Talk:Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments/Archive 1

What will happen to this article after the LHC starts up?
I mean, won't this article be redundant? This ought to be discussed now and not when the changes need to be made. Zazaban (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure someone will be happy to delete it, if it doesn't get auto-deleted by the LHC. Far Canal (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article will still be relevant once LHC particle collisions start occurring and thereafter, I don't see your point... --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)\
 * Until the collider is finally shut down, this article will be relevant. Also, once it is shut down, this article will be historical, but will likely contain new topics such as what to do with all the highly radioactive parts of the ring once they are removed. (Assuming Wikipedia is still online at that time). Buckethed (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The prediction for the doomsday scenario will simply shift when the collsions happen at higher and higher energies. When the LHC runs at full power and protons and anti-protons collide at 14 TeV, then new reports will appear in the media saying that doomsday will happen at 15 TeV or higher. This article will then change accordingly. Count Iblis (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oooooo you cynic you. Khu  kri  17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As the energy increases, we get closer and closer to doomsday. Which might be at 13.9 TeV, or 111111 TeV. There is, 100%, a certain energy that which, if you collide two particles at that energy, the earth will be destroyed. :(. Buckethed (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Otto E. Rössler
I just reverted a comment by IP editor User:206.111.158.35 wondering about Rössler's qualifications. While the point may or may not be well-taken in the abstract, it is not permissible in an article because of Wikipedia's rules about original research, sources, and verifiability. I believe we are in general not permitted to evaluate or question someone's qualifications in the main article namespace, though we can quote a reliable external source that does so. On the talk page we may (gently) suggest that someone's qualifications may need some investigation in external sources, but I think that's about as far as we can go. And even then, ad hominem arguments are seldom conclusive.

We are permitted (indeed, required!) to back up all our statements in the article with reliable external sources, and that means in general refereed papers, texts by academic or university publishers, etc. I think that needs to be enforced systematically, on both sides of the debate. We really need to keep ourselves honest by holding one another to that standard as much as we have time and energy for, difficult as that can be.

I'm actually not so experienced here myself, and I'm sure most experienced editors understand all this better than I do, but as LHC safety is a subject of some popular interest and concern, we may have newcomers who have not yet fully understand the limitations under which we must work. So I hope it is OK to take the space to say it once more here. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw it and thought it was quite a valid point, in what respect is this doctor a verifiable source? I am concerned that some of these names and the fact they are a scientists etc is an appeal to authority, not whether they are a recognised expert in the field. Where does it stop botanists and plumbers?. I agree entirely with your first paragraph, but if there is a doubt or it is questioned it maybe removed until such issues are resolved. Khu  kri  12:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, he is a senior professor (emeritus) at a reputable German university, and his field is a hard science (chemistry). I suppose that prima facie  this means he has a significant background in mathematics, physics, and quantum mechanics, and understands the way the scientific process works in an academic context.  Assuming that is all true (which assertions I have simply taken on faith without any checking) it seems to me he has the basic credentials, and the next test is whether his claims have survived peer review and been published by reliable outlets.  I have not investigated at all, but I have not noticed that his assertions actually pass that test.  So that is where my own questions would lie. Of course someone with all the credentials may be a crackpot, and one working on the fringes (quantum gravity, accretion physics, string theory) of his usual field of study may still be a brilliant polymath.   Adam Helfer seems reputable at least, though I am not clear how concerned he really is about the LHC beyond the basic fact that Hawking radiation is not established beyond all possible doubt.  Rössler and Wagner I am not sure about.  In any case, the detailed arguments of these folks (and indeed everyone, on both sides) need to be laid out in quantitative detail, so we and "the real experts" can evaluate them and see if they hold water.  Wwheaton (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just read through rosslers paper, how the hell can that be called a reliable source? It's personal musing laced with lots of metaphors and descriptive prose that has little to do with science. I can't find that it's been reviewed anywhere and my opinion it should be removed. My personal opinion is it sounds like he has an axe to grind with the amount of funding cern gets. Khu  kri  07:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good for you! I'll take a look it too when I get a chance.  There's no substitute for "doing the reading". We should see if there is a reputable external reference refuting it, of course, or if there is any sign it has been peer-reviewed.  Wwheaton (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have looked over the Rössler references, and I do not see anything that has been accepted by a refereed journal, just some drafts, all apparently 2008.  The first he says has been submitted to Science, Nature , & a German Zeitschrift , but nothing yet accepted. I also do not see anything like a quantitative calculation supporting his "50 months" statement, just some handwaving.  It is conceivable he is right of course, but he certainly does not pass the Wiki verifiability test, in my opinion.  I will leave it for a little while to give Jtankers a chance to respond, but as of now I cannot see any justification for retaining his statements.  I wish I could really evaluate his statements and prove that they are nonsense; but that is not our job.  Sigh.... Wwheaton (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reference just added by Jtankers, to an interview with Prof. Rössler, does not satisfy the criteria for a reliable source. An interview with a journalist is not a credible source.  It is not a scientific publication subject to peer review, and it does not lay out the quantitative basis for his claims that a BH could grow in 50 months.  We already know that Prof. Rössler has expressed concern, but there is no evidence that his arguments have received any validation from the community of knowledgeable scientists, nor to my knowledge has he even published any definite quantitative argument that could be subjected to critical review.   Rössler needs to submit a serious article to an academic journal, and post the submission to arXiv, with details of his calculation.  Then there will be a definite claim that can be addressed on its merits; and shortly thereafter if it is found to have merit by qualified reviewers and gets published, an entry in the archival literature.  Wwheaton (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with a minor point of a statement, fix the minor point. It is not consistent with WP:NPOV to just remove the entire reference, Dr. Rossler's work is published on the web as is CERN's 2008 LSAG Safety Report, the references satisfy WP:VERIFY.  --Jtankers (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Publication on the web is not sufficient. It must be from a reliable source, not a partisan web site. Wwheaton (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then by that standard based on WP:NPOV all statements and documents self published by CERN including the 2008 LSAG Safety Review would also need to be removed. The purpose of this article is to provide a balanced view of the safety issues, not just to promote your view of the safety issues.  --Jtankers (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You must prove to us that the article would be biased without Rossler's argument, by providing a reliable source which satisfies WP:ATT and supports the entire statement in the article. The LSAG's reports are reliable, so based on the principle of parity, you must provide equivalent sources. You must prove that the article violates WP:NPOV without Rossler's argument, and the only way you can do that is by providing us with a acceptable source that meets WP:RS and WP:ATT. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rössler does not even present a calculation to critique. He just claims, hand-waves really.  CERN presents a document by a group of people who one may reasonably accept as among the most qualified in the world, which has been reviewed by people independent of the project.  It is a cruel irony I admit that the people most qualified to evaluate the hazard are also among those most interested in getting the answers to the questions the LHC addresses, but I cannot help that.  Their lives are at stake too, and there are thousands of them.  Where are their voices?  Show me a reasonable argument by reputable people in the field, published by a reliable outlet with some kind of competent review or from a reputable publisher, that the LHC is a threat and I will accept it in the article.  Adam Helfer is a fair source, though since he does not address the LHC issue explicitly, using his papers by themselves is inadmissible  synthesis, though I personally am willing to let that pass, if to me the argument appears to be correct.  But Rössler needs to get his stuff published properly, especially since he has no discernible background in quantum field theory, general relativity, or elementary particle physics.  I will continue to oppose inclusion of his material on that basis.  I'm will not edit war about it further, but if necessary I will take it to dispute resolution for a verdict. I do not mean to impugn Rössler's integrity at all, nor his status in his own field, but we really must have some evidence that he is a reliable source.  And we do not, at this point.
 * I am sorry to be contentious, but there's no help for it. On July 1 above I outlined my understanding of the rules, and on July 4 I said I thought Rössler fails the test.  Other editors have agreed with me.  Having no satisfactory response two days later, I removed his material.  That is as deferential as I can be.  Best,  Wwheaton (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interview with golem.de (an IT news site, cf. de:Golem.de) which Jtankers used as a reference, Rössler actually makes some remarks about how he himself sees the position of his stance (in this question) within the scientific community:
 * Rössler: ''Ja, es gibt dieses berühmte Theorem von Stephen Hawking.[...] Ich kann allerdings beweisen, dass die von einem schwarzen Loch geschluckten Objekte zwar sehr wohl ihre Masse und ihren Drehimpuls behalten, ihre Energie aber verlieren.
 * Golem.de: ''Sie widersprechen ihm also?
 * Rössler: ''Ja, es ist jedoch sehr schwer, ihn anzugreifen. Nahezu die gesamte wissenschaftliche Gemeinschaft steht hinter ihm. Und so wie der durchökonomisierte Wissenschaftsbetrieb heute läuft, ist die Macht des Konsenses größer als die der Vernunft.
 * Golem.de: ''Stehen Sie denn mit dieser Meinung alleine da?
 * Rössler: ''Nein, es gibt auch andere Wissenschaftler, die das sagen. Es gibt mindestens zwei international bekannte. Einer heißt Bill Unruh aus Kanada und der andere heißt Adam D. Helfer aus den USA. Beide haben Aufsätze geschrieben, aus denen hervorgeht, dass die schwarzen Löcher wahrscheinlich nicht verdampfen. Nur beweisen können sie es nicht. Damit bin ich meines Wissens der einzige.

