Talk:An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything/Archive 2

Various Changes

Given that Lisi has now spoken at Ted and people use Wikipedia as a reference, I figured it would be worthwhile to give this a bit larger of an overhaul than the small edits I've been making. I've removed the Secondary Debates from the page as it does not seem relevant to the subject of the article. Here is the relevant material:

In addition to debate over the model, Lisi's paper has sparked several secondary discussions, often laced with hostile and insulting remarks, about blogging, scientific etiquette, and the non-peer review endorsement system of ArXiv that supported Lisi's publication.

In his blog, Luboš Motl wrote:

“ This paper by A. Garrett Lisi had to be endorsed by someone. If you read the acknowledgements, it is not hard to see possible answers. Some of those people such as Lee Smolin may endorse any crackpot paper because they are both endorsers and crackpots at the same moment. Moreover, they have a vested interest to increase the proportion of similar papers on the arXiv because this is where they belong. As Lee Smolin recently pointed out, irrationality has been extremely useful for him in the past. ”

The role of non-constructive criticism and flaming in scientific debate was questioned, amongst others, by Lee Smolin:

“ I entered this discussion hoping we could find resolution, what I encountered was a toxic and nasty atmosphere in which it was impossible to get a simple yes/no answer to a simple question without facing a lot of blustering and nastiness. [...] What has happened is that one very smart, but intellectually isolated young theoretical physicist has made a bold and risky proposal for unification of physics. Due to his personal circumstances, he got much too much media attention - something everyone including him agrees about and several of us including myself tried to stop. A bunch of people who think they own the territory of unification are enraged. They react with all the classic symptoms of territory defense that the sociologists of science have catalogued. ”

Nevertheless, humorous remarks could also be found, e.g. by Peter Woit:

“ As far as I can tell, there seems to be a consensus among the CV [Cosmic Variance] commenters that: 1. We think denigrating and insulting people is a legitimate part of a scientific discussion. 2. We think doing this anonymously is fine too. 3. We don’t understand why it is so hard to have serious discussions about physics on blogs. We suspect it is because PW [Peter Woit] keeps interfering with them. ”

Jacques Distler commented:

“ Allow me to make four predictions for 2008. (1) There will be several further followups to Lisi’s paper. (2) The protagonists will insist (if ever challenged on the matter) that no flaws in Lisi’s or Lee’s paper were ever proven. (3) Anyone who attempts to say otherwise will be denounced as (a) rude, (b) a “string theory partisan”, with suspicious motives. (4) Peter Woit will chime in, to announce that the whole affair reflects badly on the string theorists. ”

I removed some POV (Sautoy doesn't substantiate his remark, but, then, neither does anyone else.) I emphasized the classical nature of Lisi's theory. The reason why this is important is that we already have a classical lagrangian that describes everything -- take the standard model plus general relativity. As always, the hard part is to get a quantum theory which Lisi has not done. I removed the statement that Lisi's model falls into the field of representation theory. Representation theory is a field of mathematics, not of physics. Instead, representation theory is used in non-Abelian gauge theories which are used to describe the non-gravitational forces, so Lisi's use is unremarkable (in the literal sense of the word). I didn't have the energy to fix the "decomposition" given in the text. For example, the number 8 is used to refer to any of three different representations which should be distinguished. I removed many use of the words prediction because the theory is not quantized, so it's tough to say much about it at all. As John Baez's comment notes, it's hard to see how he's going to ever get the standard model parameters out of this even if you ignore all the other difficulties. I also added a few references. I apologize in advance for not sticking around to debate these changes, but given the history of this page so far, I'm not sure I can see it being particularly productive. 71.113.232.47 (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting theory to the test section

Hello - on March 1st, anonymous IP 71.113.232.47 has given us a high-quality update to the article (that's my opinion, certainly), and described his/her changes on the talk page. Thanks for that.

I understand that the "secondary debates" section can be taken out, as it's more an insight into fragments of scientific debate these days. Maybe that's something for another article, e.g. sociology in science.

I've two remarks on the format of the current article:

1. We have two breakdowns of E8 into proposed constituent forces; it appears largely duplicate, can we remove one? Either one is fine with me, and the second one appears to be more general, so I'd opt for the second.
2. The section "putting the theory to the test" appears unneeded to me, because it applies to any model beyond the Standard Model. If we would want to relate to Lisi's comment ("It's not over until the LHC sings"), then a link to a page with physics beyond the standard model should suffice.

