Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification theory (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete and redirect to Grand unification theory (and salt). Krimpet (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unification theory (2nd nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Pseudoscience (looks reasonable at first - but read the later parts!); no references; probably contains Original Research. Note: A page having the same title as this one was previously nominated for deletion; the result of that previous discussion was delete. greenrd 09:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing Admin this AfD has been notified at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pseudoscience as a stereotypical pseudoscience, this project intent is to remove alleged Pseudoscience articles from wikipedia Gnangarra 03:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, no. The point of the notification is that it is quite clearly under the purview of the project, and thus many of the people watching the project's pages will be interested in the AfD. This includes both skeptics and supporters of things like these; it also includes both those who believe it is notable and those who believe it is not. My comment that it is stereotypical pseudoscience says nothing about the notability or verifiability, and thus nothing about whether the article should actually be deleted. This also isn't the right place to discuss this issue. --Philosophus T 04:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to readers: Lengthy discussion of the merits of the article have been moved to the talk page. --Philosophus T 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * keep it. Article in progress, be patient. im recruiting other system scientists to complete info and references. Wonder how to access the original one. Most info are available in the work of the leading general system scientists of today, which gathered last year at the 50th anniversary of the isss.org: http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings50th/issue/current notably Mr. troncale from pomona university and mr. Sancho from barcelona university, preceded mainly by the work of prygorine on the 2 time arrows of the universe. The end might be messy i was working all night, but it is part of a growing alternative approach to unification theory with 50 years of tradition. None is original research certainly not mine. I wish that!
 * General system theory is not pseudo science, and physicists are not the only scientists looking for answers. It deserves a place in wikipedia in the 2 common names we use: General System theories and Unification theories. If some people dont like General system theories is perfectly ok. Others dont like string theory for lack of proves but none would erase those articles. Please be serious about it. Give it a chance... I suggest to erase the oparts i did with low quality and let system scientists during the next year to improve it and complete it, ill take care of that (sortry i ddint do that the first time forgot about it, but it lasted a year, and so i thnk people are interested). This time promise to do my home work, just give me a couple of weeks ok? i work hard during the week and have also to learn the drill of this system. sorry for the errors, think on the essence.
 * The search of truth is a common quest and certainly doesnt not belong to physicists in this case till the right equations and logic thoughts are fully proved, in any theory from string theory to general system unification ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.41.234.125 (talk • contribs)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- Pete.Hurd 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete or Redirect to Systems theory, which describes GST (aka Unification theory).  This article is poorly written, unsourced, and takes a  pseudoscientific approach to the topic. --Work permit 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Grand unification theory or unified field theory. This article is nonsense.  Someguy1221 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think redirecting Unification Theory to the cites you mention is somewhat misleading (and degrading to real science). "Unification Theory" was a pseudoscienctific application of  General Systems Theory that I remember made the rounds a few decades back. It was seperate and distinct from unified field theory, which is of course real science.--Work permit 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think it's degrading if all content within this article is deleted.  No merging.  Someguy1221 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I had a vague memory that Bertalanffy had some sort of "unification" theory that was an extension of his system theory, and was supposed to cover all science. quick google search didn't find anything notable, so I withdraw my concern.--Work permit 01:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

well, i was looking at you guys, you seem all physicists, i woudl suggest an improvement for wikipedia: that when something is deleted, it should be deleted and judged by people of the sciences involved. In this case by philosophers (you philosophus consider yourself in your web a defender of Einstein not a philospher), biologists and system theorists. Otherwise i feel like in the initial redirection to Grand Unification Theory a certain arrogance which tends to go with ignorance on the subject you are judging (-: 'the more ignorant the western man is about Asian cultures, the most he despises the chinese man' Andre Guide 0-: i got the letters though from the people i asked to (isss president, troncale and sancho)giving me permission to load wikipedia with articles of their webs so now i can use all their copyrighted material of all the webs mentioned (emails provided if required)... im gonna put it all there this night. Tomorrow it will die away, a perfect mandala, like those beautiful wheels of sand of the navajo reserves that soon disappear. But because for us, system scientists, time is cyclical and quantic, not lineal and continuous, Leibniz not Newton is the master... and each collective mind has its own rhythms, this i can say: GST will beat Grand Unification, life will win over abstraction. Now i will pour the sounds that the wind will erase...
