User talk:InfiniteSheldon

I have added a couple of recent references that support the picture presented by Meir. If you think that the issue is "controversial", please give specific recent references that claim so.

There are many different views, one of them is that 0.7 is caused by spin polarization. If you want a recent publication, there is a comment from Adam Micolich (one of the leading experts on the 0.7 anomaly) in Nature Physics 9,530, which comments on the paper Iqbal et al (501,79) and on Bauer et al Nature (501,73). The former suports the Kondo picture, the latter supports the view or that was originally proposed by Sloggett et al. (The European Physical Journal B, 2008, 61, 427).

Perhaps the current phrasing would be more acceptable ? I do not think a subject should be avoided if there is a controversy, as long as it is clear what evidence exists. We will not eliminate "evolution" from wikipedia, just because some people would claim it is controversial. This has to be judged upon facts.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeliIPS (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

this is true, however as i said before, this should not discussed on Meirs wikipedia entry. If the subject is important, there should be an article about the 0.7-anomaly, which discusses all aspects.

You are welcome to do that. My job description here at the Israel Physical Society is to write wikipedia pages on Israeli scientists. These have to reflect the facts, and not religious beliefs. If any of what is said in this particular article is incorrect, you are welcome to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeliIPS (talk • contribs) 00:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

that is in fact what i did! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.81.158 (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)