My translation:
 * Rössler: ''Yes, there is this famous theorem by Stephen Hawking [...] However, I can prove that objects swallowed by a black hole, while certainly preserving their mass and angular momentum, do lose their energy.
 * Golem.de: ''So you are disagreeing with him ?
 * Rössler: ''Yes, but it is very difficult to attack him. Virtually the entire scientific community is backing him. And in today's science business under the pervasive influence of economic forces, the power of consensus is larger than the power of truth.
 * Golem.de: ''Are you alone with your position?
 * Rössler: ''No, there are other scientists who say that. There are at least two which are internationally known. One is called Bill Unruh from Canada and the other one is callled Adam D. Helfer from the USA. Both have written papers which indicate that black holes probably don't evaporate. But they can't prove it. To my knowledge I am the only one who can.

These statements could be helpful for the discussion at hand. See also WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"At least 1 in 50 million?"
I noticed that the article read something about the chances of a doomsday scenario being "at least 1 in 50 million". The wording is confusing. Does the author mean that the chances are at most 1 in 50 million (or 1 in at least 50 million), or does he actually mean that it's greater than 1 in 50 million? I can't correct it, because I don't know which one it is. ZtObOr 01:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Odds of 1 in 50 million were based on the assumption made in the 1999 RHIC Safety report that concluded no possibility of creating micro black holes. These odds are not applicable to the Large Hadron Collider. --Jtankers (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Even though Rees is a bona file expert, the statement in isolation is almost meaningless in my opinion.  It needs a reference that lays out a calculation, however informal, as to how it was arrived at, what assumptions went into it, and the uncertainties on those assumptions.  Only then can one check the logic, evaluate it, and decide what it means.  And of course it needs to be done for the LHC, not the RHIC.
 * Even more needed, I think, is some rational procedure for dealing with extremely small probabilities for catastrophic events. Many people would assert that any chance at all is unacceptable, ie, that the probability must be zero. But logically a probability, p  must be between 0 and 1, and I claim that no realistic probability about the physical universe (ie, not just a logical truth or due to definition) can have p = 1 (certain) or p = 0 (impossible), so long as our knowledge is imperfect and and our minds are fallible. So what value of p truly is negligible? There ought to be a discipline for deciding such matters in a reasonable way.  So I think this whole subject needs some serious work.
 * I would however be very interested if anyone knows a written source with the computational details of Rees's number. Then I might take it seriously, instead of just trusting to his authority. Wwheaton (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am more wondering about the the comment about winning the major prize in the lottery... They mean the grand prize? Like winning the $5,000,000 jackpot?  Wouldn't that mean that you have better than a 1 in 370 chance of winning the lottery?  Or do they mean if you purchase a million tickets?  I know 1 in 50,000,000 is small, but there is no way I will win the lottery 3 times in a row 1 in 50,000,000 times.  What can be considered winning the major prize if the odds of winning are so high?  Or am I somehow doing this wrong? 24.72.113.212 (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Think about it this way: Lotteries exist to make money. That means, to use a simple example, if tickets cost $1 and the prize is $100, then the odds on winning cannot be better than 1 in 100, or else the sponsors go broke.  We have to assume that the sponsors have thought all this through, and  make the rules so they do not expect to go broke.  While real lotteries are more complex, with differing jackpots and differing odds, the same principles apply.  You can see that the odds on winning a $5,000,000 jackpot for a dollar ticket cannot be very high.  So I think he just meant the chance of winning the lottery three times in a row is "negligible cubed", but not everyone understands that intuitively.  After all, people do buy lottery tickets.  And even Feynman used to go to Las Vegas...  Wwheaton (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Negligible cubed? The odds of winning most lotteries are about 1 in 13,000,000.  So the odds of winning three times in a row would be 1 in 13,000,000 cubed which is much much much smaller than the odds of 1 in 50,000,000, which he is claiming the odds are better than.  I wonder how intelligent this man is if he can't even do simple math. 24.72.113.212 (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. It is two diffrent people speaking of the odds of two diffrent scenarios. At least 1 in 50,000,000 for micro black holes being created that are stable enough to do damage to the planet (stated by Sir Martin Rees in regards to the RHIC) and "winning the lottery three times in succession" in regards to strangelets being produced at the LHC as stated by Frank Close. It's also worth noting that the physicist in question who mentioned the lottery statistic, is also British. So he is taking about the odds of winning the highest prize on the British lottery 3 times in a row, not the American one. The odds of winning the biggest prize on the lottery in the UK are at least 1 in 13,983,816 (probably slight less, actually). So, if that is added to the odds of picking non repeating numbers 3 times in a row, you're left with a number approaching 10^22.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.247.248 (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I reproduce the comment I made ages ago but which seems to have been removed from the LHC discussion page: "In dicussions of risk it is important to separate risk from danger, this doesn't seem to be being done here. E.g. walking a wire inches above some mud is high risk and low danger. Walking a wide plank across an abyss is low risk and high danger." 50 million to 1 were it odds on the destruction of the Earth would concern me. --86.133.237.221 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I read your comment two or three times, and I did not quite get your point. Perhaps you could define your meanings of "danger" and "risk" more explicitly, because I think that is my problem.  I suppose that we need to shape our choices so that the expectation of the benefit exceeds the expectation of the costs:


 * $$E[B] > E[C]$$


 * which is not an easy test to apply in practice, and maybe not theoretically perfect anyhow, but it's the best I know; but maybe you get what I mean. Is that what you are saying, or is there something more?  I'd be happy to know a better rule.  Thanks -- Wwheaton (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Micro Black Holes might not be prone to decay
I added references that directly address and support this statement. --Jtankers (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The references are:

Adam D. Helfer, "Do black holes radiate?", arxiv, (2003) arXiv:gr-qc/0304042 "Until then, no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes is likely to be made."

