Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience)/Archive 2

Don't delete anything
I just stumbled upon this page it if curiosity. I can think for myself. I can see what crazy science and what is not. I can judge the article myself just find. I don't need a bunch of weirdos deleting pages of wikipedia just cause they feel it doesn't match their ideas or professions. At gain... Why are so many people trying to delete an article that takes a few kB of sieve? What are they afraid of? If it's pseudoscience then people will see it as such.. No harm done.. It's an interesting read about real events and real people... It's part of history and shouldn't be deleted just to satisfy a handful of grumpy people.... Otherwise random internet users like me would never have the chance to read this in the future and cast their own judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.23.117 (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Adverse Effects
I withdraw my support for torsion fields products because it seems they are good but they also have adverse effects and many other problems. Userpsy (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience or not
As an affine torsion field is defined as ecuation in ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory ) This article remark as pseudoscientific it really makes no sense! Einstein proved is real. There are no reliable references to sustain pseudoscientific remark of this article! There is no scientifical journal to sustain that remark! This subject dont respect wikipedia rules. According to world renowned scientists: Dr Elizabeth Rauscher (Dr. Rauscher was a nuclear scientist and researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and at Stanford Research Institute, Professor of Physics at John F. Kennedy University of California, research consultant to NASA (space shuttle program) and the U.S. Navy.) and Nassim Haramein from the  Resonance Project, torsion fields power all known rotating objects in the universe from suns and galaxies, to atoms. ( http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_energy08.htm ) ( http://theresonanceproject.org/research.html ) 213.233.103.156 (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed nothing is wrong with this article except that torsion fields devices have US Patent 6548752 and are really effective, they can be bought from anybody as mentioned in ( http://www.torser.info ), especially for experienced admins from wiki wich ignore this personal page from references ( http://humanism.al.ru/en/ ) and also the first references where nobody understand anything!...there is no information about pseudoscience in reliable references.. nothing! How is that possible.. Whats going on with this article..? 213.233.101.63 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Userpsy (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The theories in Einstein-Cartan_theory are not the same as Shipov's theories. The letter written by Dr. Koontz does not mention torsion fields, that was added by the guy who wrote the piece at http:bibliotecapleyades.net That website is just an archival of papers, with no editorial role, as explained in its main page: "Our role is one as simple archivists.". The Resonance Project is a fringe organization trying to promote their fringe version of Unified_Field_Theory. Having a patent doesn't mean that your device works. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Enric Naval your words twist reality and that is wrong! you talk like the best scientist world ever knew but you're not! sorry but maybe someone will fire you because your incompetence! you dont deserve to be paid by Wikipedia! Understand one thing: you cant lie for money..is not healthy! Somehow your group seems to play a dangerous game....i hope everyone will realize soon that is not good or healthy!..this article has nothing to sustain pseudoscientific opinion of Ye. B. Aleksandrov! but this website www.torser.info has everything to sustain Akimov and Shipov work. And please dont tell me that all the countryes in the world conspired for torsion field devices!! Sorry but in this matter you lose big! 213.233.93.182 (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Userpsy (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I would simply add that the first sentence, which implies that torsion science is a pesudoscience, attempts to validate this claim with a false logic, by equating one man, with the whole field of science. As I am pretty sure there are people that have made false claims within quantum mechanics, that logic would make quantum mechanics a pseudoscience. I am sure you can understand why this is false logic but I will illustrate

Premise a) Shipov is a torsion scientist Premise b) Shipov makes one reputedly unscientific claim, that is commented upon. Conclusion = all torsion science is unscientific.

As you can see, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This is a logically flawed connection. In order to show that torsion science is a pseudoscience as a whole, one would need a secondary source, that claims and evidences such at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.224.129.1 (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice of course, if what is called pseudoscience is not because of discrediting (ie social), but indeed disproof, via replication or mathematical proof, rather than presumption. Any current theory is only right till it is proven wrong. That's scientific theory. But I suppose this is wikipedia, and science often wields its biases as strongly as any religion - all the same, its sad to see proclamations of this kind made on the basis of the court of public opinion, or by presumption, rather than the scientific method itself - the latter would be much more compelling, and scientifically vindicating. Just saying.

In general I am not sure the tone of this article is appropriate the the level of proof wikipedia requires (only secondary sources). Using secondary sources is not about academic level proof, scientific consensus or similar. It is instead about intellectually sound interpretations, and rational opinions or collations of evidence. So my admitedly uneducated on the matter of wikipedia take is this - There will be secondary sources citing opposing viewpoints to what is contained here, and this seems to present only one side of the available secondary sources - and that seems again, inappropriate to the level of evidence that wikipedia functions upon, as one cannot justly or fairly prove or disprove with finality or logical strength anything with secondary sources. Given this, I would expect something like a perspective from the secondary sources about its claims and theories, in proof neutral language, and perspective about its possible pseudoscientific status, in proof neutral language. That more balanced perspective is lacking - certainly anything compelling as a proof, in the sources does not seem to justify that bias. And furthermore, its not really clear what this theory is about. I am aware of some far more detailed and mathematical explanations compared to what is on this page. True, or false, those belong on the wikipedia description of said topic.

This may well be total bunk, this science, or parts of it. But even if thats true, I am not to fussed on the wikipedia page. It lacks clear information on the topic, or analysis - it seems rambly and not particularly coherent - some one specialized in knowledge enough to de-tangle physics math and physics principles should really be writing this, someone who has read well on the topic. That's not me, I am a enthusiast of physics, not a physicist, but IMO, there is balance, clarity, cohesion and comprehension lacking here. It seems more a page about disproving or discrediting this supposed science, than about actually describing it. Is wikipedia meant to be a pulpit?