 * Delete or redirect per Someguy. Also, the article is nearly unreadable in its current state. If it's a work in progress, there shouldn't be that much prose without wikification or a section breaks, or a construction/long-term in-use template should be added. -- Phoenix  (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As if its not bad enough, this article is WP:CP. Entire sections are lifted from luis sancho's article.  Note similarities in this articles sections 4 to sachos 2, section 5 to sancho 4, section 6 to sancho 5, etc etc.  Please put this article out of its misery --Work permit 01:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Per above. Wikidudeman  (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Crackpottery . Delete. - Mike Rosoft 07:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK GUYS, YOU ARE RIGHT PARTIALLY, last part is badly wrriten, i erased myself. I only left the historical beginning. Latter i will try to do a much better analysis within a month I still think though you should leave it because unification theory is used by system scientists since bertalanffy not by physicists.
 * please can you guys re-read it? i hve followed all your advices on this deletion notes, Anyway i only left paragraph 1 which was not that much criticized and taken away all the other parts (aws per greenrd), i deleted also what was taken from past articles as per phoenix, and the central concept of organicism explained much better. My english is not perfect but if the content is interesting it will be imrpoved. It is still in progress but now i think you can understand what we gst theorists are doing, and if not well ill comply and never put it again, thanks for your kindness(and i dont get offended by all the pseudo-science comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esenzia (talk • contribs) 15:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Debate moved to talk page. - Mike Rosoft 13:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Almost at the level of speedying. The article is poorly sourced and the topic is highly pseudoscientific. It is highly unlikely that proper sources (per WP:RS and the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision) could be found. If there are such sources, they will most likely only cover the material enough to warrant a short mention in another article. --Philosophus T 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not rise to the standards of fringe notability. --ScienceApologist 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - it sounds like nonsense to me. Bubba73 (talk), 23:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is at least close to Patent nonsense. Bubba73 (talk), 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. One of my objections, as I tried to explain to you, is that "unification" of biology and physics is redundant for some aspects of biology, and impossible for others.  If all you seek to do is tie common themes together, this is philosophy.  And I do not oppose the inclusion of philosphy on wikipedia, but there is no evidence that your philosophy is in any way notable.  I also hold little regard for theories whose theorists can't decide if it's a philosophy or a science.  And further, the only reason I am supporting making a redirect to Grand unification theory is that I feel this is a reasonable search term to be used by someone looking for that theory.  Someguy1221 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as nonsense. It's pretty clear that WP:SNOW applies. andy 12:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * interesting, my best comments disappear from this page aftr i put them, since im obviously the one accused in this witchhunting trial on system sciences i hoped that at least the rules of a fair debate would exist in this place and you would keep my arguments... in any case i would apply to most of this comments without any depth the old witgenstein motto: shut up if you have nothing relevant to say.


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They haven't been deleted, they have been moved to the talk page, since that is the proper place for further discussion, especially on the merits of the topic rather than the notability and verifiability of the topic. The theory could be the best ever made, but that is completely irrelevant to the nomination. --Philosophus T 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 - Maybe im just an old fashioned european scientist but here we do not insult with all those crackpot kind of words, we debate with arguments and that is what i did on those pages. And nobody counter-argument any of them. So If you dont leave here my comments or counter-argument them but put THEM in some hidden room, obviously you are leaving only the people against the article and this is not even a trial, BUT A prejudgment at best where the defender is put in other corner room to shut him up instead of being answered in a cilvized way.
 * 2 -i didnt wrote the previosu one, pj, i only added some final coments, thats why they look different pj, the guy who wrote that one, focused on the Generatrix equation, E<=>T, the best expression to date of the 'fundamtnal feed-back dynamic cycle, the unit of the fractal universe (which can be perceived as a fixed particle obviously by errors of human perception).
 * i thought to be easier to focus on the network systems, which are better known, but they are all parts of GST, as networks of En and info are merely complex systems made by the iteration of that fractal unit.