Thanks for all the continued, constructive effort! Jens Koeplinger (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

NB re falsifiability

I just happened to notice in a slashdot item (I think it was from Wired, a generally cool source) that it seems falsifiability can be mistaken (as it seems to have been by the writer in a generally good critique of scientific journalism, but I may be misconstuing mention vs use); some seem to think falsifiability is a bad thing, as in: the theory is falsifiable, therefore it can be proven false, therefore it is false. When in fact it's a good thing: the theory is falsifiable, therefore it is testable, and if it is mistaken, it can be proven false. I'm more worried about the pseudoscience articles (pseudoscientists don't credit falsifiability, and they are oblivious to Occam's razor), but I thought I'd mention here in light of recent reverts. Pete St.John (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed "falsify" to "refute", and it seems a better word for this case. The tests would either affirm the theory, or refute it. John Hyams (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the objection was that the model has to specify masses, to be falsifiable; so if the hadron collider doesn't find the right things, they may merely be higher mass, so the model may not be refuted. My supposition is that the work isn't mature enough for sufficiently specific predictions, but I'm no judge. Pete St.John (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

pun

Regarding the pun ("exceptionally simple"): puns refer to words, so "pun on the terminology used in the algegbra E8" is redundant compared to "pun on the algebra E8" although "algebraic structure" instead of "algebra" might be better if the word is meant to be used as a noun (since E8 is a Group, not an Algebra, correct?) Pete St.John (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

sautoy

An anonymous IP wants to add to Sautoy's criticism that the comment is not elaborated or substantiated. It's merely a comment by an authority. The authority is citable; that's as far as we need to drill down. Not every phrase in every sentence of the article can, or should, contain the whole truth of the matter. Lisi has gotten some reactions, and we quote some of the notable authorities; that's all. Pete St.John (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the quotes in the criticism section are from people who have substantiated their comments. If you read Sautoy's article, you will see that he is just trying to get attention for his book. His comments, therefore, are not credible. They should be taken out, or at least qualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.202.218 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's comments are qualifiable, there is no end to it; including ours. The article quotes professional opinions, not psychoanalyses of the professionals. If there is something specific and citable to impugn one of them, such as a fraud conviction, then by all means cite it, but we don't need opinions about opinions about opinions... Pete St.John (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

this article is violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding original research

This original research, which is untestable, conflicts with Wikipedia's stated policy on Original Research: Wikipedia:Original_Research. This article, which constitutes original research that Distler et al have found to be faulty, should be removed until it passes muster with a peer-reviewed journal in the realm of physics. After the orginal media storm funded by FQXI/PI, the theory has been exposed as something that cannot be published in a peer-reviewed physics journal. If this article remains, then every non-peer-reviewed article on physics ought be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.112 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR refers to the wiki itself, not the wiki's subjects. Our articles cover many things besides peer-reviewed science: fraud, debunking fraud, media storms, and amusing ideas published maybe prematurely, among them. Pete St.John (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by: "WP:OR refers to the wiki itself, not the wiki's subjects."

So are you saying that Garrett's article is allowed to exist not because it is "peer-reviewed science," but because it is "fraud, debunking fraud, media storms, and amusing ideas published maybe prematurely."

Should not this descritption be added to the main page?

It seems that Smolin et al are trying to pass off "fraud, debunking fraud, media storms, and amusing ideas published maybe prematurely" as science.

For instance, perhaps a new page should be started based on your words: "The Garrett Lisi Affair: Fraud, Debunking Fraud, Media Storms, and Amusing Ideas Published Maybe Prematurely."

Only thing is, Garrett's theory was self-published, so please title the article: "The Garrett Lisi Affair: Fraud, Debunking Fraud, Media Storms, and Amusing Ideas Self-Published Maybe Prematurely."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.112 (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The OR policy is important so we should address that. It refers to contributors: as a wiki contributor I may not contribute my own original research. If I discover that the Earth is Flat I must publish elsewhere before here. We do, however, have articles about other people's original research. Normally, that's by writing an article (here) about books, papers, articles, etc, elsewhere; those "elsewhere's" are the sources we cite. In this case, our article is not about a peer-reviewed publilcation, but about a web publication and consequent media reaction and (mostly online) debates that followed. That's OK; the military action right now in the Cormoron islands isn't peer-reviewed either, but its on the Main Page. We are constrained to cite reputable sources, that's all.

Note that if this were titled "Lisi's conjecture" or "Lisi's avenue of research" there would be no controversy at all; too much is made of the word "theory". He's just an interesting guy who proposed an interesting approach which got too much publicity but very interesting professional reactions. He's not the Antichrist, nor is he Einstein; the world is filled with unfinished work leading in multitudinous directions, and the wiki helps make some sense of it all. Pete St.John (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd just add that the basis for existence of this article is it's WP:Verifiability plus the topic's WP:Notability. WP:OR in most cases applies to how an article should be written, not if. salVNaut (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd add more: please feel free to add anything to this article that pushes the article closer to the truth, BUT only if it's backed up by a relevant source. I, for example, am not sure if Distler's argument is the end to all of it. It seemed to me that Lisi, Somolin vs Distler et al were in disagreement on what could constitute to a chiral theory. salVNaut (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is: "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

Garrett Lisi's theory is: 1) an unpublished work. he has only ever self-published it. 2) it is an unpublished argument 3) it is unpublished speculation 4) it contains unfounded, unpublished ideas.

