Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems with loop quantum gravity

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:49, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Problems with loop quantum gravity

This is an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policy on cooperative editing. 12:20, 2004 Nov 29 User:Lumidek created this article as a copy of an old version of Objections to the theory of loop quantum gravity. The reason given, was his disgust about other users editing "his" article and "his" article being flagged with dispute and attention tags. Of course even the original creation of Objections to the theory of loop quantum gravity was against Wikipedia policy against separate articles per POV. But given that the Loop quantum gravity article was rather long at that time, the majority of contributors seem to favor a separate "Criticism" article. --Pjacobi 19:26, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Delete, use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which does not include forking off your own version of an article. --fvw * 19:43, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
Delete and FORCE unification into Objections to the theory of loop quantum gravity. The whole Loop quantum gravity-related edit war problems go much further: NPOV dispute arbitration and general cleanup/copy editing of all three articles Loop quantum gravity, Objections to the theory of loop quantum gravity and Problems with loop quantum gravity is direly needed. All are full of POV affirmations and display very dubious structure/layout. Someone other than the usual editors should look into this. Phils 19:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete and merge. -Lethe | Talk 20:15, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
No vote. I assure you that if you force the pages to unify, you will revive a huge and bloody edit war. Loop quantum gravity is a highly speculative approach to theoretical physics. Its proponents are very rare between serious professional theoretical physicists, but there are loads of crackpots who support this kind of thinking and who have a lot of time to participate in edit wars. LQG is something like creationism or I don't know what's the right comparison. It is virtually impossible to reach any consensus. This huge gap in their approaches was the reason why the sides silently agreed to separate the pages to the main loop quantum gravity page that is mostly edited by the advocates of this theory - and it is completely clear that it always will - and this LQG page is allowed to be twisted in their direction. And on the other hand, the non-LQG physicists can have a separate wikipage that discusses LQG from a neutral point of view. This peace treaty, also supported by the rather long text in the LQG page, was violated by one of the LQG-ers who also wanted to twist the "problems with LQG" page. To avoid the extra wars, it became his personal page. I apologize to Phils, but you will never get a better free text about these issues than problems with loop quantum gravity. --Lumidek 20:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lumidek, your accusations and smearings of me everywhere, calling me a vandal, dumb, ignorant of physics, crackpot, etc. are unfounded and inaccurate. Also, you keep presenting yourself as presenting the "correct" version of things, even on highly controversial issues and many of your objections are more rhetoric than content and presuppose a lot of things like the correctness of string theory. Also, your arguments based upon perturbation theory, the S-matrix, nonpredictivity, dualities, etc. do not follow. People seem to give more respect to your "objections" because you are a professor, but... It wasn't my intention to turn your original very POV objections page (which you seem to suggest here is NPOV) into a personal page of mine, but to balance it and reply to some of the objections. Besides, it seems it's you, not me, who is treating objections and problems as personal pages. Also, the comparison of LQG to crakpots and creationism is unfair. Objections to LQG are welcome as long as it's based upon reasonable logical content and not rhetoric and unsound content, like your objections page. I was trying to improve the objections page, in fact. Also, I was not aware of any peace treaty before I started my edits. The only primary contributor to LQG, Miguel, gave up on arguing with you, which isn't exactly a treaty. (The other readers may check the respective talk pages for themselves) Besides, if your objections are sound, it should be possible for you to clarify your objections in the face of replies. I suggest we request for mediation for quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity, objections to the theory of loop quantum gravity and problems with loop quantum gravity by an expert on physics who is neither a string theorist nor a LQG practitioner. Tweet Tweet 02:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My answer is at Talk:Objections_to_the_theory_of_loop_quantum_gravity#A_brief_summary_of_the_.22improvements.22_of_Tweet_Tweet --Lumidek 03:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete this fork. Wyss 23:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. POV forks must die. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I don't have to know anything about physics to know that a fork like this doesn't belong. A fork of a disputed article has no potential to be encyclopedic. Please resolve the dispute. --BM 13:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Note to admin resolving this vfd: Note that many votes are coming from people who, self-confessedly, don't have a clue about the issues at hand. Please remember that Lumidek is a well-known and credible physicist. Please do not throw the baby with the bathwater in this case. Pcb21| Pete 18:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If Lumidek is indeed a recognized authority, then Wikipedia should be able to figure out how to resolve the dispute so that he "wins", assuming nobody else who is party to the dispute is an authority, too. The mechanism for that is not to fork the article so that Lumidek gets to have his say in a forked article, while know-nothings and cranks (if that is what they are) control the main article. --BM 19:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I authored the VfD and I know Lumidek as recognized authority. In fact I very much appreciate that he is contributing to Wikipedia. But this is about policy and process, not about content. If Lumidek wants to put up the criticism only in its original, pointed esssay form, he can use his website for this. But he already started merging into Loop quantum gravity, so all seems to go fine now. The original version is also conserved as USENET post [1], and can be referenced in this form. --Pjacobi 20:03, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
Delete. Mikkalai 23:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Josh Cherry 00:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Problems with loop quantum gravity

why are there separate pages now for Objections to the theory of loop quantum gravity and Problems with loop quantum gravity? The content is largely the same, it looks like someone copy/pasted the article text from one to the other. Maybe one should be made a redirect? -Lethe | Talk 03:23, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Objections contain "replies" of a fan of loop quantum gravity. The quality of these "replies" is poor and a certain Wikiuser kept on adding them. So the final decision was to create two articles - one "Objections..." includes the silly "replies", while the "Problems" contains the proper optimized text only that only contains the objections=problems, and not stuff that obviously does not belong to the page. --Lumidek 20:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This wasn't a decision, except by yourself. If you want to write articles, no one else edits, please your homepage. --Pjacobi 18:35, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

This is the original

It's a matter of terminology whether we call these two pages duplicates, but if we do, THIS is the original, text, while the "Objections" is the page that has been vandalized and is virtually unusable. --Lumidek 18:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, see Talk:Objections to the theory of loop quantum gravity. --Pjacobi 19:12, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

I've explained on the same place why is your reasoning flawed. --Lumidek 19:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(end of moved material)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.