Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive September 2023

New article at Force control
Hi, as a New Page Reviewer, I have stumbled across this article Force control. It was created as a translation of the German article at de:Kraftregelung. Can members of this project confirm if this is a content fork of an existing English Wikipedia article, and if so, please request the article for merging which the instructions are outlined in the merge process information page at WP:MERGE. Fork99 (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is more of a topic in robotics and control theory than in physics, although it involves physical principles. I don't think there is a good merge target into a physics article. Impedance control might be worth merging into this article, however. -- 03:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mark viking: thanks for the information, duly noted. I will ask members at WT:ROBO to contribute to the discussion here. Fork99 (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Resonance in complex networks
Another editor created Draft:Resonance in complex networks on May 9, 2023. I can't evaluate whether the topic is notable. Could someone here please look at the draft and decide whether it should be accepted or rejected? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It is almost completely based on a primary source, which is against WP:PRIMARY. One would need a mention in a review article or something similar to establish notability. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oscillation dynamics in complex networks are a thing people work on, but I don't think this article is good to go. The bulk of it seems to be copied from section II of the author's own paper. As a style matter, the phrasing is very textbook-like. So too, more fundamentally, is the choice of presenting in technical detail a model simply because it is solvable, rather than because it has proved to be significant. To say it another way, this draft isn't so much an encyclopedic treatment of the topic "resonance in complex networks", but more like a write-up of a homework exercise about a particular model. I would advise against accepting this draft, without prejudice against re-submission if it is written to be more like the literature review from the author's paper (without being closely copied from there, of course). I wrote up some general advice which may be useful to the author, who appears to be new here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. The first two references are general, and not specific to the article. The third reference is the topic described by the draft. Note that the author of the WP article is the single author of the third reference. It violates almost everything including WP:Notability, WP:CoI,  WP:NPOV & probably a few more (I have not memorized all the WP:Buzz). A polite rejection, diplomatically pointing out the issues -- unless this is disputed. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Redirect Wave-Particle to Double Slit
The possibility of deleting the Wave–particle duality page and replacing it by a redirect to the Double-slit experiment has come up. A related concept is to delete much of what is currently on the Wave-Particle page, leaving a little history then reference to the Double-slit page.

The rationale is that the current Double-slit page is very well written and cited, includes everything in the current duality page and much more.

Comments, opinions, votes etc either on here or on the talk page. (I am cross-posting here to reach, hopefully, a wider audience.) Ldm1954 (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would a general concept redirect to a specific experiment? That's a bit like redirecting Atom to Oxygen. If the double-slit experiment page has content about the more general concept then it should be moved there, not the other way round. --mfb (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * From my perspective the redirect proposal is entirely pragmatic, not at all to be judged on ideal terms. In an ideal world we would have two articles.
 * It turns out that the "duality" concept has many different meanings (approximately one per editor ;-). Thus the duality article rapidly devolves into a mish-mash with a side order of edit-war. Consequently our actual choices are one article on double slit or two articles, one of which is a high maintenance, incoherent mish-mash. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Wave-particle duality" is a qualitative term whose meaning is often expressed briefly and/or implicitly, and so it ends up not necessarily meaning exactly the same thing in every book. On top of that, it's bound up with the rest of the conceptual basics and early history of quantum mechanics, which makes it very hard to tell when "wave-particle duality" ends and something else begins. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Asking for an opinion on Virgo interferometer
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have been working on improving the article on the Virgo interferometer since the beginning of the year, with the goal of reaching GA/FA standards. However, although I am experienced with Wikipedia in general as I have many contributions in the French wiki, I am quite unaware of the standards for the labels ; I know the criteria but I am unsure about how much of everything is required. I would be happy if anyone could take a quick look and tell me whether it may meet the criteria for GA or FA, and where it could be improved to reach these if needed. (in particular, copyediting is likely needed. English is not my first language nor am I familiar with all the style rules around here so any help is appreciated).