My question is, why are so many people opposed to waiting for it to be published in a physica journal or HEP journal? PI has hundreds of millions of dollars to send anonymous fanboys here, but the hundreds of millions of dollars won't necessarily buy correct math, nor correct group theory, nor the physical truth that is required by peer-reviewed journals. Should not more of all of this be included in the main article? For instance, every time I add the infomration that the theory has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal, someone removes it. Why is that? Are we not allowed to post the truth on wikipedia? Is it now a place for:

1) unpublished work. he has only ever self-published it. 2) unpublished argument 3) unpublished speculation 4) unpublished ideas.

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.112 (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unpublished Work

Would it be OK to include facts in the main body of the article, including the fact that Garrett Lisi's theory has not been published in a peer-reviewed phyiscs journal, nor a peer-reviewed science journal, nor a peer-reviewed HEP journal?

I know that including such statements of truth would remind people that the article on Garrett Lisi's theory is in violation of Wikipedia's standards and ought be removed, but is this reason enough to keep the truth off the page? Here is wikipedia's policy: "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

There are strange forces at work here.

Could someone please answer this: "Would it be OK to include facts in the main body of the article, including the fact that Garrett Lisi's theory has not been published in a peer-reviewed phyiscs journal, nor a peer-reviewed science journal, nor a peer-reviewed HEP journal?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.112 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We should keep the Wikipedia article to what was said in public, by notable persons, rather than writing about what was not said (in one's personal view). If you find academic criticism, then you may state it as such and reference it. --- When I left the article on Jan 5, it did include a reference to Dr. Motl's criticism of the mode of publication (arXiv ePrint). Other than that, I have not found notable criticism that was published elsewhere, or could be referenced here. Only because some people believe that posting to arXiv does not constitute "publication" does not mandate that this is to be stated on every Wikipedia article, where the author chose against the formal peer review process. That debate is better handled on the arXiv page. See e.g. the Grigori Perelman article, in which "posting on arXiv" apparently poses no problems. For Dr. Lisi's model, I don't see a notable debate here, either. To be honest, I find it embarrassing that the old wording "published on arXiv" here led to edit warring and bickering, rather than simply changing it e.g. to "posted on arXiv" to avoid the controversy. Koeplinger (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Do you think it would be OK to include facts in the main body of the article, including the fact that Garrett Lisi's theory has not been published in a peer-reviewed phyiscs journal, nor a peer-reviewed science journal, nor a peer-reviewed HEP journal?

I would not want to violate wikipedia's policy by publishing such facts in the main body of the article.

Are facts allowed on wikipedia?

Garrett Lisi has been called the next Einstein by Lee Smolin, who helped fund Lisi's theories, which have never been published in a peer-reviewed physics journals.

Einstein published in peer-reviewed journals.

Why 1) does Lisi not want to publish in peer-reviewed physics journals?

Why 2) do so many here feel that the fact that the paper isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal ought be censored from the article?

I still haven't seen an answer to the spirit of my question: "Why are media hype and unpublished, non-peer-reviewed speculation allowed on wikipedia, and presented as "science," while facts are opposed, deleted, and censored?"

Perhaps you have seen the errors of your ways, and we can now add the simple fact: "Garrett Lisi's Theory has not been published in any peer-reviewed physics journals, nor in any peer-reviewed science journals."

Do I have your permission to add this truth to the main body? Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.112 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to accomplish an improvement to the article, as you may desire, a successful path could be to gauge public attention received, and then describe and reference this attention. This may give your edits longevity. You may find it unfortunate that media hype qualifies as a form of "attention", and I understand that this alone cannot be it. The decision whether to go peer-review or not, the effectiveness of the peer review process in general, the endorsement system of arXiv, and ways of buidling credibility and obtaining funding ... all these are highly interesting topics, which I find notable to be captured in the respective pages. But if we don't constrain a Wikipedia page to what was actually said, by notable sources that are referenced, then the article itself would become a source of original information (even though one may find statements as "true"). The TOE article was posted on arXiv, and presented at several meets. By all means, it was "made public". ... I guess that's the best comment I can give. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your most eloquent words.

Could you please also answer my question? Do I have your permission to add the following truth to the main body? "Garrett Lisi's Theory has not been published in any peer-reviewed physics journals, nor in any peer-reviewed science journals."

Is not the public entitled to know this fact?

Are we not allowed to publish facts on wikipedia?

I know several leading scientists. Must I first get one of them to say, "Garrett Lisi's Theory has not been published in any peer-reviewed physics journals, nor in any peer-reviewed science journals," before we can include the fact in the article?