Actually I did some brief research on one N. A. Kozyrev, who while certainly controversial, and demanding a great deal of replication and analysis, I am not sure I can describe as pseudoscience, like quantum healing, or homeopathy. For example: http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Kozyrev/paper1a.txt http://www.rexresearch.com/kozyrev2/5-6.pdf

It might be weird and make outlandish assertions. But it is not hodgepodge nonsense pretending to look like science. And certainly there is a body of work that treats this material as legitimate, even if its miles from the western mainstream. I think from what I have seen, the term pseudoscience "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status." is not accurate for this material. It is testable, disprovable, and it does use the scientific method, even if you disagree with the specific methodology, its strength as evidence, or regard it was incorrect in its conclusions. It's certainly wacky, perhaps often uses small effects, or spurious experimental methods, needing more concrete evidence for conclusion but that doesn't make it unscientific IMO, it just makes it fringe and more theoretical. Just not sure the pseudoscience label is accurate lexicon here. Heck even if we could regard portions of this material as pseudoscience, some of it is very simple and experimental, the questionable aspect is probably more what is associated with the science, broadly, some of the far reaches of it, such as parapsychology, not the core notion of the theory, surrounding torsion etc itself, which is mathematical, and experimental, and at minimum, simply a theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.224.129.1 (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reason for deletion
As there is only one person and his team to sustain pseudoscientific remark with personal pages of non-neutral view and not other scientists, this person: Kruglyakov, Edward P has Multiple personalities and is acused of harassment here: ( http://pub7.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=597981824&frmid=143&msgid=657147&cmd=show ) it is imperative deletion of torsion field article or changed the pseudoscientific label as it is not sustained by respected scientists or group of scientists on the contrary torsion field devices are presented with state of the art technologies around the world. As i see in the article there is the part with placebo effect ... where the citation for that? Why you are inventing stuff only for your article to be better.. if that so it means not only that person Kruglyakov, Edward P has something against torsion field but also one of wikipedia admins who might be an accomplice ... that could be a strong reason for deleting this subject as neutrality is not respected by wikipedia administrators. 213.233.101.63 (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One day — he fights, another day — he wishes to become our ally, on a third day he asks us to slap his face, see the original: From Prof. A.Konkretny: Commission on fight with Fraud in Science, Pseudoscientists and Torsion Fields, etc.
 * Please be bold and make any edits that will make the article better. I really don't think deleting it is a reasonable thing - we have many articles on hoaxes and pseudoscience if they are notable: Steorn, Piltdown man, etc. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That source is a forum post, made by "Marina Lobova", who is apparently "Marina Alexandrovna Lobova". According to Shipov's page, she is the Vice President of the "Thai Russian Association of Technology and Economic Development" . This association has 3 hits in google, 2 are for Shipov's page and 1 is for her bio in a russian page we can see that she CEO of UVITOR "Universal Vacuum and Torsion Solutions" and member of a company that is about "Quantum Medicine, Nanotechnology". This suggest a strong conflict of interest in making torsion field look good, and to make fringe stuff look better. This doesn't look like a reliable source by wikipedia standards. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

this article must be deleted
This article have no reliable sources (all of them are critical in nature) and its written as the bible is... Sorry but how wikipedia administrators ignore this?

Attempts to modify this article were stoped by WikiProject Rational Skepticism as it is mantained by them ... What can be done? since we cant modify the article?

and i really didnt know that in comunism you can make a fraud of 700mil $ .. in your dreams skeptics... just read what comunism meant and then come back and take your pseudoscientifc word deleted ... If russians created pseudoscience ..USA created the Sun after wikipedia... 213.233.93.182 (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comment implies that sources "critical in nature" are automatically not reliable. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry but this article must be deleted as the users above asked for also, it is very simple: all References accepting pseudoscience are from just one person Kruglyakov E.P (Russian Academy of science) in fact is just one man with bad intentions .. and the article presents Torsion Field as not accepted by scientific comunity .. what comunity? says who? Kruglyakov E.P?
 * Sorry but please delete the article...just type torsion field on google is very simple: there are 275.000 sites with reliable top sources and 2 websites(wikipedia with torsionfraud.narod.ru) thats all 2 against 274.998 websites) so i ask again what can be done? 213.233.93.182 (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry i missed this one: 1 page there is no article, 2 personal pages of Kruglyakov E.P and one skeptic page are reliable sources..oh my god:
 * 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTV_(Russia)
 * 2.http://humanism.al.ru/en/articles.phtml?num=000059
 * 5.http://humanism.al.ru/en/articles.phtml?num=000010
 * 12. http://www.skeptik.net/pseudo/torsion1.htm


 * please again delete this article and dont play with people minds or Torsion field article cant exist only like this: it is very simple 1 administrator of wikipedia (because other person wont be allowed to change it) must leave the sources and change the definition ex.: torsion field is not a pseudoscientific (as suggested by humanism.al.ru and skeptics.net) sort of, you have the experience for sure.213.233.93.182 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I would tell you to nominate the article for deletion, but that has been attempted twice, and both times it was closed with "speedy keep".


 * I looked again at the sources in the article. There are sources like a TV report, newspaper articles, and an article in Physics World. I note that the Russian scientist was a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences's "Presidium's Commission to Combat Pseudoscience", and that this commission was created due to the repercussion of torsion field's claims. I suggest that you check the sources again, since some of them are supporting the claim that most scientists dismiss this theory.


 * Regarding your searches in Google, you should read The Google test in "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * TV reports (to many) as stated above show that torsion field devices are good and they are for sale, NASA scientists agree also as you can see above ..i repeat:
 * According to world renowned scientists: Dr Elizabeth Rauscher (Dr. Rauscher was a nuclear scientist and researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and at Stanford Research Institute, Professor of Physics at John F. Kennedy University of California, research consultant to NASA (space shuttle program) and the U.S. Navy.) and Nassim Haramein from the  Resonance Project, torsion fields power all known rotating objects in the universe from suns and galaxies, to atoms.
 * ( http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_energy08.htm )
 * ( http://theresonanceproject.org/research.html )


 * Sources like TV report? where i cant see anything when i click on that link, also newspaper articles where? that link cant be seen (and even if it can just 1?), Russian scientist? who? just one? and it is payed as the chairman of commission against pseudoscience? (its like skeptic chairman) to be against any discovery unless he doesnt get his part?(this is personal) ..that you call reliable? sorry i cant agree with that so i ask again every wikipedia admin what can be done?213.233.93.182 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is about Shipov's claims, it's not about mainstream theories that happen to have similar names. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * similar name? says who? it doesnt matter about who`s claims ... i was refering to not reliable sources for an article written like the best story ever for skeptics and this very negative word "pseudoscience" invented clearly with bad intentions.