William G. Unruh1,2 and Ralf Sch¨utzhold, "On the Universality of the Hawking Effect", arxiv, (2004) arXiv:gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408009v2 "Therefore, whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation remains an open question and could give non-trivial information about Planckian physics."

V.A. Belinski, "On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole", Physics Letters A, Volume 209, Number 1, (1995), pp. 13-20(8) Elsevier "A conjecture is made that the standard derivation of the black hole evaporation effect which uses infinite frequency wave modes is inadequate to describe black hole physics. The proposed resolution is that the problem is not due to the absence of the as yet unknown “correct” derivation but rather that the effect does not exist."

--Jtankers (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the refs per WP:SYN (again).--Phenylalanine (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I re-added reverted references challenging "micro black hole decay" (again) per WP:VERIFY and question removal per WP:NPOV --Jtankers (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I request, per Attribution, that "references challenging micro black hole decay" added by JTankers be removed. Also, the fact tag added by JTankers should be removed, as the statement is referenced at the end of the given sentence. I will not revert the edits due to WP:3RR. I will seek admin assistance if necessary. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you arguing that the safety article should not include references to papers directly challenging the assertion that micro black holes decay? This is the primary safety argument.  --Jtankers (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No what I'm saying is that you are not citing sources that support the entire satement: (1) "The opponents to the LHC consider that micro black holes produced in a terrestrial laboratory might not decay as rapidly as calculated, or might even not be prone to decay.[29] [30] [31]" Your sources support the following statement: (2) "Adam D. Helfer, William G. Unruh and V.A. Belinski consider that micro black holes produced in a terrestrial laboratory might not decay as rapidly as calculated, or might even not be prone to decay". In an article on "black holes" or "hawking radiation", the later statement (2) and those sources are perfectly fine. However, they don't belong in this article unless you can find another reliable source that uses that argument (statement 2)in relation to the topic of this article. That's what Attribution says. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the disputed phrased "The opponents to the LHC consider" consider to "One Conern is". But this was again tagged with  without explaination.  This appears to violate Neutral point of view and I request a Third opinion under Dispute resolution.
 * I have had email correspondence with Adam D. Helfer, and that is exactly what he is saying. He is saying that micro black holes created by the Large Hadron Collider may not decay.  V. A. Belinski states this even more clearly.  However I would not be opposed to removing "The opponents to the LHC consider that" to instead read "Micro black holes produced in a terrestrial laboratory might not decay as rapidly as calculated, or might even not be prone to decay.[29] [30] [31]"  --Jtankers (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't solve anything as I indicated in my reply above. I'll say it again, the source provided must support the entire statement/argument and must specifically use the statement/argument in relation to the subject matter of the Wikipedia article. I encourage you to seek a third opinion, as it appears that you do not understand Wikipedia's policies. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The references comply per WP:VERIFY and removal of these references would violate WP:NPOV. --Jtankers (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following statement as false and misleading: " and those few who have pointed out issues with Hawking radiation were only attempting to achieve a more rigorous proof of it" This is shown to be false by the references above and inclusion of a proven false statement would tend to mislead readers of the article. --Jtankers (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the disputed statement for the moment, based on JTanker's sources. If someone wants to put it back based on WP:VER, that's fine with me too. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the following references to directly support the statement by Professor Dr. Otto Rossler "Earth accretion by a micro black hole could take as little as 50 months"

O.E. Rössler, "Interview: Chaos, Verschwörung, schwarze Löcher ", (2008) Chaos, conspiracy, black holes in German O.E. Rössler, "Chaos, conspiracy, black holes", (2008) Translation from German --Jtankers (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the following reference linking papers challenging micro black hole decay with Large Hadron Collider experiments as requested above, includes 3 direct references to Helfer's paper:
 * O.E. Rössler, "Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk" (2008) wissensnavigator.com OttoRoesslerMiniBlackHole.pdf
 * "Hawking evaporation [5] is not a measured fact and Helfer [6] has put it in doubt in a learned paper.", "Helfer’s nonevaporation conjecture [6] could recently be proved independently [7].", "Helfer’s conjecture is confirmed by a new result in general relativity.", "[6] A.D. Helfer, Do black holes radiate? Rep. Progr. Phys. 66, 943-1008 (2003)." --Jtankers (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have look up Rep. Progr. Phys. 66, 943-1008 (2003) and it is apparently the published version of Adam Helfer's paper Do Black Holes Radiate?, available as arXiv:gr-qc/0304042) in the physics archive. It has been cited here again and again, but it says nothing about the LHC or its dangers.  It does argue that black hole evaporation is not established, but it does not go so far as to claim that they probably do no evaporate, it merely says the question is open—which is generally acknowledged.  The consensus in the community remains that BH evaporation is likely, though there are differences as to how likely.  I see no sign of the claims "Helfer’s nonevaporation conjecture [6] could recently be proved independently [7].", "Helfer’s conjecture is confirmed by a new result in general relativity."  above.  Please supply detailed references and documentation of those claims, as I think they are in error.  The possibility that Hawking evaporation does not occur is acknowledged in the CERN safety studies and addressed there.  (In some papers it is even enthusiastically yearned for, for scientific reasons, by authors who presumably expect to go on living,)  The safety of the LHC does not depend on that issue, it merely adds a few dex to the odds against disaster.  The connection to Helfer's papers, useful as they appear to be in themselves, is clearly illegal synthesis. Wwheaton (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The primary safety argument by CERN is that if micro black holes are created they will either be unstable or grow slowly. Dr. Adam Helfer's papers directly address one half of CERN's argument that creation of micro black holes should be considered safe.  The citation argues that micro black hole decay is an open question and directly argues that micro black hole decay should not be used as a reliable safety factor.  This makes the reference highly relevant to the safety of Large Hadron Collider operation.  --Jtankers (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

CERN Scientific Policy Committee
I re-added a reference to the CERN Scientific Policy Committee paper endorsing the 2008 LSAG Safety Report per WP:VERIFY.