I can start a petition and get several prominent physicists to endorse it. Do you suggest I take this route? Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.112 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the article does mention the its publication in arXiv in the lead. I would be most surprised that no one has commented on its unusual method of publication, a citation can no doubt be found, indeed there is quote to this effect higher up this talk page. This may well be best treated in the Publicity and controversy section. I'm unconvinced that we need to make a big deal of it - there is plenty of criticism here which leaves the reader with no doubt on the controversial nature of the work. I am interested in whether Lisi intends to publish in a journal. --Salix alba (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have several friends with work and theories that have been published and disseminated with "unusual methods of publication." Can we now make wikipedia pages for all their work? Please let me know so we can get started. They are all experts in their fields, but have not gone the peer-review route, for the same reasons Lisi didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.112 (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact, true and reported repeatedly, is that Lissi's article was posted to the arxiv. This is stated in the introduction. Whether this qualifies as "published" or not may be debated elsewhere, but I don't think it requires discussion here, or pointing out in the introduction.70.1.89.4 (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! Can we now procede to create pages for every theory that has been posted at arxiv.org, as you write "Whether this qualifies as "published" or not may be debated elsewhere, but I don't think it requires discussion here, or pointing out in the introduction." So it is that posting a theory to arxiv.org merits a wikipedia page. We have a lot of work to do; and at the very least, all of you wikimasters must refrain from ever deleting pages of articles that were posted to wikipedia, based on self-posted/self-published arxiv.org articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.112 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Are Winners of the Fields Medal's Comments Not Allowed?

This was deleted: The famous mathematician and theoretical physicist Alain Connes stated, "The ridiculous recent episode of the “exceptionally simple theory of everything” has shown that there is no credibility in the opponents of string theory in the US." why was it deleted? Alain is an expert in the field. He has won several awards, incuding a fields medal. First, arxiv.org counts as publication, and now the opinions of experts are not allowed on wikipedia. 'Tis a brave new day for physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.112 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello - I read the entire article of the quote you provided. Alain Connes was lamenting a lack of opposition to the dominant String Theory research, and was complaining that an out-of-balance situation contributes that almost all positions for hire in physics, regarding fundamental interaction of particles, are in String Theory only. He was attributing this to a (perceived) dominance of strong researchers in the U.S., and by the Europeans merely following. He was apparently not having much hope for the U.S., as opponents on String Theory - in his view - don't enjoy much credibility. --- So, I see the following wrong with the edit you made: Your citation did not nearly represent what was said; then, it was out-of-place (it was in the lead-in of the model); and finally it was more a lament about dominating themes of research in physics, controversial in itself, and therefore I would think this to be more applicable for a "sociology in physics" type article, but not here. Koeplinger (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind you that this was deleted: The famous mathematician and theoretical physicist Alain Connes stated, "The ridiculous recent episode of the “exceptionally simple theory of everything” has shown that there is no credibility in the opponents of string theory in the US." why was it deleted? Alain is an expert in the field. He has won several awards, incuding a fields medal. First, arxiv.org counts as publication, and now the opinions of experts are not allowed on wikipedia. 'Tis a brave new day for physics.

The citation quoted what was said. How does quoting what was said, and providing a reference to what was said, not represent what was said?

Are we not allowed to let prominent mathematicians and theoretical physicists comment on Lisi's theory on wikipedia? What is going on here?!?

Alain Connes was awarded the Fields Medal in 1982, the Crafoord Prize in 2001 and the gold medal of the CNRS in 2004. He is a member of the French Academy of Sciences and several foreign academies and societies, including the Danish Academy of Sciences, Norwegian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, and US National Academy of Sciences.

I vote that we add Alain Conne's above quote to the Lisi article, as Connes is a certifiable expert.

Lisi's theory and its surrounding hype, lacking sound, concrete math and verifiable equations that can be experimentally tested, and also lacking peer-reviewed publication; seems to be based not on physics, but on the sociology of well-funded Smolinology, which is supported by FQXI and PI which has a few hundred million dollars. Lee Smolin, who has never won a fields medal, called the theory "fabulous." Alain Connes, who won a Fields medal and several other awards questions Lisi's theory. Surely we ought to be able to add his concerns to the wikipedia page. Why in the world would people wish to suppress Conne's view, and censor his reasoned debate, and deny the public the perspective of one of teh world's leading theoretical physicists and mathematicians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.112 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Scientific American Not Considered a Valid Source?

Why was the following deleted?