Also, one of the major improvements was introducing a Data analysis section, which has become quite big. I am contemplating splitting it from the article ; moreover, basically all of it is not unique to Virgo and could be shared with the LIGO page. Again, happy to get your opinion here. Thuiop (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aim for FA, I think. A bit of maintenance work that will be needed anyway: Make sure all sources are still available or replace them with archived versions. Access dates shouldn't be several years in the past for GA/FA nominations. Add publishers, authors etc. where known to all references. Update "plan to start the O4 observing run in May 2023". --mfb (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the suggestions ! There is definitely stuff to do before submitting yes ; I had checked the reference at some point but did not update the access dates, I will do that shortly. Thuiop (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Order of sections: History
I would like our physics articles to be correct, easy to begin reading, interesting to continue, leading to more content, and complete enough to satisfy a non-specialist. To me, this means the section ordering needs to vary with the topic. Specifically I want to propose that articles should not be required to start with "History".


 * Having every article start with History makes our subject appear to be primarily mired in old debates and incorrect theories.
 * Often the history section tends to be long and rather more detailed than discussion of the physics; reader need motivation to wade through this if it is not their primary focus.
 * Once readers have a grasp of the concept and its relation to other aspects of physics, the history helps contextualize and deep the presentation, but if they don't understand the concept, the history is a winding way to learn.

According to the Manual of Style: Section order we are not obligated to put any particular section first:

''Because of the diversity of subjects it covers, Wikipedia has no general standard or guideline regarding the order of section headings within the body of an article. The usual practice is to order body sections based on the precedent of similar articles. For exceptions, see Specialized layout below.''

To be clear, I'm a huge fan of science history and I guess close to half of my contributions related to history. I just don't think it should be required to be the first section.

Johnjbarton (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have noticed this. In some articles it appears right away at the beginning and in some other it is relegated to the last section of the article. I guess my first reflex is to search when somehting was proposed and by whom, and it is often the case that this information is in the history section. In that sense, I prefer it when history sections appear right away. I guess that if I had to propose a guideline for this, it would be to leave the history section at the beginning if it is just a couple paragraphs and works as a second introduction. If the history section is well documented and a long section, leave it at the end to not distract from the topic.--ReyHahn (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is already the status quo, there is no requirement for articles to start with a history section. As far as we even have a standard it is to leave the history section as the last one. Tercer (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: in many cases a History section also serves to provide a background to ease the reader into the topic. In that case it does not make sense to have it last. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * In science articles, History should generally not come early in the article. It is much more important to explain the current understanding of the topic than the history of how we got to that understanding. History is valuable, but it is peripheral to the primary topic in most science articles.--Srleffler (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it actually stated anywhere that a History section should come first? -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

One space too many?
Configuration space (physics) links State space (physics), which is a lame article. Is "state space" notable? Or should we just merge State space (physics) into Configuration space (physics) and link Quantum state for the elements? Johnjbarton (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree for the later. State space is not that notable.--ReyHahn (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry I was so wrong! When I thought back over why I ended up on that page, I realized that comments in papers by Mott, Wigner and Zeh lead me there. The problem here is that the state space page as is it makes the concept sound minor, when in fact it is critical for understanding quantum mechanics.
 * Zeh, the originator of decoherence theory, states that he adopted Mott's point of view; Mott solved a simple problem: how does the spherical wave of alpha particle emission end up as a liner particle track in a cloud chamber? His answer is that 3D space is not the right way to understand the problem. The QM wave equation applies to a "multispace formed by both the coordinates of the alpha particle and of every atom in the Wilson chamber". The alpha particle lights up a string of atoms in a long line because all of those atoms and the fact that they are co-linear is contained in the state space. Wigner emphasizes that 3D space cannot explain physics in QM.
 * I will edit the state space page to improve it. I've encountered hints about this issue many times in articles about entanglement and decoherence, or about why Bohm-based visualizations have limited value. I just never really got the connection. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the free fall model of the atom FRINGE?
Template:Atomic models is a bad template.