CERN Scientific Policy Committee, "SPC Report on LSAG Documents", (2008) SPC Report on LSAG Documents

The reference is important, particularly for its statements under Microscopic black holes section regarding neutron star and cosmic ray safety arguments made in the 2008 LSAG Safety Report: "A powerful argument applicable also to higher energies is formulated making reference to observed neutron stars, but this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that, while highly plausible, do require confirmation, as can be expected in the coming years." --Jtankers (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

micro black holes decay based on CPT symmetry
The following statement asserts that micro black holes are expected to rapidly decay based on CPT symmetry, however the referenced section on CPT does address black hole decay. This statement requires citation per WP:VERIFY. "CERN states that, wholly apart from Hawking Radiation, micro black holes are expected to rapidly decay, based on CPT symmetry" --Jtankers (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hawking Radiation Might Not Exist
I added the following statement:


 * One concern is that Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon, and might not exist at all.
 * (Same references as above, these references have been repeatedly removed. Please do not remove these references, they are key to the safety issue and removing them violates WP:NPOV)

I also changed the following statement because it argues a point that is proven false and not supported by arguments proving otherwise:


 * From "CERN argues that physicists in general do not question the assumption that black holes are generally unstable"
 * To "CERN argues that black holes are generally unstable"


 * The statement above is proven false by a 2004 Delphi Study on LHC Risks conducted by James Blodgett (Masters Degree in Statistics and coordinator of Global Risk Reduction special interest group of American Mensa): [James Blodgett on Risks]
 * "In 2004, I tried a series of Delphi questionnaires in which I asked physicists their estimates of several components of collider risk. As an example of the variability, estimates that Hawking radiation would fail ranged from 0% to 50%. The data are as follows: 0, 0, 1E-10, 0.001, 0.01, 0.01, 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.07, 0.1, 0.1, 0.3, 0.35, 0.5. This was at the time that CERN was relying on Hawking radiation, before we were aware of the papers questioning its theoretical background." - James Blodgett

--Jtankers (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jt, really! The claim based on that "poll" is so bad it's embarrassing.  It is meaningless.  Physicists as a group do not consider Hawking radiation established beyond doubt, you can have that for free.  Hawking evaporation reduces the danger some, but it is just one of the factors that enter in, and not the most important.  Wwheaton (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jt, you're violating WP:SYN, WP:ATT, as explained previously, and now WP:VER with your removal of this sentence. I ask that you please read the relevant policies. You're using the "Poll", which does not specifically state that Scientists in general do question the assumption that black holes are generally unstable, in order to deduce the same statement. This is explicitly prohibited by WP:ATT. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Phenylalanine, if you continue to remove valid references challenging Hawking Radiation I will need to request mediation. Your actions are in clear violation of WP:NPOV --Jtankers (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jtankers, surely you can find a source that states that "one concern is that Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon, and might not exist at all". Just do a google search for news articles outlining the concerns regarding the LHC. I'm certain a number of such articles have been published. Even if the article writer is "criticizing" those who question the safety of the LHC. It doesn't matter as long as the article is published in a reliable news source. This way, you'll satisfy both WP:NPOV and WP:ATT policies. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wwheaton, I agree that physicists do not consider Hawking radiation established beyond reasonable doubt, that is why the statement from CERN insinuating that most do is misleading and should not be in the article, it fails both WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV --Jtankers (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reverted you, just quoting verify and npov doesn't make it correct, wwheaton has given his reasoning why it should not be included, you have not given a rebuttal argument, until then it will not go in the article. Khu  kri  11:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Credible references challenging Hawking Radiation need to be referenced, including published work of Professor V.A. Belinski who argues that Hawking Radiation does not exist. --Jtankers (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Discuss first add later please, and remember you have passed WP:3rr once reverted by will twice by me, but I'm not interested in reporting the issue to have you blocked..... for now. Please discuss these additions first before including them, will refuted your argument, you have not repsonded. Khu  kri  11:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is just wrong. You are threatening people for being bold.  That's very unprofessional behavior. Gigs (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In your opinion it is wrong, we have had 7 months of Jtankers being bold against concensus. Khu  kri  17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Warning editors that they are about to violate the 3RR rule and might get blocked because of this is usually not considered unprofessional behavior, in fact there exists even a template for this, see Template:Uw-3rr.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I request neutral 3rd party intervention based on Dispute_resolution. How do you recommend that I proceed? --Jtankers (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Micro Black Holes Main Article
The main article for micro black holes as it pertains to LHC Safety is on this page, so a reference to Micro Black Holes as the main article is misleading unless it was a reference to a main article on Safety of Micro Black Holes which does not currently exist. --Jtankers (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Micro Black Holes and velocity
Re: 'The Safety Assessment Group argues that "they [micro black holes]would also have been produced by cosmic rays and have stopped in the Earth or some other astronomical body, and the stability of these astronomical bodies means that they cannot be dangerous."'. I have read this in the safety report. What I cannot find is any answer to the commonly expressed point that particles and micro black holes created in nature by collisions will have enormous velocities relative to the Earth, whilst any created in the LHC may have very low velocities relative to the LHC and Earth. Micro black holes with low velocity are much more dangerous than any that fly through at close to the speed of light aren't they? Can someone answer this one, it is one of the most coherent concerns expressed about LHC. I am surprised not to find it answered in the safety report, or have I misssed it? --86.133.237.221 (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two factors that I see, which I believe may partially answer your question. Both involved detailed calculations.  I have not yet studied it thoroughly enough to be certain, but I think the place to look for the answer is in the reference that I have lately listed above (in the "REFERENCE LIBRARY" section for trial at the top of the page, as Giddings_2008:  Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes.)


 * The first is that protons are composed of quarks or partons, moving themselves at high sub-relativistic speeds. When two protons collide, so near the speed of light that their energy is 7000 times their rest mass, two of those partons will very seldom collide precisely head on, at the same opposing speed.  Thus the cross section for production of a BH with v < 11.2 km/s must be much much smaller than the total cross section for production of a BH (which may itself be zero).  Estimating that cross-section, and the number of BHs so produced that could then be captured, requires a calculation, which I hope the LHC folks have done.
 * The other question is of the amount of matter a BH, produced in the collision of a 1019 eV cosmic ray proton and at rest, like a nucleon on Earth, might be able to pass through without being slowed and captured.  This depends on the amount of material the BH must traverse, and the rate at which is loses energy.  It is clear to me that the report goes into these two issues in considerable depth, and finds that even for the worst-case assumptions of the energy loss rate, that neutron stars at least would not survive BHs produced by the cosmic rays we observe.


