User talk:Optics buddy

Hello, Optics buddy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

Welcome!
Hello, Optics buddy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Noise figure did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Introduction to referencing
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Constant314 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits in Noise figure appear to be your own conclusions. If so, that would be original research (WP:OR) or synthesis (WP:SYN) which is not allowed.  The only material allowed in Wikipedia is material that has been paraphrased from reliable sources (WP:RS).  Even if you think that your conclusions are obvious based on information found in reliable sources, it is still not allowed unless the conclusion itself is stated in and paraphrased from reliable sources.  I apologize if I have misinterpreted your additions. Constant314 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Constant314, thank you for your hints! All material I have added is entirely contained in the also-added citations, namely 1 book by author Desurvire, 2 citations from author H.A. Haus and in particular 2 citations from author R. Noe. All these have been reviewed scientifically. I have made the sources of section material clear now by giving the citations already at the beginning of the sections. I can send you the 4 original papers as far as you cannot access them yourself. Then, if you doubt that certain (or all) statements are contained in the citations please tell me these and I will point out to you where in the citations these statements are contained. As far as citations imply that other citations are wrong the newer, scientifically reviewed citations of R. Noe, which so far have not been challenged scientifically, have precedence, just like in other conflicting statements ("earth is a disk" in old times vs. "earth is a sphere" in newer times) the newer one has precedence. Optics buddy (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning the accuracy of your material or the integrity of the sources. However, there are some possible Wikipedia policy issues.  Material that goes into Wikipedia needs to be verifiable (WP:V) and notable (WP:NOTABLE).  Verifiability is easy.  You point to a reliable source (WP:RS) and show that the material was paraphrased from that source.  Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, like a book, or a survey article in a respected academic journal.  The book by Desurvire meets the requirements.  Anything you paraphrase out of that can be considered verifiable.
 * All your other sources are primary sources. Those are less desirable.  These sources can be reliable for some facts while being unreliable for other facts.  Typically, the reference goes like this:  Author, X, said fact, Y, in journal Z.  If Z is reliable, then this statement is a reliable source for "X said Y", but it is generally reliable for Y being correct.  X might be wrong about Y.  Furthermore, even if Y is correct, it might not be notable.  If fact Y were to appear in a secondary source, then we would at least have the author of the secondary source taking a second look at Y and there is a good chance that fact Y appears widely in the literature.
 * I should point out that notable and important do not mean the same thing. Notability is established by widespread acceptance in the literature.  Appearance in a primary source or even a dozen primary sources does not establish notability.  Almost everything that you have added has questionable notability. Constant314 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Constant314, I understand your formal problems. But "earth is flat", "witches exist" etc. was written in many secondary, reliable sources and yet was wrong. [8]=Haus1998 and [11]=Haus2000 challenged [7]=Desurvire1994. Plainly speaking, [8][11] make clear in polite words that the noise figure definition Fpnf in [7] is rubbish. [11] was an Invited Paper in a respected academic Journal, which I believe you consider as a secondary source. So it seems reliable [11] that the reliable [7] is unreliable. [11] is in conflict with [8] because in these two, Ffas is defined differently. If you assume both [8][11] to be correct then you can show 1 = 0, which of course is wrong. So, one of [8][11] must be wrong. Fpnf [7], Fase [8][11], Ffas [8][11] have an optimum noise figure value of 2 for an ideal amplifier. But it is known from probably hundreds of reliable sources since the 1960s or earlier and until today that for an ideal amplifier the optimum noise figure value equals 1. So, even before [7][8][11] were written they were challenged by essentially all electrical engineers and physicists. Furthermore, [8][11] contain no derivations of Fase, Ffas. No receivers for which these should apply are clearly defined and physically described. Instead, expressions are stated and one is left to believe that these are correct. Hence [8][11] themselves are not verifiable. If any of [7][8][11] were correct then hundreds of reliable sources would be wrong. Indeed also Ffas, Fase in [8][11] are not correct. This has been brought up in [9]=Noe2022 and [10]=NoeNF2023. Derivations and a concrete receiver structure are contained in [9][10], other than in [8][11]. (Note that [9][10] also challenge [7] and agree in so far with [8][11].) Optics buddy (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. I know where you are coming from; I used to make the same arguments.  But you see, Wikipedia is simple.  If it isn't paraphrased from a reliable source, it doesn't make the cut.  If it is not notable, it doesn't make the cut.  This is policy. Constant314 (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanations, Constant314.
 * Reliable notable sources [7][11], and also [8], say that the minimum noise figure (NF) equals 2. Hundreds of other reliable notable sources including [1]-[6], and also [9][10], say that the minimum NF equals 1. Reliable notable sources from both groups are in widespread use. If I understood correctly:
 * Wikipedia must cite/paraphrase both source groups and present their respective contents as true facts NF = 2 and NF = 1. This means 2 = 1. Even if 2 = 1 is not explicitly stated, the presentation of NF = 2 and NF = 1 as true facts will cause any reader to recognize the Wikipedia article as faulty. Hence one of the groups must be declared as wrong or be eliminated. But at the same time this group is reliable and notable, therefore is correct by definition, cannot be wrong and must be kept. It cannot be eliminated and be kept simultaneously. It cannot be wrong and not wrong simultaneously.