I have tried to fix it before but every time it seems more pointless. Clearly a the Einstein solid or the ideal gas are not atomic models. Anyway, this time I am asking for how notable is the Gryzinski free fall model? It leads to a badly sourced article of Michał Gryziński and the model seems to be from 1965 (that date comes from the only secondary source of his article). If this date is correcct, the model, which is a correction to the classical model of the atom, is much more recent than any fundamental development in quantum mechanics and any of the other atomic models. Should we still consider it in lists and templates like this? Is it WP:NOTABLE? Is it WP:FRINGE? ReyHahn (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The 1965 era work of Michał Gryziński in definitely not fringe. His work on classical models for electron-atom scattering is highly cited. But we have no article on the free fall model.  It's not fringe but so far no one believes it is sufficiently notable to write about. Just remove it from the template.
 * I'm confused by "ideal gas are not atomic models" when the Template does not claim such? It assigns ideal gas to atoms in a fluid. In this regard I think it makes sense as much of the evidence for atomic theories come from studies of gases and solids. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I will remove it. As for the ideal gas not being an atomic theory, I meant that these are not models of "the atom" (the ideal gas invented before having a microscopic theory), that what the template is about. Instead of suggesting to change the name to something more general, I guess it would be much better if we keep the models with defined articles and throw the rest (solids, fluids, scientist) away.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the models on that list are ideas that kids encounter in school (e.g., the plum pudding model and the 1913 Bohr atom) or that are covered in any decent history of quantum mechanics (e.g., Sommerfeld's refinement of the Bohr model). I can't see how the Gryziński proposal belongs on that same list. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The work of Michał Gryziński is peculiar. High energy inelastic scattering of electrons can often be calculated classically, as the final state of the photoelectron is a plane wave so you get a somewhat simple form. This is probably why the 1965 paper is highly cited. Unfortunately he then takes it way too far, with his last paragraph:
 * On the basis of the anisotropic velocity distribution of electron velocities in the crystals, the spatial distribution of ejected electrons can be explained, as well as the classical experiment of Davisson and Germer.
 * This is complete nonsense.
 * Is his 1965 paper notable -- perhaps. Is he notable, almost certainly not. I estimate from Google Scholar that he has an H-factor of about 14. There is no indication of any prizes or other awards to make him notable. I would say that his page is a strong candidate for deletion, or perhaps change to a page on the free-fall atom model, explaining why it can kind-off work, which would require some effort which I am not convinced is worth it.
 * WP:DOIT Ldm1954 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: the template is terrible!
 * None of Drude, Free electron, NFE, band structure and DFT are "Atom Models".
 * Fermi gas does not belong
 * Authors included are all over the place. They are not able, but many not for atoms. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is in very bad shape and I had a hard time confirming his contributions. As for the templat, I propose the following change:


 * (maybe the models should be ordered chronologically) What do you think?--ReyHahn (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes chronologically. I would add parenthetical for all, eg.
 * Bohr (Old quantum model)
 * Electron cloud (Modern quantum model) Johnjbarton (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, here is the new version of the template. I can remove the the "historical models" and "current models" tags if necesssary:


 * Could somebody confirm when the hydrogen atom was first solved using Schrödinger's equation? I could not verify this date.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRev.28.1049, he says he does the H-atom.
 * N.B., maybe you want to add beyond the Dirac (last section of Hydrogen-like atom) with, for instance, Slater determinant etc for multielectron atoms. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confirmation! Do you want to suggest specific examples?--ReyHahn (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be against most of those changes to the template. The sub-header is "Atoms in solids", and Debye, Drude, free-electon, etc... are all models of atoms in solids and those belong in the template. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I went forward and added these models for electrons in solids in Template:Condensed matter physics topics. It seems more adequate and makes for a more simpler template for the atomic models. Also do you agree to leave out the scientists? --ReyHahn (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes (do people ever even read these templates?), but for what it's worth, I would leave out the scientists. The box would be less cluttered without the extra list that mostly repeats names already mentioned. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like the scientists there. But they'll also be mentioned in the relevant articles, so it's not criticial that they're there. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the addition to Template:Condensed matter physics topics. I am not sure about the "Electric response" category there. For certain flexoelectricity and electrostriction need to added to that, although all of them are not really electric response, more polarization + deformation. Then there is the question of magnetism... Ldm1954 (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I have taken Michał Gryziński to AfD. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 04:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Physical quantities missing infobox physical quantity
Does anyone know how to extract a list of articles in Category:Physical quantities which do not transclude Template:Infobox physical quantity? Some articles are very obscure; adding the infobox will help clarify the units, dimension, and formula upfront. fgnievinski (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * A query like
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&format=json&list=categorymembers&formatversion=2&cmtitle=Category%3APhysical%20quantities%20
 * could be used with curl, piped in to utils to produce a list of pages within the category. Maybe a search for something uniquely related to the infobox could be used to produce a list of pages with infobox. Striking those from the first list would be your result.
 * Might be fun but could take time. One thing I learned is that the MediaWiki API page is much more complete than the Wikipedia API info, but it seems like Wikipedia responds to the full MediaWiki API if you set the server name to en.wikipedia.org. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I've collected some other suggestions at the Teahouse:
 * https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25889405
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=incategory%3A%22Physical+quantities%22+-hastemplate%3A%22Infobox+physical+quantity%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1
 * fgnievinski (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Add a link to an essay on the project page
Would it be ok to add a link to the essay User:XOR'easter/So, you've decided to write about physics and/or mathematics on Wikipedia on the project page WP:WikiProject Physics/Intro? I think it would be useful for newcomers, and the essay seems fairly uncontroversial. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Great essay. I think maybe arXiv entries should be expanded upon. I have had to deal in the past with people not making an article but adding sections with their own research based on arxiv (but not peerreviewed). Arxiv entries can be used sometimes (if highgly cited and if it is just from some minor fact, or used with attribution) but a clear warning should be indicated.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * +1. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! May I suggest creating a subsection heading for the existing text about preprints ("Many articles begin as preprints..."), so that it defines a linkable anchor, User:XOR'easter/So...#Preprints. fgnievinski (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

State space ambiguity
State space is a redirect page to State space (computer science). So there is no disambiguation page. Adding a disambiguation page looks like a lot of work.

An alternative is to rename State space (physics) to "Quantum state space" and redirect the old name to this one. I think it is also a clearer name.

This would orphan non-quantum state space physics. In my opinion that is fine, since non-quantum state space is well represented by phase space and configuration space. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute on Wave-particle duality
A bit over a month ago I removed two images as explained here: Talk:Wave–particle_duality. The images were put back today and new Talk page entry by @Thierry Dugnolle added to discuss: Wave–particle_duality

The image addition was reverted by  @Quondum then re-added by  @Thierry Dugnolle.

A respectful and extensive discussion on Wave–particle_duality did not convince @Thierry Dugnolle.

I think the best we can hope for at this point is if third editor would take a look and revert the latest addition, with the hope that @Thierry Dugnolle will accept that this outcome and move on.

Separately @Ldm1954 and I are working on a draft for eventual review which will affect almost the entire page. We could wait but I think should resolve this issue now rather than revisit it all again in a new version. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I second the request of Johnjbarton. This is an unfortunate WP:1AM. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Now, after more long discussions and explanations, the animations are deleted, back, deleted, and back.
 * How can I avoid an edit war here? Just allow the nonsense to stay in the page? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to make your own judgement about this long discussion, please read at least the summary. TD (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Bold question: do we need an article on this topic? Is it conceptually separate from other themes in quantum mechanics to the extent that giving it a whole article is the best course of action? Or is it one of those topics where, after you cut out everything that pertains to the history of quantum physics more generally, you have about a paragraph left, and it fits better as a section of another article? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The more presentations I look up in the literature, the less I am convinced that a stand-alone article is the best way to go. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This content dispute is now about the section Wave-particle duality, the quantum superposition principle and the Born rule of Wave-particle duality. TD (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This content under dispute has been deleted, without reason. If you want to make your own judgement you can now read it here: User:Thierry Dugnolle/Wave-particle duality and the superposition principle. TD (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Influences/influenced from the scientist infobox
hey, here's a proposal to remove Influences/influenced fields from the scientist infobox. It was done for the philosopher infobox, and bacause these fields often have too many unsourced / unnecessary entries never covered in text it might be a good idea for scientists as well. Please see and comment there: Template_talk:Infobox_scientist. Artem.G (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Seeking help: are sources important?
I would appreciate some help in understanding the issues raised in Talk:Many-worlds_interpretation