In "Wipeout? A hyped theory of everything sinks from sight," Scientific American reports, '"Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything.” So ran a Daily Telegraph headline last November. The story circulated and quickly achieved widespread notoriety (even my dentist asked me about it). The physics blogosphere carried long threads of comments attacking and defending the theory and then attacking the tone of the discussion. The shouting and acrimony have died down, and the mainstream physics community remains largely unconvinced that the theory can stay afloat. In the words of Marcus du Sautoy, a University of Oxford mathematician writing in the Telegraph in late January: “Unfortunately, the consensus, after investigation, is that it is impossible to use E8 in the way Lisi was hoping and produce a consistent model that reflects reality.”'

So far the editors on this page have rejected several invaluable sources, including famous theoretical physicist Alain Connes, the winner of the Fields Medal, and now Scientific American.

To what extent are the editors willing to go to replace actual physics with lisimania's and smolinology's "fabulous" theories? I hope they're being well-compensated, as facts are a stubborn thing, and truth ultimately prevails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.135.70 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel it's too long a quote for the lede, and would recommend moving it to the "Publicity and controversy" section, except perhaps for the last sentence. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I copied the reference to the link section: An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything#External_links Tom Ruen (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tom, is there some objection to including text from Scientific American on Wikpedia? If not, I will add some text from Scientific American on the wikipedia page.

There's a lot of text from random blogs and websites on wikipedia--is wikipedia phasing out text from highly respected and reputable magazines, such as Scientific American? If not, I will add the text from Scientific American.

Thanks for your time and dedicated wariness of Scientific American's trustworthiness; and your accompanying undying faith in hype, smolinology, lisimania, and blogs. Wikipedia is truly a blessing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.135.70 (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You sound bitter. I'm more interested in facts not opinions, so I admit I had little interest in the copy&paste quote you made from the article summary. I certainly have little understanding of the subatomic particle physics, so I can't evaluate content. It would be better if new content is integrated into the article rather than just copied. I suppose at least it makes more sense to add the quote to the An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything#Criticism section, referencing the article? Tom Ruen (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You sound like you are bending over backwards to suppress the truth. Why is this? Do some research and you will see that the Scientific American article, which is factual, has been suppressed three times from the main body of the article, including the criticism section.

The question is, why do the lismania fanboys keep deleting words from Scientific American? Lisi's theory has never been peer-reviewed, so it violates wikipedia's policy in the first place. Some of his well-funded fanboys claim that the article deserves a place because of "media attention," as if "media attention" is now the metric for science. And the hilarious things is that those same "media attention" fanboys are now suppressing and censoring information from one of the most eminent meida outlets in the realm of science--Scientific American.

Why is that? Please do answer. I see people here who love the Truth. Please stop calling them bitter, just because they love Truth and Science. I would characterize the censorers and suppressors of Truth and the Scientific American article as the ones who are bitter and seething with rage and hateful of physics, truth, honor, and integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.112 (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was sensing your bitterness, not generic people. It seems like your opinion is (1) This article should be deleted from existence as an unnoteworthy, wrong theory (2) OR the introduction ought to contain a summary opinion that it is a nonsense theory. My personal interest is in the beauty of the mathematics rather than its possible connection to physics. I don't see the hurry to pass judgement either way. I'm happy to leave all the professional quotes you can muster as to the failure of its value to physics. I just don't think opinions belong in the introduction. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the physics community has dropped it as unpromising, and we can find a reliable source that says that, that fact should absolutely be in the introduction. I'll look at the Sci Am article as soon as I can. -- SCZenz (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream physics community never picked up Lisi's theory in the first place. It has never been accepted by a peer-reveiwed journal.

The theory is a non-theory, as it predicts nothing. Above you say that the math is beautiful--that is an opinion. The non-theory was sold as a physics theory by the "physicist" Smolin et al. Many prominent physicists, such as Distler and Fields Medalist Connes would argue that the math is in fact not beautiful, as it is not correct, and one cannot add bosons and fermions as lisi does.

Wikipedia is not a place for your opinions and lismania hype. Wikipedia is a place for truth and reports from reputable publications such as Scientific American, which reports: In "Wipeout? A hyped theory of everything sinks from sight," Scientific American reports, '"Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything.” So ran a Daily Telegraph headline last November. The story circulated and quickly achieved widespread notoriety (even my dentist asked me about it). The physics blogosphere carried long threads of comments attacking and defending the theory and then attacking the tone of the discussion. The shouting and acrimony have died down, and the mainstream physics community remains largely unconvinced that the theory can stay afloat. In the words of Marcus du Sautoy, a University of Oxford mathematician writing in the Telegraph in late January: “Unfortunately, the consensus, after investigation, is that it is impossible to use E8 in the way Lisi was hoping and produce a consistent model that reflects reality.”' [8]