So i ask again: what can be done?, and please dont throw that google bait cause we already consumed that.213.233.93.182 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think should be done? It seems pretty clear that this is a notable topic that ought to have an article, so I'm not sure why anyone is asking for its deletion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * indeed is a notable topic since unlimited funds were provided for developing the best technology in the world by KGB, Minister of defence(USSR) before the fall of comunism wich become after 1991 private institution (not exposed as fraud as suggested by one person Ed.Kruglyakov and his collegues after 1990 of course) but deletion is demanded because if someone put torsion field out of Categories: Pseudophysics is not accepted by user:cubbi, WikiProject Rational Skepticism and other wiki admins (supporting probably the creator of the page) although the references for the article and a lot of top reliable links brought on this discussion page are 100% presenting torsion field as not pseudoscientific concept. What can be done and what must be done is keeping all the links from article references as acceptable even those presenting the article as pseudoscientic but urgently removed from Pseudophysics Category and deleted the pseudoscientific label of torsion field article. I didnt thinked how it should look ... but if noone knows how i will involve in reconnection of references and article text definitions (exactly as they are, not as i want or someone else wants) although it will take some time and probably a little help from wiki admins for design because i`m not a proffesional html programer. So?..ok... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In reference to "(...) and a lot of top reliable links brought on this discussion page are 100% presenting torsion field as not pseudoscientific concept", I looked at the links that are currently listed in this talk page, and I didn't see any reliable link. Only stuff from unreliable sources and fringe promoters, who seem to have a conflict of interest in making Shipov's torsion fields look like mainstream. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * HINT: pseudoscience hunt invention for money! they are paid for it! if they dont get a share a conflict emerge.. there you have the conflict.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First: "(...)The group, led by Anatoly Akimov and Gennady Shipov,[3] began the research as the state-sponsored Center for Nontraditional Technologies, but was disbanded in 1991 when their research was exposed as a fraud and an embezzlement of State funding,[2]" Nr. 2 reference says that in fact the only one and that you call reliable source? sorry that is personal(private) page! and is not part of the Russian Academy Of sciences (they are only a group of friends) ..search google and find out..
 * Hint:In 1991, the Soviet Union itself dissolved!!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunism)

or probably the pseudoscience commision dissolved also the Soviet Union? ....hmm


 * and sorry? fringe promoters? where are the arguments for that? please enlight us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Marina Lobova, the author of one of the links, is the Managing Director of a company that deals with "Quantum Medicine". Quantum Medicine is pure fringe bunk-filled pseudoscience. It's a pseudoscientific theory trying to borrow the legitimacy of mainstream quantum theory, in order to promote alternative medicine that is not actually based in any hard science. The raw fact that she lists such @#~@#~#@~#@ in her bio is more than enough proof that she is a promoter of fringe stuff. Her being a CEO of a "torsion field" companies only adds additional proof. I hope I explained myself clearly. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * this article is nonsense have errors and copyright issues involving comercial companies and theyr work. Please delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed.Kruglyakov or his Commission to Combat Pseudoscience is non-existent (but presenting them as academy of sciences unmasking torsion: http://humanism.al.ru/en/articles.phtml?num=000010) and is not to be found on official website of Russian Academy of Science as a commission among the other legal commissions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Academy_of_Sciences or here http://www.ras.ru and nothing also about torsion field from Russian Academy of Sciences websites!
 * To Wikipedia: i repeat this article is nonsense! take actions immediately! Delete this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still not following you; there may be some language issue, but honestly I have trouble keeping up with your rhetorical devices, for example your comments beginning with "Hint" - I'm not sure I'm getting the hint. But in any case, you seem to agree that "indeed is a notable topic" so I think it's pretty clear that deletion is off the table. I'm sure there are a lot of things that could be done to improve the article, so I would suggest focusing on those rather than deletion. Feel free to start another deletion discussion, but the last two failed miserably; I can't imagine another will fare any better. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

commission for fighting pseudo-science hunts inventions for money

 * This commission is not part of Russian Academy of Sciences
 * Shipov`s Torsion field research was not disbanded and will never be (it becomed private) due to the 1991 eastern "revolutions" the Soviet Union itself dissolved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunism)! The ultimate truth is that torsion technology is the best and used by NASA(US), Cern LHC (top European Scientifical Experiments),Russian Research Institute of Space Systems, in one word everyone uses Akimov and Shipov`s work, the only technology provided with unlimited funds from KGB (Russia)!

Torsion field devices are sold all around the world. Visit www.torser.info and you can buy them in health direction with the help of young top researchers (facts are talking, not only words)


 * In 2010 Chairman of the State Duma and Chairman of the Supreme Council of United Russia, Mr. Boris Gryzlov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Gryzlov) gave an online interview (http://www.gazeta.ru/interview/nm/s3337459.shtml) «??????.Ru» “Gazeta.ru”,, where he commented the activities of "RANS" - the Russian Commission on Pseudoscience”.


 * Chairman of the State Duma and Chairman of the Supreme Council of United Russia Party Boris Gryzlov denounced the activities of Commission on Pseudoscience of Russian Academy of Science (lead by ) as obnoxious (‘mrakobesy” Rus.) that work against development of Russia and her advances. He further named the  commission’s scientific  eloquence as  “pearls” (an ironic substitute for an “obscene language” used by Commission to intimidate their opponents),  which fell down below the intellectual level of top class  experts  in science.
 * He got over 6,000 complaints about the Commission’s activities


 * His Statement:

"The commission does not represent any of the legal departments of the Academy. The commission represents just the interests of few academicians, who stuck together as a group. Judging by the “pearls” of their “eloquences”, I may conclude that they do not perform at a level of the highest class professionals."


 * Gryzlov stated about his intention to detach “the commission from the Academy” the false group of scientists (in a few words: send them home, the imaginary commission who asks for money from any new invention and is not in any way part of Russian Academy of Sciences)!
 * I agree with notable topic but not as pseudoscience as you can understand now why!
 * I hope I explained myself clearly also! for you Enric Naval (fan of pseudoscience commission) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Translating via google, gryzlov said


 * "Hello, Mr Gryzlov. Not so long ago, you publicly accused the Russian Academy of Sciences in obscurantism. The reason for this was the existence of the Commission on pseudoscience that flourished in Russia at the state level since before last president (he is also the first president of Russia). If not, RAS, who, in your opinion, should make the authoritative conclusion of the examination of such projects as the "filter" Petrik? How do you evaluate the possibility of bringing you an apology, Russian Academy of Sciences and Russian scientists in your "obscurantism"? "


 * This implies that the Commission is currently part of the Academy.


 * From Skeptical Inquirer: In 2002 the RAS formed a new Committee, the "Commission Against Pseudoscience and the Falsifications of Scientific Studies.".


 * The Russian wikipedia has an article about the commitee. It states that it's part of the RAS and that it even publishes a bulletin. The commission seems to be composed by several RAS members. ru:Комиссия по борьбе с лженаукой и фальсификацией научных исследований (google translation)


 * I am starting to believe that you might not be editing in good faith. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You lie you pay EricNaval! your username will be deleted by Wikipedia administrators for nonsense contribution!
 * Why you have deleted our conversation from your personal discussion page? Are you afraid of your colleagues reactions due to your false contributions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gryzlov:
 * "The commission does not represent any of the legal departments of the Academy. The commission represents just the interests of few academicians, who stuck together as a group. Judging by the “pearls” of their “eloquences”, I may conclude that they do not perform at a level of the highest class professionals."