 * The same problem exists between [7] and [11]=Haus2000. Author Haus has, as cited in [8][11], standardized the noise figure in the 1960s. This means he was the reliable notable source for hundreds of reliable notable sources including [1]-[6]. Furthermore [11] was invited in a high-reputation Journal. It is out of question that [11] is to be considered by Wikipedia as reliable and notable. Now we have [7] which says Fpnf is the correct optical NF, and [11] which says Fpnf is not the correct optical NF. Both sources are reliable and notable. If I understood correctly:
 * Wikipedia must hence cite/paraphrase [7] and [11] and present their respective contents "Fpnf is NF" and "Fpnf is not NF" as true facts. This will cause any reader to recognize the Wikipedia article as faulty. Hence one of [7][11] must be declared as wrong in this respect or be eliminated. But at the same time that source is reliable and notable, therefore is correct by definition, cannot be wrong and must be kept. It cannot be eliminated and be kept simultaneously. It cannot be wrong and not wrong simultaneously.
 * It is not clear to me what you actually intend. Eliminate all optical NF? That is against policy because the NF definition never excluded optical frequencies and optical NF is in wide use. Eliminate all optical NF except [7]? That is against policy because reliable notable [11] says that [7] is wrong. To me the solution seems to lie in presenting history [7][8][11] and latest scientific findings [9][10]. I have found a policy/rule which permits this in spite of policies/rules: Wikipedia:List of policies - Wikipedia "If a rule prevents you from improving ... Wikipedia, ignore it." Wikipedia:Five pillars - Wikipedia Wikipedia has no firm rules.
 * Optics buddy (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding material to Wikipedia that is not verifiable or not notable is not an improvement to Wikipedia.
 * I do not propose eliminating optical NF. Anything from Desurvire is fine.  Haus is a primary source.  The fact that a paper was invited does not change that.
 * Haus is a reliable source for stating "Haus challenged Desurvire's definition," but it is not a reliable source for "Desurvire's definition is rubbish." See the difference?
 * Your discussion about 1=2 is a strawman. We can use logical arguments for exclusion of material from Wikipedia but not for inclusion.  The only argument for inclusion is that it appears in reliable sources.
 * As a compromise, could you rewrite the material due to Haus and Noe as proposed alternate definitions? Constant314 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not at all propose to write the word "rubbish" into Wikipedia. Fpnf is not rubbish.
 * [7] refers to the NF definition by Haus (in the 1960s, cited in [8][11]). Haus was world's #1 expert on NF. So, [7] is not verifiable without Haus. But in [7], Haus' work was unfortunately misinterpreted. Haus got aware of this, complained in [8][11] and wrote that, based on the 1960s work which made Haus famous, Fpnf [7] was invalid or unusable or inappropriate or similar. This means: Since 1999, [7] is no longer verifiable, no longer reliable.
 * The current situation is similar to this:
 * - A publishes "x=y" in a secondary source. A is world's #1 mathematician.
 * - B publishes "1=0" in a secondary source, referring to A. He "proves" it according to https://math.hmc.edu/funfacts/one-equals-zero/. He concludes that "1=0" is proven from A.
 * - A gets aware of this, complains that B has divided by 0, and publishes "1=0 is wrong" in an invited paper.
 * Wikipedia says "1=0" is true because it is from a reliable source, and "1=0 is wrong" is just a claim from an unreliable source. Adding "1=0 is wrong" in Wikipedia to the existing "1=0" would not be an improvement. It does not count that A is world's #1 mathematician and was invited when he concluded "1=0 is wrong". Not at all would A be reliable for concluding "1=0 is wrong". Yet, as a compromise the alternate claim "1=0 is wrong" may be added to the reliable "1=0".
 * You may argue: "Everyone who reads his early school books knows that he must not divide by 0." I answer: "Everyone who reads the cited literature knows that Fpnf, Fase do not fulfill mandatory conditions of NF and hence are no optical NF and that Ffas refers to an unspecified special case. I have taken the 1=0 example only to save you the reading effort."
 * You may replace
 * "x=y" by "earth is a sphere",
 * "1=0" by "earth is a disk" and
 * "1=0 is wrong" by "earth is not a disk".
 * As a first step I have removed the "Unified noise figure" section and one sentence of the "Optical noise figure" section. Optics buddy (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is more resilient than that. If there are competing claims in reliable sources, then it is resolved by a consensus. If there is no consensus, then both claims may be excluded or included, noting that they do conflict.  On the talk page of the article, you would be welcome to marshal all sorts of logical arguments as a reason to exclude one point of view or the other.
 * There is an asymmetry in this process. It is much easier to remove material than it is to add material.  If you think that the material attributed to Desurvire is incorrect, then please remove it.  You will not get any argument from me.
 * If you think that the formula from Desurvire should remain, but is not completely accurate, you can add a note that the accuracy of the formula has been disputed in subsequent academic publications. Those primary sources are Wikipedia reliable for that fact. Constant314 (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think that the formula from Desurvire should remain, but is not completely accurate, you can add a note that the accuracy of the formula has been disputed in subsequent academic publications. Those primary sources are Wikipedia reliable for that fact. Constant314 (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)