 * If you have searched Giddings_2008 carefully and it is really not addressed adequately there, then I have no answer. Unfortunately, given its complexity, critically reviewing it is not for the faint of heart; I do not know that I am up to it, in particular, though I have hopes.  Wwheaton (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
Credible references WP:CR to physicists who challenge Hawking radiation are being removed in apparent violation of WP:NPOV. I request neutral 3rd party assistance per Dispute_resolution. --Jtankers (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I believe that the editing of this article, particularly removal references challenging the validity of Hawking Radiation, should be reported under COIN. --Jtankers (--Jtankers (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)talk) 12:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Added to COIN: References to published papers by Professors and PHDs of Math, Physics and other theoretical sciences stating that Hawking Radiation may not exist and that micro black holes may become charged and grow exponentially are being repeatedly removed from the article "Safety of the Large Hadron Collider", leaving the article biased in favor of arguments that support CERN's position, and preventing opposition views from being fully included except in a cursory and unsupported manor. The primary admin on the article is a CERN employee and I request a neutral 3rd party. --Jtankers (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Still ignoring the argument above? I will repeat for the third time, Wwheaton refuted it, where is your rebuttal. Oh and by the way, I challenge you to show me where I have used either my admin tools or the fact I work at CERN to sway this article, until such time I would appreciate you remove this comment. And I find it extremely hypocritical knowing yours and Wagners position on this matter to be editing this article, and then cry foul when I do. Khu  kri  12:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You just threatened to have me blocked for not discussing issues before acting on them which is absolutely not true and I do not know how to comply with your request, what question have I not answered or answered multiple times? I repeat my request for neutral 3rd party intervention.  --Jtankers (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I threatened nothing, just stated a fact that you had passed 3RR and warning you to watch out before you blindly go in an re-adding it. I was doing it for yourself not for my sake, as you have been an editor on the article for as long as I have. If I were to have used my admin tools I would have blocked you myself. But as I have said since my involvement in this since January I cannot use my tool in disputes in which I am involved, and would have had to have another admin investigate the 3rr report. So I have not used my admin abilities, and challenge you to remove this falsehood. The dispute resolution WP:DR is clear enough what channels are open to you, and I'm disappointed you have opened a WP:COIN report against me when I have edited I believe with utmost integrity here. Where as a number of small organistions have been given the opportunity to influence these article in blatant breach of WP:UNDUE and find it ironic that you represent LHCfacts.org concerns and a number of other fringe sites and yet call me on conflict of interest. Khu  kri  12:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am just an editor, you are an admin and should be re-adding references challenging Hawking Radiation and warning those removing them without discussion so that I would not be in danger of 3RR rules. Also Professor Otto E. Rossler is a valid and credible source as even the 2008 LSAG Safety Report addresses the theories proposed by Dr. Rosseler and finds them theoretically plausible and addresses charged micro black hole theory in detail.  --Jtankers (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact I am an admin is irrelevant to this article, I am prohibited from using my admin tools in any artile in which I'm involved. In this respect I am no different to you whilst editing this article I have no more powers or less than you do as an ordinary editor and must be considered as one. Hence the reason I ask you to retract your comment above, also you will find I have not edited the article with respect to CERN, and at the beginning you will see I argued for their being a safety section as it has gained main stream press. You on the other hand represent an organistion with fringe theories, and are editing this article to promote these ideas. So again please quantify your COI/admin comment above or retract them.
 * Your point about the reports, the LSAG report is the crux of the argument with regards to the safety of the LHC, it has been published and has been reviewed. The Rossler article has had neither as far as Wwheaton and myself can find, and it's certainly not a critique of the science behind the LSAG paper. Read the paper, I cannot believe anyone would mistake this for a scientific paper that has been through peer review, and certainly has not be reviewed hence making the 50 months non reliably sourced. Khu kri  13:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dr. Rossler's paper is what prompted LSAG to address charged micro black holes, the 2008 LSAG report is peer review of this paper, and to exclude it is to only allow one side of the argument. The 2008 LSAG Safety Report is self published on the web and has only been reviewed by CERN's Scientific Policy Committee, a group of members selected by CERN.  And what argument could justify removal of papers challenging Hawking Radiation when an unsupported statement from CERN asserts that Hawking Radiation is generally not challenged.  This is not a balanced article.  This article, as currently written is biased in favor of CERN's arguments.  As an admin, you should assure that the article is reasonably balanced.  Please correct this situation so that I might not have material arguments to make a WP:COIN claim. --Jtankers (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If Khukri is not acting as an admin on this article, then my WP:COIN does not apply to Khukri and I will update the WP:COIN to reflect this, I agree Khukri has acted in good faith as an editor. My argument is that the article is being edited primarily by Phenylalanine to be biased towards CERN's views and removing valid opposing views and references without discussion in violation of WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV.  I request neutral 3rd party review of this article and that the recently removed references challenging Hawking Radiation and proposing exponential growth of charged micro black holes be re-added.   --Jtankers (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict James you are avoiding the main problem here, you questioned my ojectivity at WP:COIN and my intent to these articles with respect my admin duties and the fact I work at CERN first of all. I have 7 months editing on these articles, and challenge you to quantify or retract your comment. I cannot enter into discussions with someone, when I know my track record shows I will negotiate if my actions are not seen as sincere. You make no bones about the fact you represent the anti-LHC argument, websites and interests, I however have never represented CERN. So why should this COI report not apply to you, when a quick google search of your name throws up all the websites and views you represent. You can keep harping on about me being an admin, but unless you haven't understood anything I've said, you are deliberatly ignoring the fact it is irrelevant to this article as I have written above. It seems you are trying to make it appear that you are the poor persecuted one. If you have any complaints about my admin activities please take them to WP:ANI where someone there will investigate my misuse of admin tools, (but they rarely get involved in content disputes).


 * I have struck the above due to your recognition I do not use my admin tool on this article but would appreciate as well if this was expanded to the fact I work at CERN and have not acted inappropriately. Anyway moving on. Can you you show me where Rosslers article influenced the LSAG report content please, I can't find any mention of Rosslers or his 50 months in the LSAG report? Khu  kri  14:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Khukri has not acted inappropriately as an editor. --Jtankers (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference is to the theory that micro black holes might become charged and grow exponentially, as first proposed by Dr. Rossler. The reference to 50 months is claimed by Dr. Rossler.  If we allow the statement "According to the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG), "there is broad consensus among physicists on the reality of Hawking radiation" per WP:VERIFY based on self publishing on the web and no study to support this and some studies calling this into question, then by WP:NPOV it would be balanced to allow a similar claim by Dr. Rossler about 50 months accretion time in my opinion.  However, my primary concern is that references challenging Hawking Radiation should not be removed from the article.  This has been done repeatedly without discussion even attempting to justify there removal, while ample discussion exists supporting there inclusion.  I have repeatedly attempted to re-add these references and they are still missing from the article.  --Jtankers (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just can't find in the LSAG report where is mentions Rossler or his work, help me out here, what page am I looking at? OK as the article is about the safety of the LHC and CERN say that a majority of scientists support hawkins radiation, then this again is the crux of their argument. To call this in to question we need a scientific study which shows a majority of scientists do not aggre with this. Be adding one or two scientists who don't agree you are only confirming the argument, as other editors maybe so inclined to add ten or a hundred scientist that do concur. If you want to call into question the findings of the report, it needs to be done clearly and unequivocally in the terms of X disputes findings Y becuase of Z. The wikipedia article is not here to prove or disprove the LSAG report, by any means, but can only make notice of those who do. Khu kri  14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Just noticed the edit conflict below, if I re-add this as from my comment above this means that you are opening to Phenyline etc to add 10 sources who support hawkins radiation. The hawkins radiation article describs the issues there, this article is not about proving it or disproving it. I think we should find a better wording in general than just start a source-fest of adding more link to an already ugly article. Khu kri  14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please carefully read WP:NPOV, including "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;", then re-add the removed statements. --Jtankers (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Like who? Who has come out and said the LHC is going to destroy the world because they disagree with the science presented in the LSAG report. All we have at the moment is alot of CERN states X, Dr Y states the opposite of X and the article is being used to draw the conclusion that Dr Y is against CERN or the LHC. This is not the case, and not what this article is here to demonstrate. If you want to argue about the validity of hawkings radiation take it to the hawkings radiation article. CERN made their position clear with their LSAG report, as of yet I haven't seen any direct refuting statements. I also still can't find where CERN is refuting Rosslers work in the LSAG report that warrants Rosslers inclusion. If you can list the "significant minority" who directly question the LSAG report then we can include it, however if you can find the significant minortiy who questions the validity of hawkings radiation that that belongs in the hawkings radiation article. it is not yours or my position to draw the conclusions. Khu  kri  15:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record I have posted a comment at the COI noticeboard. I think we can maybe agree we do not have a real COI here, but it looks to me as if we are going to have to seek outside help pretty quick if we aren't able to settle things ourselves better than we have been doing lately. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All I am asking for is what has been in the article for months, a reasonable statement that Hawking Radiation is credibly disputed as possibly not existing followed by valid references from Helfer and V.A Belinski, and a reasonable statement regarding the theory that charged micro black holes might grow exponentially followed by a reference to Dr. Otto Rossler's theory. The issue is now also posted to Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.  --Jtankers (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