I vote we add Scientific American's truths and remove all of Lisi at al's unpublished, non-peer-reviewed opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.148.112 (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes--could someone please elaborate on why the words from Fields Medalist Alain Connes and Scientific American are being censored from the main page? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.189.7 (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi anonymous user(s) editing from the Pepperdine University network, I recommend you look at the edit summaries in the history and some of the discussion above. The people who removed those things actually explained their edits, and Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit: you can start at Wikipedia:Introduction to learn more about the editing process here. In the meantime, as I've said above, I agree the Sci Am article is an interesting source; I intend to look at it (and incorporate it into the article if appropriate) just as soon as I can get access. -- SCZenz (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

The "Publicity and Controversy" section is too jumbled. I've been following the development of this theory in detail, and think this Wikipedia article would benefit from a chronology. Moving favorable comments and criticism from experts into this section places their statements in context, and clarifies the issues. (I'll undertake the move of comments into the Chronology next, and clean up the references, if no one else wishes to do it. Sorry for the temporary duplications.) If there are significant relevant events missing, or if new developments occur, please add them, and discuss them here.Scientryst (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up the references, and moving the quotes into the chronology. Where did the Carlo Rovelli quote come from? It's not at the cited location.Scientryst (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work, looks much better! Tom Ruen (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research?

Unfortunately, I worry that the whole chronology section may be original research. It essentially amounts to an original synthesis of comments from marginally-notable sources, in an effort to create a narrative of the debate on the subject. Although I have no reason to question the accuracy of that narrative, I do question whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Blog comments by scientists are not reliable sources in the same way that published papers are, and I think we should be wary of a section that relies on them essentially exclusively. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - one point of criticism that I see here over and over is that the article would not have been reviewed by peers. The chronology lists a long list of such reviews, thereby answering that criticism. Another strange comment that pops up frequently is that the theory would have been largely ignored by some "mainstream physics community" (whatever that may be), whereas instead it is the most downloaded article on the arXiv (thereby underwriting some kind of attention, also, whatever attention that may be). Both these examples give answer to personal speculation and opinion one may have ("not reviewed by peers", "largely ignored"), by providing measurable events (number of reviews published, number of downloads). My view on this article is to simply stick to what was said and reference it. Whether or not the form of a chronology is appropriate is debatable, however, since there had been edits in the past that wanted to put criticism first and support last (and vice versa), I found a chronology a good idea, personally. I'm suprised about the "original research" tag, though, placed by a Wikipedia administrator; every single line in the chronology is referenced, I don't see why this required intervention from that end. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, blog writing is not the same as scientific peer review; that process is what gets an article published in a journal, which is certainly not true for this paper. Counting arXiv downloads and blog posts is certainly original research. You seem to be under the impression that the mainstream process for evaluating publishing articles is an "opinion" of some kind, but this is false; that process is, rather, what defines a reliable source for scientific matters on Wikipedia. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your point is founded and well taken. To the least, I suggest you provide reference to your recent edit(s), that Lisi is actually seeking publication through a formal peer review process. As far as I know, he is not seeking such, but I may be wrong (because I don't know either way). With this lack of information, it is my impression that he has chosen some kind of 'grassroots' approach, by seeding an idea and letting it propagate through informal online channels. This is not an approach I would have chosen; but personal view and opinion aside, the choice of publication mode is of the author, and everyone is free to chose. Different modes of publication achieve different results. Lisi's choice supports propagation through open-access, "free" sources, and it comes with all the hoopla, as it touches "hot" topics like quantum gravity, E8, and unification of forces. As for the Wikipedia article, Lisi's model is new, and notability is supported by the attention it received; as of now, its notability is not supported by it being a scientific "fact" of sorts. Therefore, to me, a reliable source for "attention received" is exactly reference to that attention, which are blogs of notable scientists and similar. The current chronology supports that. I do understand your point well that these are not reliable sources for underwriting scientific consensus. And I can understand the frustration of a researcher who actually found and supported scientific facts, published these, and received hardly any attention ever after. I guess some of the conflict here (and in general) is about the amount of attention Lisi's model continues to receive, at this early stage in development (i.e. with unanswered conceptual problems). Is there a balance that can be achieved here? Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim that Lisi is seeking to have his work peer-reviewed. I have no idea either whether he has submitted the paper, and I'm not aware of any sources that say. The fact that it hasn't passed peer-review, and remains unpublished, is a highly relevant piece of information in understanding the theory.