I've read through the references cited in the article as well as others. The history and the publication record clearly indicate that John Archibald Wheeler had a huge influence on the QM interpretation that was eventually called "Many Worlds". And yet two editors want to cut him and his ideas out of the article.

According to my understanding of Core content policies the point of view should be neutral, verifiable, and not original. The idea the Wheeler is irrelevant can't be verified because the sources say the opposite.

The only way I can understand these comments is that "Many Worlds" is not what Wheeler and Everett worked on. So Many Worlds is some other idea that grew up later I guess. I'm fine with that but then we should have an article representing the physics discussed by Everett and Wheeler.

I find the exchange frustrating because I am out numbered and I don't understand the unsubstantiated assertions against Wheeler. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * To be honest, that section did feel out of place the way it was. Perhaps it could be more naturally incorporated into the article by expanding the history section and placing it there? I think this might a useful way to proceed since the history section is currently very incomplete and hard to read. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree and I did propose to move it. The Overview has three sections of history, I think that is part of what threw me off. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Seashell resonance
On Dutch Wikipedia we are having a discussion on the title of the Dutch version of the article Seashell resonance. Because of this English title, some of my collegues propose the word resonance in the title. The effect described does not relate directly to resonance, although resonance frequencies play a role. What do the physicists/acousticians of Englisch Wikipedia think about this. Can you suggest a better title for this article? Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do sources call it?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi ReyHahn, the sources in Dutch do not have a single word for it, they are describing the effect like "why do you hear the sea when holding a shell to your ear". I think the title on English Wikipedia is also not justified. Ellywa (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The current name of the article dates back to this AfD. I don't think it is based on any source directly. (some of them are dead, so can't check)
 * A few hits in Google can be sound with a minimalistic term seashell sound. Can't really call it a common name, but it could be an alternative. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jähmefyysikko, interesting to read the discussion on the Afd, similar to the Dutch discussion (the article was deleted on Dutch WP initially). The most simple (correct) title would be shell acoustics (per this), but this does not relate to the effect people experience at all. And shell acoustics can also be related to the Shell trumpet, which is excited by blowing, not by ambient noise. Ellywa (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This one calls it "Seashell effect":
 * Jiang, Liang-Ting, and Joshua R. Smith. "Seashell effect pretouch sensing for robotic grasping." ICRA. 2012.
 * They relate it to the ability of blind people to sense walls through ambient noise.
 * This review article cites the above work and uses the "seashell effect"
 * Kappassov, Zhanat, Juan-Antonio Corrales, and Véronique Perdereau. "Tactile sensing in dexterous robot hands." Robotics and Autonomous Systems 74 (2015): 195-220.
 * Quite a lot of robotics refs now seem to use that term. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Shahriar Afshar for deletion
I have nominated Shahriar Afshar for deletion. The deletion discussion can be found here. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This article has been rated as XX-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
The Talk page for most physics pages of this "content assessment" listed, but many times the rating seems far off from the qualities listed under the corresponding assessment class. I have seen that external reviews assess the "GA" level. How are the Start, C, B levels changed? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, by pure assessment of members of the Wikiproject. Class stub is very clear, personnally I rate start is when it is a bit better than stub but short, C when it already looks like an article but a lot of important information is missing or a lot of issues have been raised, B is when is very good but has not gone assessments. See WP:ASSESS.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, they're changed by whoever drops by and decides to change them. So, the ratings can grow out of sync with the material, but the ratings don't matter much anyway. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the relative number of citations itself a citable reference?
Sometimes it seems like a part of an article needs some kind of "evaluation", which I understand is not something editors should do without references.

