. What, in substantive terms, is claimed to be wrong with it? That's a question that really needs to be answered for any discussion of content to move forward. Chester Markel (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And something like "there was no discussion of the material prior to it being added to the article" wouldn't be the answer we're looking for, since that would be about editor behavior, not the content itself. Chester Markel (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. -- The Σ talkcontribs 21:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigma, now that's a great list! Woefully incomplete, of course, but strange no one has made shortcuts to some of those. Might save a lot of bandwidth. Hey! GenKnowitall (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * List? What list? -- The Σ talkcontribs 22:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors, admin has requested you cease.  There may be a time and place to argue about who did what, and what the policies are, and who violated them in what order, let the cascade of recriminations flow, and you can join then if you are allowed. But here and now is not the time or place. The facts are recorded.  Jockying the facts and arguments, whether here or elsewhere,  is not appropriate because mediation is being discussed to attempt some resolution. While that is being done I cannot engage and refute your points, as you well know,  so this is no longer the forum for that.  Continued sniping also undercuts the admin efforts and he has above requested that cease so he may attempt to set up the mediation, and I also request it. If mediation fails then go to the complaint process if you are serious about complaining. GenKnowitall (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)