References Challenging Hawking Radiation
Khukri appears to have accidentally removed references challenging Hawking Radiation, as the references were removed without discussion and the summary of the revert was to use popup references. The following references should be added:
 * Adam D. Helfer, "Do black holes radiate?", arxiv, (2003) arXiv:gr-qc/0304042
 * William G. Unruh1,2 and Ralf Sch¨utzhold, "On the Universality of the Hawking Effect", arxiv, (2004) arXiv:gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408009v2
 * V.A. Belinski, "On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole", Physics Letters A, Volume 209, Number 1, (1995), pp. 13-20(8) Elsevier

Khukri, if you infact accidentally removed these references, please re-add them. Also, the statement should be attributed to Physicists, rather than just "One concern", which tends to suggest that the concern is not from credible scientists. --Jtankers (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, those cites are valid and should not be deleted. I've spoken with many physicists, and the 'opinions' range from 100% certainty that Hawking Radiation works as predicted, to 99% certainty it will not work. Some have even suggested that quantum effects might do the exact opposite, i.e. cause a micro black hole to grow larger via quantum tunneling! Oldnoah (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah


 * I have no objection to Helfer's and Belinsky's papers. I would want to see a reliable source for BH cross section for capturing other matter and growth due to tunneling, though the LSAG report (just released) treats the possibility of larger-than-naive-GR BH capture cross sections (due to existence of compactified dimensions having sizes of up to ~0.1 mm) at some considerable length.  As I have said before, I think there is no question that Hawking radiation is not a settled issue in the community.  I do strongly object to any use of the Mensa "survey", though. Wwheaton (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said above these can be added it to the hawkings radiation article. You and James are using these article to "join the dots". It is not your place to use wikipedia to pull holes in the LSAG report or the safety of the LHC via these articles. You cannot use the article to create links of logic, i.e. some scientists disagree with hawkings therefore QED call into doubt the safety report of the LHC, it might be clear to you. But for Wikipedia lets see someone come out in a published article saying CERN is wrong because..... There has been alot of leeway given on this article, but as James kindly pointed out earlier in WP:NPOV about "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" lets see some of these significant minority directly criticising the LHC. We have Wagner and his mates and their notability is purely through the court case and not through their scientific acumen or publications. Lets have some of the scientists who have gone on record to make up this significant minority. But to those on the other side of the argument, lets not descend into for every 1 you find I'll find 1000 who disagree. Khu  kri  17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is censorship including information suppression as detailed by WP:NPOV (WP:NPOV_tutorial information suppression) and the net affect is to silence opposition arguments. My local newspaper ran a front page headline on Tuesday of last week asking if the Large Hadron Collider might be a threat to the planet, but anyone wishing to read about the safety issue will not be able to learn all the facts at this wikipedia article on Large Hadron Collider Safety.  --Jtankers (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on Wwheaton and Oldnoah and my own JTankers request for Helfer's and Belinsky's papers, and additionally on the fact that they were removed by Phenylalanine without prior discussion and were accompanied by edit summary remarks did not match the edit.  Khu  kri  apparently inadvertently re-removed the links due to the lack of discussion and misleading edit summary by Phenylalanine, so why has this not been corrected?  --Jtankers (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And you've ignored all the points again James and started screaming persecution, if you do not respond editors will just start thinking you have no argument and remove the information entirely. All of the links removed can be added to the hawkings radiation page if you so desire, as they may be pertinant to the hawkings radiation article. It is not your place to say because he disagrees with hawkings radiation calls into question the LSAG report, HE HAS TO SAY IT. Not you, not Oldnoah, not Wagner, someone who knows what they are talking about, they have to join the dots and publish it. I'm sorry to say you are not this significant minority, lets have some of these questions raised by Wwheaton and myself answered please. Khu  kri  08:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS what page of the LSAG report was written to directly rebutt Rosslers paper, still can't see it? Khu  kri  08:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the "Great Tome", ? That is largely devoted to examining all the myriad special cases that arise if one assumes BHs do not evaporate. They do talk about accretion timescales, the Eddington limit, and all that good stuff. I am a bit troubled by the WP:SYN issue w/r Hawking radiation.  This is certainly not the place to debate the technical pros and cons on the likelihood that it exists, except to note that it is not verified, yet widely accepted as the most likely possibility.   But the Hawking radiation article really should not go off on a major tangent about LHC safety, we need to deal with that here.  Actually, the Great Tome does explicitly make the connection in detail, but I worry a little that the whole safety question is so large and complex that WP:SYN could cause us to lose important chunks of the picture, as no single reference is likely to cover everything.  I guess we just have to be alert....  B Wwheaton (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Bill, but I'm trying to remove the join the dots or WP:SYN. If we go back over how we got here, I challenged the Rossler article, as being prose worthy of a literary competition not a scientific paper. JT contested that it should be in the article in his words "Dr. Rossler's paper is what prompted LSAG to address charged micro black holes". I am challenging this because looking through the report I cannot see such a direct link between LSAG and Rosslers article. We have been falling over ourselves to be nice here, but after yesterday and the borderline ad hominums (now retracted) I have no further wish with leeway or being nice. We are tripping over ourselves to avoid meeting these issues directly head on. But as we continually point out a majority of this information is contrary to, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SYN, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:ATT, WP:VERIFY and now last night WP:REDFLAG was raised, lets stop messing about.
 * There will be no more joining the dots WP:SYN to meet certain peoples agenda, if it's not about CERN/LHC or direct criticism of the LSAG report it has no place in the article. Lets have direct sources pointing to exact issues, not what Wagner and his mates believe they mean. Lets have some of these significant minority on record and added to the article, until then it's bellybutton fluff and belongs in other articles but not this one. And JT/Oldnoah you can bleat about being persecuted but I've given more than enough chances for you to provide this significant minority you claim to have that directly criticie the LHC. Find them and add them until then the rest is hand waving. Khu  kri  10:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Strangelet section
The strangelet section of this article seems to be just lifted directly from the Strangelet article. It seems odd to do that, since subsequent edits to the strangelet article will then have to be duplicated here. Why not just link to the relevant part of the strangelet article? Dark Formal (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a summary of the safety issues regarding strangelet production as it pertains to the LHC would be helpful. Some material from the "Strangelet" article could be used to this end. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a summary of the safety issues regarding strangelet production as it pertains to the LHC would be helpful. Some material from the "Strangelet" article could be used to this end. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Information Suppression
[WP:NPOV_tutorial Information Suppression]

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:

' Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient'' to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability .
 * Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:
 * Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.
 * Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).
 * Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
 * Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
 * Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
 * Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).
 * '''Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.
 * To understand why I am claiming information suppression, read the discussions on this page and use the compare button on the history tab to compare what was changed, when and what edit summaries were used.  I am currently studying Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution policies.  --Jtankers (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You should also read WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE, especially since Rössler himself has stated that he is in an extreme minority position (see above. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The 2008 LSAG Safety Study felt that Dr. Rossler's theories that micro black holes might be capable of holding magnetic charges were valid enough for these theories to be directly addressed in detail in the safety study. It would be grossly biased and in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia in my opinion to only permit CERN's interpretation of Dr. Rossler's theory to be heard, to allow only one side of the argument to be heard, and to prevent Dr. Rossler from "speaking for himself".  --Jtankers (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I let Rössler "speak for himself" at length by quoting and translating from his interview above, where he openly stated that he, Unruh and Helfer are in a tiny minority position. Apparently you haven't read WP:UNDUE yet, please do so now and see what it says about tiny-minority views - there are situations where it is not appropriate to describe "both sides". Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * JTankers, as I mentioned previously, you must convince us that omitting Rossler's position is in violation of WP:NPOV. We will not be convinced of that until you can provide a reliable source, based on the principle of parity, for Rossler's argument (which complies with WP:ATT). WP:UNDUE is a secondary issue that will need to be discussed once you have provided the reliable source in question. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (WP:NPOV)--Phenylalanine (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dr. Rossler is credible enough that CERN takes his views very seriously, meets with him and addresses his theories of charged micro black holes in their safety reports which are self published and reviewed by scientists selected by CERN, but apparently the public should be censored from Dr. Otto Rossler's theories, and only CERN can address him. This is clearly in need of neutral 3rd party dispute resolution.  Your actions are clearly in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and possibly WP:COIN in my opinion.  --Jtankers (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE show me where for god sake!!!!!!!! (for the 5th time of asking)  Khu  kri  12:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you missing? The 2008 LSAG Safety report (correction: here: http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf  now addresses charged micro black holes, repeatedly in this report.  This is the theory (charged micro black holes) proposed by Dr. Otto E. Rossler here (Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk, O.E. Rössler, Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tübingen, 72076 F.R.G.) http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf .  This is Dr. Otto Rossler's theory, but the article now only contains CERN's view of this theory.  For you to determine that CERN's views are correct and Dr. Rossler may not even be referenced is clear censorship in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and possibly WP:COIN in my opinion.  --Jtankers (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That source does not support your claim that "CERN takes his views very seriously" - Rössler isn't even mentioned in the document. That the mention of microscopic black holes refers to Rössler's theories seems to be your own personal interpretation. Please make sure that you have read and understood WP:SYN before continuing with this discussion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that CERN invented the concept of charged black holes independently and even though CERN scientists have met with Dr. Rossler to discuss the safety issue he is not relevant to the conversation? To my knowlege only two sources have discussed this possibility (charged micro black holes), CERN and Dr. Rossler, both in 2008 and Dr. Rossler proposed the theory which has been part of this article for months but has been censored in the last few days.  --Jtankers (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And the proof, verifiable sources are where? Just becuase you think it, doens't make it true, so please show me in the LSAG report where it mention Rosslers article, as you claimed earlier it did? You cannot link the subjects there has to be a verifiable link, just because CERN are talking about them and rossler is talking about them, may mean one was done with repsect to the other, but your beliefs aren't enough, we want verifiable sources that link them. Khu kri  13:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What I said is that CERN and LSAG addressed Dr. Rossler's theory of charged micro black holes which did not exist before Dr. Rossler proposed it and CERN addressed charged micro black holes in detail in the 2008 LSAG Safety Report. The reference is to charged micro black holes.  There are only two views on this subject currently that I am aware of.  Dr. Rossler's invention of this theory and LSAGs theory of how charged micro black holes could be created (different that Dr. Rosslers) and how they would interact with Earth.  Are you arguing that Dr. Rossler's theory that micro black holes might be capable of holding a charge did not significantly influence the 2008 LSAG Safety report?  (more this evening).  --Jtankers (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing anything, I'm telling you if you can't prove it, it ain't going in the article as it's supposition. Khu  kri  13:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not other editors who have to disprove your claims, it is you who has to cite reliable sources where these claims can be found. See WP:BURDEN. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

JTankers, I think that the 2008 LSAG report complies with WP:RS:

"The report was prepared by a group of scientists at CERN, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences. [...] The new report has been reviewed by the Scientific Policy Committee (SPC), a body that advises the CERN Council on scientific matters. A panel of five independent scientists, including one Nobel Laureate, reviewed and endorsed the authors’ approach of basing their arguments on irrefutable observational evidence to conclude that new particles produced at the LHC will pose no danger. The panel presented its conclusions to this week’s meeting of the full 20 members of the SPC, who unanimously approved this conclusion." http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR05.08E.html --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Accidental Edits
If I understand Khu  kri  and Phenylalanine correctly, the reason they removed the content about Dr. Rossler and the references challenging Hawking Radiation without first discussing this or noting the change in the edit summaries was because this was accidental. Not purposeful disregard for Wikipedia rules. So I will [re-add] the content as it was before it was removed without prior conversation. If you wish to have this material removed that has been part of the article for months, then discuss your reasons here and seek wikpedia dispute resolution to have the content removed if you think you can justify doing so. --Jtankers (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Wwheaton, quote: "I have no objection to Helfer's and Belinsky's papers... I think there is no question that Hawking radiation is not a settled issue in the community."
 * I only added the two papers that Wwheaton does not object to, in an attempt to be fair and balanced. Note that Hawking Radiation is the primary safety argument put forth by CERN and LSAG, papers challenging Hawking Radiation are germane to the safety issue. --Jtankers (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to their inclusion in the article because they violate WP:ATT, a non negotiable Wikipedia policy. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific, in what way to you feel these citation violate WP:ATT. --Jtankers (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the sources you just added do not support the entire satement: (1) "One concern is that Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon, and might not exist at all." Your sources support the following statement: (2) "Adam D. Helfer and V.A. Belinski consider that Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon, and might not exist at all". In an article on "black holes" or "hawking radiation", the later statement (2) and those sources are perfectly fine. However, the statement (2) doesn't belong in this article unless you can find a  reliable source that uses that argument (statement 2)in relation to the topic of this article. That's what Attribution says. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jtankers, I ask that you please remove the sources you added, as they may be mislead readers into believing that Helfer and Belinski are directly questioning the safety of the LHC in the articles cited. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with your argument is that CERN and LSAG made Hawking Radiation the issue. LSAG states that micro black holes should be considered safe to create either because they will decay by Hawking Radiation or that they will grow too slowly to threaten Earth. User Wwheaton also agrees.  We only included the two sources that were not disputed by Wwheaton, I think you need to let that argument go.  --Jtankers (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I will not let the argument go, unless you specifically address it and show that the sources comply with WP:ATT. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The other major concern of relevance is the growth rate of micro black holes. The primary source for this is Dr. Otto Rossler's work relating to charged micro black holes. If you have a preference for how this should be included, I am willing to be very flexible. I propose the toned down statement.
 * "Another concern is that micro black holes might grow exponentially if they are stable."