I'm not at all disputing that the paper has received a lot of attention; the Scientific American article I recently referenced is a very good source for this fact. (Better than linking a bunch of blog posts, for example.) I am not disputing the notability of the subject, because of the media coverage. But the people who are interested are few, and the community as a whole is ignoring it due to technical problems... and since we have a source that says that, I think it's very important that the article make that clear. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

One reason why the blogs are not particularly reliable sources is that they give the impression, which you seem to hold also, that a few weeks' worth of argument on personal blogs is the same as serious scientific treatment of the subject. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I ever voiced my impression on the subject, other than editorial (capturing who said what). Koeplinger (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply recording who said what may in some cases give undue weight to minority views. There is pretty close to a consensus among physicists that this theory won't go anywhere, and that fact (which I have given a citation for) is rather important. -- SCZenz (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction discussion

I went and looked at the Sci-Am article, and it is mostly a description of the debates that took place on these physics blogs. So perhaps we should think twice about putting Sci-Am on a level of importance above the physics bloggers. Nevertheless, I think we are in agreement that significant criticism is an important part of this Wikipedia article. It's certainly been an interesting and unusual story to follow. Maybe Graham Collins' statement should be moved to the Scientific American chronology item. Hmm, also, the rest of the intro looks like it needs work. The fact that the paper hasn't yet appeared in a refereed journal should probably be moved to a note on the paper item of the chronology. Does anyone know if Lisi has submitted or stated his intent to submit this paper to a journal?Scientryst (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Scientific American article important. It's a reliable source that summarizes the debates, rather than our own synthesis of that material directly from the primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, written based on the work of authors on secondary sources; as such, the summary in the SciAm article of the current state of the community's work on the theory (or lack thereof) is both critical and relevant to understanding the theory.

Furthermore, the introduction must absolutely state that the article is not in a scientific journal. Peer-review and journal publication are the usual arbiters of what is serious, promising work in the sciences and what is not. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The introduction should just be about the theory. The current introduction looks like a food fight broke out between editors. It was better before.76.252.229.239 (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is just about the theory. What extraneous information do you think is present? -- SCZenz (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What some popular science journalist said in March doesn't belong in the introduction, it belongs with the rest of the description of what others have said. It is not NPOV to pick out this one article as the most important.76.252.229.239 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained that Scientific American is a reliable secondary source; it's not the same as a random personal opinion, but rather a summary of the general situation. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, the introduction should include the most recent thing to be written about this theory in a popular science magazine?76.252.229.239 (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said. The article should be based primarily on reliable secondary sources if available, not on Wikipedia's own synthesis of primary-source blogs. For highly relevant questions like whether the theory is currently considered promising (or even plausible) by theoretical physicists, I would certainly like to see recent sources in particular. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This question of whether the theory is currently considered promising is in contention. Picking our personal favorite side, and picking a report that supports that side to put in the introduction, violates NPOV. If we can come up with an objective selection procedure for a summary statement from the press to go in the intro, we could use that. I think "most recent summary in a well established popular physics magazine" would be fine. But I think we're better off with these things in the chronology.76.252.229.239 (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the latest opinion expressed in a popular physics magazine, Symmetry Magazine, which surely is a reliable secondary source. You can't possibly revert this if you are maintaining NPOV. I still don't think our personal opinion belongs in the intro, but if you insist on some commentary there, this seems balanced.76.252.229.239 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The source is a useful one, but your quote specifically doesn't address the question of whether anyone is working on the theory. You've set up a straw man with your idea of quoting "the most recent thing to be written about this theory in a popular science magazine," and then knocked it down. What we need to do is accurately summarize whether the theory is considered promising and well-founded. I've asked for some outside opinions on this topic on appropriate noticeboards. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since both sources are useful summaries of the situation, I have rewritten the second paragraph to incorporate both. What do you think? -- SCZenz (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of the theory, or the pre-print?

If you're going to claim "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" is the name of the theory, please cite a source for that. Otherwise it's the name of the pre-print. -- SCZenz (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been referred to as "Lisi's Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" in the blogs. But you may be right... in recent articles it's usually referred to as "E8 Theory." The Wikipedia article is about the theory though, so it seems consistent in the introduction that we are talking about a theory, not just about a preprint.Scientryst (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Who says the Wikipedia article is about the theory? It was created as an article about the paper; if we decide it's really about the theory, then we'll have to start arguing about what the title should be too. ;) -- SCZenz (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right.Scientryst (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Chronology (2)

If we were to include the chronology of Inflation theory and mention each and every conference talk by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde etc. then how large would the wiki article on that topic become? You don't need to understand Lie groups figure that out. :) Count Iblis (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientific american source

Ok, we have two issues... -- SCZenz (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Technical difficulties