 * 3. In my poor english notability means that is notable, that has merit. And i am the one to explain why, not only because i wrote this version, but also because i form part of a european collective a la partaki (a french collective name used by 35 mathematicfians who developped fractal/chaos theory in the post-war)... trying to explain the fundamental topics of our science. We purchased long ago www.unificationtheory.com which layed dormant but in the past 5 years there have been huge advances on the formalism of the Unification Equation made by european scientists, and so we thought now that there is such formalism to place the stuff in the english-speaking world web. We are doing it in www.unification.com, starting this year and since there were no entries and there are still not entries on the 2 terms we use for that: 'General Systems' or 'Unification Theory' (only a historic introduction without 'meat', that is real theory) i thought icould try to fill up that gap... Respect to verifability, i put links to webs, books and articles in previous pages and quotes from bertalanffy, etc.(isss, www.unificationtheory, sancho's stuff, the guy who advanced the best formalism for this science, and was in the process as per that hidden talk page of putting more, just got the ok from hammond, last isss president, sancho and troncale, the best in the field... to use material from all their webs.... And i dont care if that is recent work. Any encyclopedia has recent work, addendas in the brtannica, year by year, daily news here... im not a wikipedian and im not english speaking and so im sure i made mistakes but i dont see any interest in collaborate anymore, because you are not being fair. I only see the obvious desire to connect this name with grand unification theories. As i said (in the hidden talk page), both terms are difrerent, as i qoted, bertalanffy coined this one. As i insinuated accuracy is at least the minumum a encylipedia should have. Anyway is difficult to enjoy working in this kind of agresive millieu. Im not gonna requote and counter-argument your pseudo-science bullshit comments. All the arguments are in that talk page. I take notice though of the valid comments, and there are some. So hopefully someone will repost in the future with better english, better quotes, less discoursive style and more to the point,a small treatise on the Unification Theory of General Systems . That was fair advice. The notability/verifability thing has no been fair. You cant expect to google troncale, for example and get the same kind of hits than for a scientist with hundred of years of tradition. The last generation of GST masters (not the previous one, i see you have bertalanffy, capra, and many american guys here, but those are old-dated they hvent formalized, they are the philosophers, all sciences start as a philosophy, then you need the newton with the formalis, then the formalism unfolds itself, etc.), is being born as most relevant scientists of the XX C. i must say - here in eurpe...because unlike Feynmann they do ask why and they doubt. We use far less wordws like 'true science', we are not 'believers' we are inquirers (-;,  But we dont speak english, what can i say, maybe that is the reason, all european languages have the subjunctive probability verb, and the I is hidden, the collective is prefered. As chomsky says, the genetic language precedes the culture which precdes the science... Fundamentalism on truths is a no-no. cest la vie, au revoir, auf widerssen hasta la vista ciao svoboda
 * 'The rapture of life, that is what is all truly about'
 * Campbell, the power of the myth.
 * A few comments that I hope will be helpful for you: it would be much easier for us if you used ~ to sign your comments. Additionally, : indents paragraphs (so :: indents twice, and so on) and * at the beginning of a paragraph or line makes a bullet point, so that you can format your comments. It would be much easier for us if you would write shorter comments, since many of us are overworked here and don't have time to read lengthy comments with the care that should be given to them. While there are those of us who would enjoy debating the merits of the theory with you, there are quite simply too many theories to do this. New theories like this are added to Wikipedia every day, and in most cases, the supporters want a debate. This tends to make us rather cynical as well, since most of the supporters tend to devolve into ranting and insulting (most of the content of my user page consists of insults that were thrown at me) rather than discussing what should be discussed here: the compliance with the policies of Wikipedia. You should read these, especially WP:NOR, WP:V, and the guidelines WP:RS and WP:N - we have very specific definitions of words like "notability", and somewhat unique views on what should be included. As I mentioned, the merits of a theory play no part in whether it should be included per policy - look at Time Cube, for example, which is about as absurd as a theory can get (Archimedes Plutonium is another good example). New, as of yet unknown, research belongs in journals, not Wikipedia. We only include things which have been published widely and are relatively well known, so that everything we say can be verified. We make no judgements on the validity of theories; that is for other people. By the way, I apologize about the crackpot-like insults - I would never actually say that sort of thing as myself, but here I've changed