 * what part of it you dont understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence you're quoting (using, apparently, the edited English translation published on shipov.com ) was spoken by the Russian politician Boris Gryzlov who is attempting to defend his financial support of the pseudoscientific "water filter" created by Viktor Petrik, which was harshly criticized by the commission as well as by all scientists who have spoken on the matter. The "6000 complaints" you're mentioning earlier are actually 6000 comments on LiveJournal, according to the interview. Quoting another newspaper, his verbal attacks on the Academy are "absurd" to an "average educated person". This may actually be worth mentioning on Wikipedia, perhaps in Russian Academy of Sciences, discussing its current political standing. --Cubbi (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The magazine "Science and Life" has a report on Kruglyalov and an interview, listing the commission and various titles and awards he has received from the RAS . Idem for an interview on "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" where he is also listed as chairman of that commission. The New York Times reports on Gryzlov's words, and also talks about the RAS' commission Looks like Gryzlov is trying to undermine the commission because it's criticizing an inventor that he is personally supporting....


 * And the official website of the RAS also list the Commission's bulletin. If you click in "THE STRUCTURE OF THE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES" it has a list of stuff, and then "In addition, the Presidium of the councils are composed of functional character. Among them: (...) The Commission to Combat Pseudoscience and others." . Also in the official website, there is a profile on Kruglyakov, and it lists his position as chairman of the commission (google translation). The name of the commission appears many times in RAS' official website.


 * Also in the official website, a news piece about the commission releasing his Bulletin twice a year:
 * "Among the authors of the bulletin academician, Nobel Prize winner Vitaly Ginzburg, Academician Eduard Kruglyakov (Institute of Nuclear Physics. Budker RAS), Academician Valery Rubakov (Institute for Nuclear Research), academician Vladimir Fortov (Institute for High Energy Densities, Joint Institute for High Temperatures RAS), Professor Eugene Adelman (Saint-Petersburg Chemical-Pharmaceutical Academy) and other outstanding scholars and popularizers of science.".


 * Gryzlov is angry at the commission because they stopped his "Clean Water" plan, which would have been a $500 billion investment (that's 500,000,000,000 dollars, guys. No wonder he is angry). wall street journal article


 * So, no. The commission against pseudoscience is clearly an official RAS commission, the commission members are "outstanding" scientists, and Kruglyakov is an important member of the RAS. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In this days i never trust people with a life style to destroy other people! for exemple all i do every day is thinking how to help others and not getting old by hunting people!
 * Kruglyakov is an impostor! accused of harassment! (of course that is not important for you but for me it is) and I repeat: dont lie again, doesnt matter why Gryzlov is angry, what matter is his statement:
 * "The commission does not represent any of the legal departments of the Academy. The commission represents just the interests of few academicians, who stuck together as a group. Judging by the “pearls” of their “eloquences”, I may conclude that they do not perform at a level of the highest class professionals."


 * Kruglyakov at his age is more active on the internet than Microsoft, FBI and CIA all together! Excuse me isnt this commission suppose to do its job in the specific Institution? extremely suspicious activity as trying to prove things around on the Internet in thousands of articles all by himself and his colleagues!hmm


 * please here is not the court of law...here we talking about hunting people, excuse me but this people make me sick! All i do every day is trying to help but others like Kruglyakov and you user:cubbi and User:Enric Naval are douing a hunting party!

Sorry i cant agree with your lifestyle and opinions but trust me nobody else is!
 * you can keep your article as a comunist one but thats all you are going to have!


 * anyway relax soon negative information will be how wikipedia will be remembered unless your usernames are going to be deleted by wikipedia administrators due to your agressive discussion, non-neutral point of view and negative attitude regarding practical situations presented as fringe and the ultimate Truth! Dont forget non-neutral point of view is what you have and for that you must pay! I ask again Wikipedia to delete usernames with only personal opinions and picky eyes for theyr personal article benefits! as cubbi and Enric Naval. Also please delete torsion field article as nobody (creator of the page and colleagues)have good intentions about it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

suddenly, reliable sources!
Right, let's use article in scientific journals, or academic books, or stuff:


 * negative book review The Theory of Physical Vacuum. Theory, Experiments, and Technologies by G I Shipov, V A Rubakov Physics ± Uspekhi 43 (3) 309 ± 310 (2000)


 * positive paper in conference proceedings, compares Shipov's theories with other theories Gravitation and cosmology: from the Hubble radius to the Planck scale: proceedings of a symposium in honour of the 80th birthday of Jean-Pierre Vigier, Volume 126 de Fundamental theories of physics, Richard L. Amoroso, Jean-Pierre Vigier, illustrated ed., Springer, 2002, ISBN 1402008856, 9781402008856, pages 499-507
 * This could be a suitable English-language source to briefly overview Shipov's theory, for what it's worth (the article specifically compares it side-by-side to Mendel Sachs's). Thanks for the search, Enric. Cubbi (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I can't add it myself. The level is too high for me and I couldn't summarize it correctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * negative book, unsure of reliability of source. "* While the leading physicists admit that very weak torsion fields do exist, they regard the claims made by Shipov and Akimov as fraudulent."Russian studies in philosophy, Volume 45, Editor M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006, footnote in page 81


 * mentions Shipov, can be a source to explain what Shipov is claiming, Integrative biophysics: biophotonics, Fritz Albert Popp, L. V. Belousov, illustrated edition, Springer, 2003, ISBN, 1402011393, 9781402011399, page 75

