Talk:DAMA/LIBRA

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

But... what is it?[edit]

What the heck is DAMA/Libra? The article forgets to tell us. 70.116.13.152 (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added an introduction. I think the setup description is too detailed and there should be clearer information about the results. And then there is that ridiculous number of references. Lido (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

I intend to revert this due to the fact that it fails to be sourced to peer-reviewed papers and secondary sources. I invite Headbomb to explain otherwise. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are preprints of refereed papers. It's trivial to switch them to journal citations. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and switch them. Many of the claims are not made in the refereed versions and some of the articles have no journal counterpart. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, all cite journals. Now stop accusing me of lying. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fine, though the preprint versions are markedly different in two of the cases. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Link[edit]

This article has a link to a page that was removed for being considered unreliable. We probably should remove that link. Dauto (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New results[edit]

I see there are new results at http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6243 but I wonder how many labs have tried to replicate this signal, and how many have succeeded so far. (My understanding is that the answers are "about a handful" and "zero" respectively, but I was surprised not to find that here.)

Also, is this the only dark matter detection experiment with positive results so far? 70.59.18.251 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

citation overkill[edit]

this article has a TONE of citations, if someone could fix that, preferably by merging them, that would be best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_overkill Mralext20 (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LNGS needs a link[edit]

LNGS needs to be expanded and made a link to the LNGS article. John G Hasler (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signal explained as incorrect statistics[edit]

In 2020 the annual signal was reported (by others) to be due the way the noise level was reset annually. Is this controversial ? I'll look for the sources. - Rod57 (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a preprint that raises the issue Annual modulations from secular variations: relaxing DAMA? - cited by Forbes [1] - Rod57 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article did mention it - so appended to intro/lead too. - Rod57 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]