my language and attitude in order to remain hidden (there are those of us who have received death threats and other harassment), and sometimes I get carried away. But as I said, you seem to be looking for a debate about merit, and we don't do that sort of thing here, which is why your comments have been moved; the assumption is that most of us are not capable of debating merit. --Philosophus T 08:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Amazingly this article version looks rather different than the previously deleted one (are there two fringe theories by this name?), so CSD G4 doesn't apply. After deletion a disambih should be created, pointing to the topics in physics and artificial intelligence respectively. To the anom editor: I can't fully exclude the possibility, that there is something worth including in all this, but you just didn't get the message across in this attempt. Do some reading in Wikipedia, both articles and policies, starting with WP:5P. Ask at the Philosophy Portal for suggestions. --Pjacobi 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about removing your comments - I had meant to copy them and move the long response, but ended up accidentally moving yours as well. --Philosophus T 08:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

LAST COMMENT/QUESTION uhm philosophus thanks for your letter. i start to agree more with you guys. truth is i havent done my homework to conform to wikipedia style and its, i guess, needed burocratic elements and i should have, plus i work on memory so i cant remember exactly the books of the quotes... i need to do reserarch... (im also overloaded with work) i thought others would do it as a work in progress, but there are few gst experts worldwide so i guess few wikipedians could collaborate on this... hopefully when we recruit in tokyo people with english as first language for this divulgation project (www.unificationtheory) i will try again. and buff if you even receive death threats, thats really intense! no wonder the cut-throat style:-o. so the question is if we repost this in the future in a much better version? is that possible? is a 3rd reposition allowed a debate or is automatically eliminated?(the first article though was different and most of it, not mine, (pj, i explained differences in talk) so might it be a 2nd reposition... My aim is present the GST formalism mixing troncale's, sancho's and isss material, within all the policies of wikipedia including formatting, but i have no time now to become a better wikipedian. Respect to novelty,those guys have 20 years since their first copyrights but our science i think unjustly is not yet standard and fully accepted so in a way is relatively new - as it could be considered genetics 40 years after mendel whenit wa discovered And since we start with paradimgs that are different to classic science (as per talk: cyclical, quantic time, duality, linguistic method, non-non-euclidean geometry, paradoxical logic, organicism, etc.) we expect as per the debates in the 49 cancun congress to remain what you might call a 'fringe science' (not seudo=science) for a decade. I doubt then that gst will look more notable. But if youlook the references at isss the main insitution of our science, those people are the most notable of our science today, troncale leads the gst conferences, sancho has given the most brilliant ones the last 3 years, the president of the institution gives the ok. Now GST (unificatin theory) is different from 'systems theory', the american version, whih is praactical, computer models of economics and cybernetics. GSt is more 'philosophical', more like the origianl intention of Bertalanffy (the quote that originated the name is in talk: 'a unification theory of all sciences'), and so typically more interesting to the idealist german school of science to which all germans belong since Hegel (including Einstein, self-confessed socialist:-):-(-O A comment on that would be appreciated.Since if it is impossible or against your policies we wont do that hard work. Otherwise you will get an article similar to the ones you have for relativity or any other standard scientific theory sometime in summer. And sorry for the length, this promise is my last comment, dont want you to keep further busy with this theme. I think the issue is: should gst unification in its most advanced version be here? or not?It is not though a time cube bullshit, that was funny (-: I see general system sciences like physics in the XVII c. a very promising, starting science... now in its formalist phase... which i think is different from pseudo-science (a guy who comes out with a 'world on a turtle' or a time in a cube... cyclical time is as old as human thought itself, the year cycle of the sun, the minute cycle of the clock, the month cycle of the moon. the cesium cycle we use for the second... i havent seen cubic trajectories in time of lately (-: The closest thing might be cubism with his attempt to express the 4th dimension of time, through multiple perspectives... maybe he is fan of picasso (-;
 * Delete There's no evidence in the article that this theory is notable or that its content can be verified using reliable sources. In other words, it needs good references. The article seems to have been shortened drastically since it was nominated; the original version was incoherent and too long; the current version seems not to have much content.  Cardamon 10:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.