--Enric Naval (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Skeptical Inquirer plain out labelled Shipov and Asimov as leaders of a fraud...
 * Skeptical Inquirer plain out labels practically everything that undercuts their masters' profits a fraud. They are HARDLY a reliable or unbiased source - rather the Ultimate Biased Observer. -God  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.46.176 (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ok....this 2 links still are negative related to Kruglyakov Skeptical ..article and leading physicists..also 213.233.93.182 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Errrr, you didn't even try to read the sources, didn't you? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * .. i read everything ...i am reffering only to negative paper...Skeptical Inquirer.. dont know why you are mentioning them?...besides the positive ones..since the negative are related only to kruglyakov. But whats going on with your turn to give positive links about torsion field and shipov?!!213.233.93.182 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ok..now what is your point? Enric? 213.233.93.182 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The first negative source is by V.A.Rubakov, a RAS member with his own academical career independent of Kruglyakov. The second negative source is from the journal Russian studies in philosophy, and it's citing Kruglyakov's website (I'm not sure of who is the author of the article). I don't think that they can be described "related only to Kruglyakov". That would only apply if, for example, they were written by him or if they were published in a journal in which he was a member of the editorial board. Is this the case? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * i dont think you are blind, i think you only try to convince yourself that in this world there can be other scientists with the same opinion as kruglyakov...as you wrote: they point to kruglyakov website and as all other internet websites point to him and wikipedia torsion field article...so now we can find everywhere scientists quoting "kruglyakov" work...so: NO COmment! you answered yourself...and V.A.Rubakov a RAS member.. nothing to do with kruglyakov? independent? but in the same branch? sorry you are deceiving yourself again! but this is not so important as reference nr.2 from torsion field article....:


 * please read The torsion swindle has grown and expanded from that time. For unknown reasons Akimov received financing from the Ministry of Science from 1992 to 1995 . In 1996-97 the Ministry of Defense financed Akimov's projects concerning mythical torsion communications channels. It is possible that financing continued further but this is difficult to establish: the work was done secretly.


 * to me it sounds like hell ...conflict between super powers but kruglyakov one old man wins! ... sorry this article is nonsense!
 * so it was exposed as fraud but The Minister of Science was not agree with that..even gaved unlimited money... o yeah...
 * see ..what i mean? i repeat: This article pseudoscientific concept is nonsense!
 * lets say that maybe kruglyakov and shipov are hand in hand only for undercover purpose and made this look like fraud...but still it is not a reason to have this as a valid, reliable source for torsion field article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You imply that we should discard all sources written by members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, because of them being just puppets of Kruglyakov. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly, since they are all related to him and his "work" i dont see any other option... and the puppeteer should be labeled as it is and not as he would like to be seen..213.233.93.182 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I find it unreasonable, and I doubt that you find any support for doing this. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * unreasonable because some evil person works all his life to generate hate around him and hurt people(Ed.K)? and we are going to destroy that? I really belive that technology, especially internet will be the perfect place where evil receive its "payment" exactly as deserved. Still you find that unreasonable but i find very reasonable the contradiction from ref.nr.2 ...what is your reasonable finding? and dont worry about me i have more power and support than it can be seen for the moment, i can guarantee you that this article will not be as it is... if you feel like steping back ..do it..i can handle the situation (i`m not alone)213.233.93.182 (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Enric Naval: are you also a part of Eduard Kruglyakov team or even himself? judjing by your activity and opponence it seems that we have a strong conflict on this page! Please tell who are you?


 * thats why you find it unresonable and thats why you doubt i will find any support? because you are in Ed. Kruglyakov team? haha
 * why didnt you say that in the first time. Just go and sleep, your username will be deleted for not respectig ATACK rule from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Eric Naval fan of pseudoscience dont lie again

 * Now we are not talking anymore about the article ....
 * Leave us alone. Here is not a classroom and you are not the teacher213.233.93.182 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Request: Wikipedia have common-sense or leave the internet world alone

 * please warn simple people with a big banner that your website is not the place where information is the truth!


 * torsion field supporters: dont bother to explain to pseudoscientific wiki admin fans what science means, since they cant have a dialogue but only a monologue! They usually never answer anyone, they just play around beliving "here" means theyr "bedroom" and not a public area.


 * Pseudoscience is not a science (there are only false scientists sometimes gathered as commission for pseudoscience in fact only 1 in the whole world by Ed. Kruglyakov - well known impostor on google). This is from real science encyclopedia and clearly opposed to wikipedia admin general accepted personal opinion ( http://science.jrank.org/pages/10896/Pseudoscience-Scientific-Method.html ):
 * "''The notion that there is a single scientific method that defines science has been severely challenged, especially by historians and sociologists of science."the task of finding a single definition that defines science and separates it from pseudoscience seem impossible."
 * According to Popper, the mark of a scientist is his or her willingness to subject a hypothesis to refutation. Scientific theories are those in which refuting instances can be specified. Pseudoscience, by contrast, is not refutable, since its practitioners (commissions) construct an explanation for any data that seem to contradict their beliefs."''


 * Any other comments on this page about torsion field article as support for pseudoscientific concept are just games, opinions (beliefs) without double-blinded tests to prove ever! Torsion field devices (the best for health) from Shipov (KGB) who is not sharing anything with pricks like Ed. Kruglyakov (commission for pseudo and his colleagues), have double-blinded tests and you can find links or e-mail replyes with all you need on http://www.torser.info also the efficiency is in minutes so facts are talking.


 * From this moment on i urge anyone to leave this page as it is, no more comments since wiki bedroom privacy is disturbed! no offence, just facts. For science leave wikipedia alone and visit science encyclopedia! where gossip is not presented as the truth. Game Over. Torsionfield (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong Reason To Delete Torsion Field Article
All the references related to torsion field pseudoscientific concept are presenting in fact just 1 person activity (and colleagues) named Eduard Kruglyakov (head of Commision for Pseudoscience - not legal as mentioned above by State Duma Chairman) with clealry non-neutral point of view and also very agressive and imaginary attitude more like working for newspapers than science.

From Skeptical Inquirer: In 2002 the RAS formed a new Committee, the "Commission Against Pseudoscience and the Falsifications of Scientific Studies.

If The Commission Against Pseudoscience and the Falsifications of Scientific Studies was formed in 2002 who exposed as fraud Shipov Research?

So?

The group, led by Anatoly Akimov and Gennady Shipov,[3] began the research as the state-sponsored Center for Nontraditional Technologies, but was disbanded in 1991 when their research was exposed as a fraud and an embezzlement of State funding has this reference: http://humanism.al.ru/en/articles.phtml?num=000010 wich not says anything about someone exposing as fraud for real just words..words! in fact only mentions the word fraud!! and after that: ''the torsion swindle has grown and expanded from that time. For unknown reasons Akimov received financing from the Ministry of Science from 1992 to 1995. In 1996-97 the Ministry of Defense financed Akimov's projects concerning mythical torsion communications channels. It is possible that financing continued further but this is difficult to establish: the work was done secretly.''

Sorry it is fraud but The minister of defence and the minister of science gaved money again after 1991 Oh my god... is fraud or not? please delete this article as is clearly nonsense!