This essay it says "Remember, peer review is the opinion of a few people, while citations are the opinion of a community."

So: is it acceptable, in some cases, to use something like Google Scholar links to document "opinion of the community" in the form of citation numbers? I'm mostly thinking about negative cases where the glow of success on one aspect reflects on another topic much less well received. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Definitely not. The only way to include the opinion of the community is if there's a reliable source doing said "evaluation". The only way the number of citations can be used is indirect: if there are very few citations (relative to what is usual in the field) it means the community doesn't care about the contribution, and it would be WP:UNDUE to talk about it in the article. Tercer (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I would definitely say no. I can think of one paper with about 200 citations almost all of which say it is wrong. I can also think of another paper that had essentially no citations for 10 years then became a best seller. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * DOI: 10.1016/0022-0728(89)80006-3 999 citations in WOS, and DOI:10.1016/0022-0248(83)90184-7 was ignored for many years (COI disclosure). Ldm1954 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, which cursed paper is this? EDIT: Ah, the cold fusion paper. That's cursed indeed. Tercer (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am, of course, not proposing to use the number of citations as a proxy for acceptability. Clearly Cold fusion was very interesting, since 999 members of the community spent considerable time to refute it. It would be clearly inappropriate to use the citations to claim otherwise. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Please allow me to bring the specific example on why this discussion started. Johnjbarton did the following edit in Michał Gryziński to show how his model has not caught the attention of other scientists even if it is "notable". I think it clearly helps to show how unconventional this model is, however the source is the Scholar. Should this be allowed in certain cases?--ReyHahn (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't like the edit, and I think a little more research is needed. Proper sources should be used to rationalize why his Coulomb model works, unfortunately finding this is not trivial. From a quick look, McGuire, James Horton. "Electron correlation dynamics in atomic collisions." Electron Correlation Dynamics in Atomic Collisions (2005) might be the place to start. In 10.1016/S1049-250X(07)55006-8 this is cited for giving the QM for the Coulomb model of Gryzinski. John might have a copy of this from the dark ages. Maybe better is 10.1103/RevModPhys.43.642 who makes a throw away comment in the notes on the first page that the Gryzinski model is equivalent to a Born approximation. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The problem with his atomic model is that it is wrong, not that it was little-cited.
 * Currently the article is claiming that his model does work in several cases, using as references his own obscure papers. That's not appropriate, because they are primary sources, and because this is a WP:FRINGE theory. Tercer (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think you miss the point. Applied to scattering his Coulomb approach works; in fact classical models for core and sometimes low-loss inelastic electron scattering often work well. It is when he starts to invoke them to explain diffraction that it becomes WP:FRINGE. Since it behooves us to be neutral, an explanation is needed. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes is fringe is that he proposed it as a theory of how atoms actually work. The article is sorely missing a mention of the fact that it does not work in general. Tercer (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article mentions how he is controversial, not a PhD, and his advocacy against quantum mechanics. Some of his early models works but his atomic theory is bordering fringe (if not fringe already) but sources fail to actively call it that too.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If the model is so obscure that nobody has even bothered to write a paper about how it is wrong, why are we writing about it? The paragraph of my essay that you quoted begins, It is usually a bad idea to make a big deal out of research that hasn't been cited by anyone other than the original authors, even if it has technically been peer-reviewed. That seems to be pretty much the situation here: there's no substantial commentary, only a few passing mentions. Our scientist biographies aren't meant to be CV's that list every publication, nor are they platforms for arguing why an obscure paper is justifiably obscure. So, let's just drop it from the article completely and move on with our lives. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several sources about why his works for scattering, I gave some. It has ~1000 cites for scattering. When he applies it to diffraction it is nonsense. Nowadays his Coulomb approach is obsolete because it has been shown that you have to include relativistic effects even at 100kV for inelastic scattering. I am trying to be neutral. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Neutral" means accurately summarizing the reliable and worthwhile sources, and if there aren't any such sources about his attempt to apply his model beyond scattering, then the neutral thing to do is to say nothing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If secondary independent sources have not noted a scholar's citation numbers, mentioning it is not DUE. If a model has not been described by secondary independent (wrt the original authors) sources then discussing it is not DUE in a biography or on the pages for any other relevant topics. JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Cargo cult science