 * The next paragraph allows CERN to refute this concern and to have the final word on the issue. Perhaps the statement above might be an acceptable compromise that both sides might be able to live with.  --Jtankers (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this proposal is unacceptable. Rossler's paper has not been published and peer-reviewed yet, therefore it is not a reliable source per WP:REDFLAG. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for Hawking Radiation
I challenge the statement made by CERN "there is broad consensus among physicists on the reality of Hawking radiation". This statement may be false and appears to contradict the 2004 Delphi study by James Blodgett on Risks. Please provide evidence that there is "broad consensus for Hawking Radiation among physicists" or remove the statement. --Jtankers (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blodgett's "survey" contributes nothing to this discussion, and is certainly not acceptable evidence for use in Wikipedia articles. In my opinion the most compelling "social evidence" (also not acceptable here!) that Hawking radiation is not settled is the fact that Hawking has not received a Nobel Prize, which I think he surely will if experimental observation or theoretical clarity emerges in his lifetime. Wwheaton (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement is verified by a reliable source per WP:RS and it is relevant because it is an notable argument used by the LSAG to support it's position on the safety of the LHC. Therefore, in my opinion, it should remain in the article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can provide some evidence that there is broad consensus among physicists on the reality of Hawking radiation, then I am OK with the statement. Otherwise it can be removed or balanced with James Blodgett's 2004 Delphi survey that argues some level of doubt among physicists.  I am OK with either option, but the article needs to be balanced per WP:NPOV.  --Jtankers (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement is clear: "According to the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG), "there is broad consensus among physicists on the reality of Hawking radiation". The statement is relevant because it describes a notable argument used by the LSAG. To omit the statement would be to present an incomplete description of the arguments used by the LSAG to support the safety of the LSAG. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to allow the opposition to make their points (minor references to the work by Adam D. Helfer, V.A. Belinski and O.E.Rossler such as proposed) and allow CERN to present their arguments, opinions and conclusions as the final and dominant argument in the article. That would be reasonably balanced per WP:NPOV in my opinion.  --Jtankers (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" (WP:NPOV). The Rossler paper is not a reliable source per WP:REDFLAG, and the Helfer and Belinski papers do not present the viewpoint which is attributed to them in the LHC article currently (the papers do not directly question the safety of the LHC) in violation of WP:ATT. Therefore, WP:NPOV does not require the inclusion of these sources in the LHC article, contrary to your argument. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * CERN's Large Hadron Collider Safety Group argues in Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions that if the Large Hadron Collider collider creates micro black holes, they will not be dangerous to Earth for one of two reasons, they will either evaporate due to Hawking Radiation or they will grow too slowly to pose a threat to Earth. "Any microscopic black holes produced at the LHC are expected to decay by Hawking radiation before they reach the detector walls."  -Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions (This is the "Consensus for Hawking Radiation" section, so I will address only that issue in this section.) The credible published and peer reviewed sources below directly question Hawking Radiation, therefore directly question a primary safety factor of the LHC.


 * Dr. Adam D. Helfer argues that one of CERN's primary safety arguments (Hawking Radiation) may be fundamentally flawed. Dr. Helfer writes Do black holes radiate?, Rep. Prog. Phys. 66 943-1008, Published 12 May 2003 by Reports on Progress in Physics "The possibility that non-radiating `mini' black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe".

--Jtankers (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * William G. Unruh and Ralf Schutzold argue that one of CERN's primary safety arguements (Hawking Radiation) may not exist. William G. Unruh and Ralf Schutzold write Universality of the Hawking effect, published 24 January 2005 by The American Physical Society "Therefore, whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation remains an open question and could give nontrivial information about Planckian physics."


 * Irrelevant: Neither of them are related to nor mention the LHC, so find a published article that says LSAG is wrong because of that then it's acceptable, until then you are still joining the dots for the readers A.K.A WP:ATT. I will say again, just because you believe it to be related doesn't make it so, the source needs to make the link not you. I will remove it again, you have a number of editors telling you these are unacceptable links and yet you keep on adding them. I have written it out clearly as has Phenylalanine.
 * Also regarding your first point that you disagree that there is broad concensus, again that is irrelevant. CERN could say pixies are planning to invade using time portals created by the LHC. You may know it stupid I may know it's stupid but we cannot argue against it. We have to find the reliably sourced study By Prof. Peabody Pilkington-Smythe that says the LSAG is wrong because pixies are too fat to fit through the portals. As everyone has said through out this page, there is no doubt there are detractors of Hawking radiation, those belong on that article, what we need is someone saying LSAG is wrong because of it. Not you saying it, not some tinpot fringe theory website, but a reliably sourced study. Anything else just belongs on the Hawking radiation article.
 * This article is not here for you to personally try to pick apart the LSAG report so stop trying, it can only show what directly relates to it, make no judgements, solve no issues, or find any conclusions. The LSAG report just is. You have your websites to do that, this isn't one of them. Whether you disagree with the report it's content, or it scares you shitless frankly is also irrelevant to this article. If you want to contribute find those sources that directly criticise CERN or the LSAG report or those who have put their head above the trenches and put their thoughts and science to peer review. Otherwise all you are trying to do is make the reader draw the conclusions that you believe. Khu  kri  11:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is biased, you have a clear conflict of interest WP:COIN as your job may depend on the Large Hadron Collider being proved reasonably safe. Any credible source refuting the directly quoted safety arguments made by CERN and LSAG (Hawking Radiation) clearly bring the safety of the Large Hadron Collider into question.  Removal is simply censorship.  You are allowing self published material validated by scientists selected by the authors and unsupported opinions claiming what other physicist believe while suppressing published peer reviewed evidence that argues otherwise.  I request a neutral 3rd party opinion per WP:NPOV, and request that you do not remove references while this issue is disputed.  --Jtankers (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Otto Rossler's paper "Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk" directly addresses LHC Safety, the article has been published on the web the same as CERN's LSAG report and it is clearly peer reviewed including direct communications on this and similar safety theories between Dr. Rossler and CERN scientists as recently as July 4, 2008. WP:DR requested. --Jtankers (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In this context, peer review means screening an article before its publication, and only publishing it if the reviewers give green light.
 * And even Otto Rössler himself is not agreeing with your claim that there is not a broad consenus for Hawking radiation, and regards his position as that of a tiny minority, see interview quotes above.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If Dr. Rossler came to his opinion based on reading this wikipedia article that might make sense. Most physicists have some level of doubt about Hawking Radiation.  That is what the 2004 Delphi study indicates and I see not evidence to the contrary, just hyperbole.   Please stop censoring valid content without valid reasons.  Dr. Rossler directly challenges the safety of the Large Hadron Collider, along with published and peer reviewed papers challenging Hawking Radiation.  DISPUTE RESOLUTION REQUESTED --Jtankers (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen nothing of Dr. Rössler's on this subject that I consider a reliable source according to Wiki standards: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." But I wonder if there may be things I have not seen.  I read over the ones I removed a few days back, all dated 2008, but I cannot swear I have seen everything.  When we are all citing, deleting, and yakking in a hurry, I sometimes wonder if we are talking about the same thing.  With this in mind, I wonder what we would think of a proposal to keep in a single section at the top of this talk page, a master reference list, so we have one and only one place to look for each source?   We could also have a name or number or some standard ID there for us to use in arguing about it.  Since this is the talk page, references that are still disputed could be included until there is consensus ?  And  even for rejected sources, we could keep an entry with status, so we don't keep going around in circles.  We have enough problems here (I have limited time to read and review, myself) that it seems we should take advantage of all the devices we can to cooperate and make things more efficient.  Bill Wwheaton (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your balanced approach Wwheaton (talk) --Jtankers (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)