So? user:cubbi ...its your article explain us about torsion fields "exposed as fraud in 1991 but financed By Russian Ministry of Defense (KGB) and Ministry of Science all the time after 1991" ..we really dont understand..fraud but not fraud..maybe because In 1991, the Soviet Union itself dissolved!!! but not by fraud! whats going on?" contact me: torsionfield@yahoo.com

213.233.93.182 (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Commission For Pseudoscience led by an impostor: Ed. Kruglyakov created torsion field article
Any arguments brought against unreliable sources from torsion field article regarding pseudoscientific concept are willingly ignored since it is in strong conflict with the activity of known old man impostor Eduard Kruglyakov (head of Pseudoscience).Atack rule from wikipedia is not respected by anybody here. This article is nonsense.It must be deleted.


 * user:cubbi are you even aware of your atack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Userpsy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Outside Input
Hello, just some outsider input. I have a USA high school diploma, and I am currently in my freshman year in college studying Computer Networking. So I guess by those credentials, I am an average individual. I had a look at the article, and to say, I am more confused about what exactly is a "Torsion Field". From what I gather from in the description, its basically a particles spinning a contained space, sort of like a nuclear fission reaction, but 10 to the 9th power faster then the speed of light? Since I can not read Russian to review the source of evidence, it is nearly impossible that an outsider could read this without saying "Bull Feces!."

The Scam section of the article fails to describe anything other then what funding the researchers in this field had received. How is this a scam? Although the content of the article makes me want to believe its a shoddy theory, please clarify.

As for the talk page here from the supporter attempting to have this page deleted because of "censorship" and that its an "attack on humanity and companies", wouldn't removing sourced criticism here be censorship itself? As I cannot speak for all humanity, I find the concept interesting and if it is real, then I think that yes... I suppose humanity would benefit. But for now, I am still here, and I don't think that criticism of the subject would affect my health, nor the company I work for, which has been around for quite awhile. And I have not heard anything that could be said from one's mouth that would make the world end for humanity as we know it. Phearson (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: withdrawn, disambig page created instead. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Torsion field (pseudoscience) → Torsion field
 * This subject seems to be the primary topic for the term. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Wasn't it "Torsion field" before the latest move? Phearson (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think it should go back to Torsion field. I'm opening a discussion rather than just reverting. Does that make sense? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We need to make it clear in the name that it is a pseudoscience, to distinguish from genuine things associated with various sorts of torsion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems contrary to our article naming guidelines; we usually don't label scams/hoaxes/pseudoscience as such in the title; please take a look at Category:Pseudoscience. In any case, though, would you object to Torsion field redirecting here instead of Torsion tensor as it does now? ie, do you agree that this subject is the primary topic for the label "Torsion field"? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Appleyard. We only need to distinguish it from other types of "torsion field". So, I ask, are there are other types of notable torsion fields that need being distinguished from this one? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hummmmmm, in the google search linked by Steve, I can see this article appearing at the top. I think that a disambiguation page would serve our readers better. I am making a proposal. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It is much more likely to encounter the pseudoscientific use of 'torsion field' than the differential geometry concept, based on any search engine results. If the tensor topic is sufficiently notable, a diambig page may be warranted. --Cubbi (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the real world outside the niche world of internet crackpots, it is by far more likely that a person looking for "torsion field" is looking for a torsion tensor field. This can be backed by searching for "torsion field" on google scholar.TR 05:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think scholar searches demonstrate something different - that torsion tensors are a lot more scholarly. The question is not which subject is legitimate. The question is what are people looking for when they visit Torsion field. Google scholar will yield a biased answer to that question, because it will prefer to show you peer reviewed research, and that tends to not be crackpot garbage. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But isn't Wikipedia supposed to be based on reliable sources rather than "crackpot garbage"?  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the content should be supported by reliable sources, but not necessarily peer-reviewed journals. The question of what subject gets what title is based on the question of what are people most likely to be looking for when they use that title. It is not based on the question of what subject is covered most by peer reviewed journals in particular. In this case, the pseudoscience subject gets a lot of coverage in reliable sources that are not peer reviewed journals and hence do not show up in scholar searches. You have to consider these issues if you want to use search engines to determine primacy. Google scholar searches simply can not be used to demonstrate that a legitimate scholarly subject is the primary topic over a crackpot pseudoscience one. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, articles about physics do not need to be supported by peer reviewed literature anymore? That seems a little questionable to me.  Your argument seems to be very much against the spirit of WP:FRINGE, which attests: "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea."   In this case, the mainstream idea (torsion tensor) is what you are arguing is secondary to the fringe idea (torsion field (pseudoscience)).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we are talking about two different subjects: mathematics and physics. In mathematics, there is a torsion tensor in certain kinds of manifolds &mdash; this is the scientific topic. In physics, there is no torsion tensor (at the level of gravity theory anyway) &mdash; so the theory that there is one is pseudoscience. In physics this would trump (in importance) the mathematical issue. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused about the distinction between pseudoscience and speculative science. Well-established non-metric theories of gravitation are speculative science, but not pseudoscience.  In the present case, there are well-established physically relevant gauge theories that require a non-vanishing torsion tensor.  Einstein-Cartan theory is perhaps the most famous example (and it is a theory of gravitation).  Some of the Google scholar hits here seem even less speculative.  There is nothing pseudoscientific about these gauge theories. See also many physicists discussing the "torsion tensor" here.  The pseudoscience only gets involved when you consider claims of a few Russian crackpots that "torsion fields" can be used to do everything from curing cancer to communicating across interstellar distances at superluminal speeds.  It's pretty clear that this is completely separate from torsion fields as they appear mainstream physics.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For a theory to be scientific, it must make testable predictions, be consistent with known facts (no clearly false predictions), and have some evidence in favor of it (correct predictions, not otherwise available). Mere wild speculation, even if done by professional physicists, is at best a mathematical theory, not a scientific theory about the world in which we live. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call Einstein-Cartan theory "wild speculation". It's a gauge theory that takes both gravitation and spin into account.  Gravitation and spin are both well-verified phenomena, and so there should be an underlying gauge theory from the point of view of modern physics.  EC theory predicts nonvanishing torsion (but the torsion could be quite small): this is in principle detectable.  Maybe it has been ruled out as inconsistent with more recent observations, I don't know.  There are probably objections to the theory that we don't know about, neither of us being real physicists.  But that doesn't demote it from a physical theory to just a mathematical one.  If you want to take aim at a theory that claims to be physics, but makes no concrete predictions, check out string theory, by the way, which is regarded by some physicists as the cutting edge of theoretical physics.  So this argument of what is and what is not physics really doesn't resonate with how things seem to be done in the theoretical physics community these days.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it's sort of irrelevant whether research into torsion fields counts as mathematics or physics. The point is that high quality journals have published research on torsion fields (qua torsion tensors). Whether you want to call these "physics", "mathematics", or "cheese" doesn't have any bearing on that question.  Moreover, regardless of whether the observation that "a gauge theory that includes spin and gravitation must have nonvanishing torsion" counts as physics or mathematics, it's certainly not "pseudoscience" on the one hand, and it's also not "wild speculation" on the other.  I believe it's a theorem.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "So, articles about physics do not need to be supported by peer reviewed literature anymore?" - Absolutely; they never did. eg. Steorn. Of course, an article about a legitimate subject in physics would be pretty lame without references to peer-reviewed literature. But for a completely bogus "physics" subject, no, we do not need any sources in peer reviewed literature. Significant coverage in some kind of reliable source - perhaps a news article describing how popular some bogus thing is and saying "physicists have dismissed its claims as pseudo-scientific nonsense" (to quote one of the sources in this article). That would be fine. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Your argument seems to be very much against the spirit of WP:FRINGE"... No, that would be if half of torsion tensor was discussing the crap in Torsion field (pseudoscience). That would be what wp:FRINGE addresses. That isn't happening. wp:FRINGE says: "More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability." I'm saying the "fringe idea" is the primary topic of the term "torsion field". Now - if I'm wrong about that, and I very well might be, then this move request should fail. If I'm right, then it should not, according to my understanding of our community-consensus guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "In this case, the mainstream idea (torsion tensor) is what you are arguing is secondary to the fringe idea" - Again, no. I'm not arguing that it is secondary in importance or anything of the sort. I'm just asserting that it is not what people usually mean when they say "torsion field". They mean the garbage at this article. Do a (non-scholar) google search; it is pretty overwhelming, as far as I can tell. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your assertion that people usually mean "the garbage at this article" when they talk about a torsion field is wrong. A standard google search is not really representative of usage in the real world. Crackpottery is a phenomenon that has taken its roots in the internet. There maybe whole internetfora dedicated to some fringe phenomenon, this leaves a huge foot print on google, but in reality there may only be a few hunderd or thousand people that have heard of something.
 * As a result google is not a good indicator for real world usage. Google books is a better indicator, although it indicates what is published rather than what gets read. Scholar, gives a better indication of what gets read, because it sorts on number of citations, but restricts to the academic world.TR 11:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Google is often a wildly inaccurate indicator of prominence to the point that uncritical quoting of google search results has become downright destructive to the project. Google books indexes books that are not considered to be reliable sources.  It indexes self-published books, vanity presses, dubious publishers with no peer review, etc.  I have looked through some of the Google books hits for "torsion field", and all of the crackpot sources that I examined were from such publishers, whereas more well known publishers focused on the other notion.  A full-text search of an actual print library shows that "torsion field" refers almost exclusively to "torsion tensor".   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose move/rename, but support making Torsion field a disambig based on comparable coverage on google books. I don't think either topic qualifies as a primary topic. --Steve (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. A Google search for “torsion field” seems to show that, at the least on the Internet, the phrase is more commonly used for the crackpottish meaning, so I guess that's what someone typing it in the search box is most likely looking for. (The only people who would actually be looking for the article about torsion tensors are those studying, or at least with a vague interest in, differential geometry, which I guess would comprise less than 0.1% of the population, and most of them would likely type “torsion tensor” not “torsion field” in the search box. At least among Wikipedia readers, I'd guess that the proportion of those who have heard some babble about the concept proposed by Akimov and Shipov, and want to know more about their claims and whether they're recognized by mainstream science, to be higher than that. Right now, people typing “torsion field” are redirected to torsion tensor without being given a clue that the concept they have heard BS about is not this one and that Wikipedia also has an article about the latter.) But it should have a hatnote such as so that it's immediately obvious to the reader where they got, in case they were actually looking for the torsion tensor. A disambiguation page is overkill for titles which can only have two possible meanings, such as this one: hatnotes suffice for that. --A. di M. (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC) (support struck out at 09:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC), see below)
 * In Torsion field I posted a disambiguation page with 3 items, please check that they are correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The new disambiguation looks fine, so I'm striking out my support. ― A. di M.​plé ​dréachtaí 09:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal of disambiguation page
Torsion field can refer to:
 * Torsion field (pseudoscience), a theory proposed by Russian scientists.
 * The field created by a torsion tensor in differential geometry.