The article Cargo cult science (not to be confused with cargo cult), is entirely based on Feynman's Caltech speech 1974. The term may be used now and then but an article for that seems too much. It only uses examples that Feynman already used and the term is just an analogy to the already existing cargo cult. We seem to have an article just to define it, but other terms like this exist like pseudoscience. Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY. Do you think we can merge this term into another article? Another possibility is to make the article about Feynman's speech (Something along the lines: Cargo Cult Science 1974 Caltech speech). ReyHahn (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the term is no notable.
 * With the benefit of almost 50 years we might assess Feynman' speech quite differently. Denigrating the cultural practices of a colonized and nearly eradicated people to illustrate some points in a commencement speech seems likely to make headlines these days for reasons unconnected to the speakers points. (Seems like Feynman had a bit of a reputation for inappropriate analogies as well, leading to protests).
 * The article seems too long to merge into Scientific_method or Richard Feynman or Cargo cult.
 * I suggest a rename more like "Feynman's 1974 speech on scientific integrity" and a corresponding adjustment of the lede and a sentence in one or two of the others with a link. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Highly disagree. Anyone looking for this will be search for cargo cult science specifically, because that's the term people use. That Feynman gave a speed in 1974 is on no one's mind, and is not what people refer to. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure but that does not mean that every term coined by a scientists needs a wiki article. Maybe we can keep the title but format the lead around it "Cargo cult science refers to a 1974 speech by Richard Feynman..."--ReyHahn (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We have redirects for searches. But it maybe a title like "Feynman's 1972 cargo-cult science speech" would ensure that a search for "cargo cult science' (if any) would not produce a surprise while reducing the propensity to mint a non-notable term. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this article should exist at all. We shouldn't have an article on a particular speech by a famous scientist, and other than that it isn't clear to me that "cargo cult science" is a thing. Merge to Pseudoscience.--Srleffler (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are some speeches in Wikipedia, but maybe this one is not that notable (hard to assess as anything Feynman did gets popularized in some way).--ReyHahn (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge discussion: Talk:Pseudoscience --ReyHahn (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Force field page
I have just edited Force field (physics) slightly, removing The Force and a couple of others as I don't think these are needed. I have changed the rating to B as, to me, it is fine to be short; it was previously Mid-importance which I have left. What is odd, and I would like comments on is that previously the page was listed as a level-5 vital article in Science, Physics and Stub-class in general content. Thoughts? N.B., if you want to add to the page please do. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I've just aligned the vital article status to this WikiProject at least. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not get it, it is stub-like (at best "start") and of mid-importance. I guess its vital status is questionable. "Field" is a very important concept in physics, but force field is a bit less due to the fact that in practice, we need fields like electric field, gravitational field and Higgs field and so on, which are "potential" fields (the only difference is a proportionality constant). --ReyHahn (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

John von Neumann
Recently, some improvement work has gone into the John von Neumann article (reorganization, citations, some trimming). It could stand further work, particularly I think in making the "Personality" section more concise. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Boy, that page needs some hard cutting. Without (I think) removing content except for not appropriate superlatives, I reduced the intro from 375 words to 331.I think without too much effort you can reduce everything by 15% without removing content. You may still need to reduce some content; it is loooooooooong.
 * N.B. For some reason it has inline notes, then a mass of "References" that are linked from the notes. Change the links to references, and using "Rp" will be a big reduction plus improve readability. For instance Notes 353-362 are all different pages of the same reference. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't change referencing style if it is consistent. Wikipedia articles use several different styles of referencing, and the rule is that one should not switch an article from one to another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srleffler (talk • contribs)

Wikibook on Theoretical Physics
I know it's not really our department, but WOW this is bad: Introduction to Theoretical Physics PianoDan (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)