We just need one more entry to justify a disambiguation page. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There already is a disambiguation page at Torsion, although it should probably be modified to feature this article more prominently. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But this a disambiguation page for "torsion field", a different search term that readers could be searching for. The redirect simply dumps the readers into torsion tensor with no explanation of why he is being sent there, which is less than optimal. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For the third disambiguation link I would weakly suggest "The field used in Einstein–Cartan theory and other alternatives to general relativity that involve torsion of spacetime" - this would bridge the in-your-face pseudoscience of this article with the geometric meaning, covering the full spectrum of meanings for this search term. OR Torsion field could simply redirect to Torsion which now lists both disambiguation options. --Cubbi (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect "Torsion field" to Torsion as a R from partial disambiguation . 65.93.12.101 (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hum, I took a look at Category:Redirects_from_incomplete_disambiguations. To bear this template, the page should be called "Torsion (field)"? Anyways, this doesn't make sense, because then "Torsion field (pseudoscience)" doesn't have a main topic at "Torsion field". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't have to create a disambiguation page at every single variant, since you can merge disambiguation pages. As the pseudoscience article is not primary topic, there's no reason why "Torsion field" cannot redirect elsewhere like any other primary name redirect where a subsidiary name is used for a non-primary topic article. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support any of these suggestions (make torsion field a disambig with 2 or 3 entries, or redirect torsion field to the disambig page torsion). I have no preference, any of those ideas would be perfectly appropriate. :-) --Steve (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'm fine with either of these, as well. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I should clarify - because as far as I can tell this is the overwhelming primary topic, our guidelines make it pretty clear that this page should move back to torsion field. But if these disambiguation pages are set up, then, while still not in line with our guidelines, at least as a practical matter much of the harm will be mitigated. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I support either creating a disambiguation page or redirecting to Torsion.  Cubbi's idea for a third disambiguation entry also sounds reasonable to me, even though in EC theory, the torsion field is the torsion tensor.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment If this proposal is not carried out, then someone needs to finish the move: move the subpages, fix all the links that used to point here and now completely erroneously take users to torsion tensor, etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Question Wrt pointing torsion field to a disambiguation page: can someone please make a case that this article is not the primary topic? Doing a (non-scholar, of course) google search, I am having trouble finding anything about torsion tensors or anything legitimate (except, of course) in the first few pages. I'd feel a lot better about this proposal failing if someone can respond to that. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here's the story: Torsion fields are a subject that is firmly within mainstream physics.  Some Russian charlatans then made all kinds of outlandish claims about them that got lots of loony crackpot press.  It seems pretty clear to me which of these is the primary notion.  But, at any rate, a disambiguation page should settle all dispute.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was swayed by the google books search, which is half-and-half. In my opinion, google is skewed towards crackpots, google scholar is skewed towards scientists, but google books is a pretty even-handed reflection of the real world! :-) --Steve (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even google books is skewed towards crackpots, since it doesn't really distinguish between bestsellers and print-on-demands that never get sold. Crackpots are fervent self-publishers, producing lots of books that nobody wants. Google books results also show these (although the result is less skewed than an normal google search).
 * If you would do a street survey asking random people if they know about torsion fields, I recon the results may be something like this: 99%: what? .9% You mean torsion tensor fields? .1% Yes, they will cure cancer!.TR 05:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 0.9%? Really? My hometown has about 45,000 inhabitants, so assuming it is in the ballpark of being representative of the population of Wikipedia readers, that would mean about four hundred people having heard of torsion tensors. That doesn't even sounds like within one order of magnitude from being correct. (I'm assuming that the only people having a non-negligible chance of having heard about them are those who have studied maths or physics in university for more than about three years.) --A. di M. (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK; thanks everyone. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I'm going to go ahead and write a disambiguation page in Torsion field, but I'll place the mainstream items as the first items, and the pseudoscience as the last item. Any suggestion before I do it? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "The field created by a torsion tensor in differential geometry." is gibberish. The statement makes no sense at all. What people call the torsion tensor is a tensor field, as such people will also refer to it as the torsion field. A torsion tensor does not create a field, it is a field.TR 11:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The second bullet point is now better without the pleonasm. I feel a little awkward that the first bullet point doesn't really convey a sense of it.  It's a wacky theory, if it's a theory at all, but there may not be a way to say this neutrally.  Presumably the title of the article is already a clue.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ( I forgot to move the pseudoscience item to the bottom! ) Yes, that should be a clue. I think that it would be redundant to write "Torsion field (pseudoscience), a pseudoscientific theory ..." --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that's good. I still think the last bullet may not be the ideal, but that's a minor quibble. I'm open to different wording, but this is good enough for me. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I am posting the disambiguation now in Torsion field. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the new dab, especially with A. di M.'s modifications. Cheers, Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. The DAB should stay at Torsion field. The conflict between Google search and Google scholar (see above) shows that there is no primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing support Given the analysis and discussion here I'm pretty happy with the disambiguation pages. I won't close the RM, though, because there is still one support. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

user:cubbi please explain us your article neutrality as main editor
First: what is your relation with RAS and/or Kruglyakov P....since you are a PhD in Chemistry, June 2002 Moscow State University?

user:cubbi for almost 4 years you have only monologue and not able to have a dialogue, also not answered some questiones or in a logical manner any questione here on discussion page, other experienced users copyed your attitude and sustained your actions! I wonder why... Please explain us your neutral point of view in this article and bring some arguments ...as in the article definition i can not find! All i see is Russian Academy of Science pseudoscience point of view wich you are presenting it as the truth although Russian Minister of Defence and Minister of Science didnt agree with Russian Academy of Science pseudoscience group led by Kruglyakov who is also directly involved in asking money from Shipov for this inventions!! Cubbi: in your opinion RAS is the supreme truth? Enlight us please...

PLease also read WP:NPOV. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. That means you didnt care about the five "pillars" of wikipedia!

Of course everybody understand in this article that shipov`s theory and products are labeled as pseudoscience because one man and his employers from Russian Academy of Science says so...but here we must not take sides! It seems that you support Russian Academy of Science instead Minister of Defence and Minister of Sciences ..can you explain us why you made that choice since 2007? Thank you.213.233.93.142 (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Userpsy (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Focus on the content. Not the contributor. Either make substantial changes that are backed by appropriate sources, or leave it alone. Phearson (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In case the voting result conflicts with Wikipedia's policy...
What we got to do then? Here, voting on failed move requests obviously conflicts with Wikipedia's naming guidelines. I therefore propose to move it anyway. 216.58.66.164 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Here is Wikipedia policy/guildline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles. 216.58.66.164 (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why exactly should it be moved? What should it be moved to? Please be more explicit than you think you need to be, and remember that neutrality didn't seem to be an issue at all at the last move discussion. Thank you, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Torsion field (pseudoscience) → Torsion field, because the word pseudoscience is the judgement which shall be the result of the article. Put it on the title, it is a label. 216.58.66.164 (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble understanding you. You say "put it on the title, it is a label"—but "pseudoscience" is on the title already, so you can't mean that?  I have no idea what you mean by "it" here.  Or do you mean "If you put it on the title then it becomes a label"?  To your other point, yes, pseudoscience is a judgment.  But it is one that is backed up by reliable sources, so that is ok that it is a judgment.  This is not a problem.  But still, it may not be the best disambiguator.  Can you think of a better one? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 05:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What about Torsion field (Akimov-Shipov)? To your other point, I think "reliable sources" is also a judgment. 216.58.66.164 (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding "(Akimov–Shipov)" you might try a move request. Regarding the judgment of what is a reliable source—sure, we try to use this guideline.  You can argue here about how to apply that guideline or argue at that guideline that it ought to be changed. Regards, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 07:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Torsion field is (correctly) a disambiguation page, so moving this page here is not an option. What alternative disambiguator, ie Torsion field (disambiguator) do you suggest? VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for point out. It appears we do not need to keep two disambiguation articles: Torsion (disambiguation) and Torsion field (disambiguation). Can we simply merge Torsion field (disambiguation) into Torsion (disambiguation)? 216.58.66.164 (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Contents of Torsion field (disambiguation) had been copied into Torsion (disambiguation). We shall free to use title Torsion field now. 216.58.66.164 (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that everyone (else) seems to agree that torsion field ought to be a disambiguation page, since no one topic is so clearly the "main" topic of the term "torsion field". So this article can not be at torsion field.  Does that make sense? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 05:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does make sense. I agree with you. 216.58.66.164 (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

But isn't this theory falsifiable? And if it is, how can it be considered pseudoscience _as a theory_. Surely the way many talk about it is pseudoscientific, but as a theory itself, it does not match the features of pseudoscience even according to wiki's own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.85.183 (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)