The way I read the article, it pretty directly established a link between perceived technical difficulties and people giving up on the theory. It's difficult for me to argue without a copy in front of me, so that will have to wait until Monday... but you do understand we can paraphrase articles rather than directly quoting them, right? -- SCZenz (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The SciAm article was certainly critical, but it didn't say anything as strong as "fundamental technical problems." The only technical problem mentioned was with the "formal addition of bosons and fermions," but according to other discussions, it appears that was a Red Herring. So it doesn't seem right to put such a strongly condemning statement in the intro.Scientryst (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, who says it was a red herring? Some bloggers (not others), and a preprint. Second, since the theory is founded on adding fermions and bosons in the same structures, if that can't be done, it is certainly a "fundamental" problem. If the article didn't mention any others, then I'd support changing "fundamental technical problems" to "a fundamental technical problem." We could also note in the lead that a few people believe that the problems can be solved, and continue to work on the theory, which is certainly supported by SciAm and various other sources. -- SCZenz (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The physicists and mathematicians who have talked about this theory extensively have identified Lisi's construction as a superconnection, in which it is typical to formally add bosons and fermions this way. It was Motl who sent the journalists and some others on this wild goose chase, saying there was a problem with this. Lisi was probably laughing his head off. Did you read Urs Schreiber's post, and the comments? In any case, it would be embarrassing for Wikipedia to cite this in the introduction as a major problem with the theory.Scientryst (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's never embarrassing for Wikipedia to cite a reliable secondary source. Part of the source of our disagreements is that you have read all these blog posts, and you have more confidence in your own judgment of the points than in the judgment of the science writers. But whether you like it or not, it's science writers are producing the material that should be used preferentially according to Wikipedia policy. -- SCZenz (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"it was reported that"

Why do we need those extra words, and why do you keep putting them in for Scientific American and not for Symmetry? -- SCZenz (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theory noticeboard

All - please note that SCZenz has placed a message on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything which I personally consider as flaming: It marks the second time within just two days that speculative, qualitative statement has been placed into my mouth, this time that I was "evidently a fan of the theory", without foundation to make such statement. Unfortunately, I am not feeling comfortable anymore contributing to the discussion about this article at the common time. I've read over my posts on this talk page, and am comfortable with what I indeed did say. Getting incorrect or skewed statements associated with my persona, by a person entrusted with special powers, could be damaging to my interests. I am probably over-reacting, and it might be best to remove myself from this discussion for a while. I'll check back later, say, in a month, and I do so hope that reason has been restored then. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're not a "single-topic editor," and it appears to me that you are not, then I wasn't referring to you. I'd also like to say that the language in that post was a bit stronger than it ought to have been, because moments of frustration and overreaction happen to me too. Please note that I am working on this article in my capacity as an editor, not an administrator, and that you can disagree with me as freely as you like—but in exchange, I get to disagree freely as well. -- SCZenz (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand and trust your effort to achieve consensus with all parties interested in this article, whether they are physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, or from any other field of interest. I've expressed my position on the actual subject on my talk page, and wish you and all other editors here a successful outcome. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

SCZenz, before imposing your point of view on this article, which is most likely the majority point of view, consider that a handful of professional physicists and mathematicians have taken a strong interest in this new theory. And, because they're in the minority, and their careers are at stake, most would rather remain anonymous. This doesn't happen with ill-posed, fringe theories. So think about that a bit, and try to make editing decisions that reflect the truth, rather than merely the majority view.Scientryst (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with fringe science per se; it's sometimes even right. This particular theory is even on the mainstream side of fringe science, and I certainly think that the article should note that a minority of professionals who believe the theory is promising. But Wikipedia does verifiability, not truth. If our best sources say something, we cannot marginalize those sources in favor of lesser ones because our editors personally judge them to be more factually accurate. Wikipedia policy says we include both majority and minority views, but we make clear which is which, and avoid giving undue weight to the latter. Whatever my personal opinion—and I'm actually not qualified to judge—I'm constrained by Wikipedia's core policies on sourcing. Perhaps if you take a look at the links given in this paragraph, we can have a better discussion on how to improve the article within those policies. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No more chronology?

There are many new edits being made by Itsmejudith. I like the idea of sectioning things and adding editorial comments, such as adding "Forerunner Papers" -- but this new section should probably be retitled as "Lead-up to the preprint," since these aren't all papers. But I'm confused about the reason for some of the edits.

Why should the straightforward chronology be converted to prose?

At the very least, it seems preferable to have the developments listed in temporal order. Otherwise, I'm concerned that this article will deteriorate into an unintelligible mess. When these same responses were organized into temporal order, the reorganization was a clear improvement. So, Itsmejudith, why break the order?Scientryst (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going on the basis of other controversial articles that I have helped to edit. Having a largely chronological structure to this article is appropriate and I recommend that you keep it. However, there is a difference between a chronological structure and a timeline. A timeline makes no judgement between minor comments on a blog and major coverage in an independent scientific source. My idea for the responses is that you should group together all the blog posts, probably in one or two sentences. "Blog responses included .... " and reserve more space for the coverage in the scientific media. I can't do this myself. Have a look at the cold fusion article, which has just gone through a GA assessment, after a mediation, for some idea of how this can be done. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, that seems reasonable. But there is something unusual going on in this case: the blogs and media coverage have been working off of one another. Some of the later "major coverage," such as by Scientific American, has primarily relied on the coverage by these physics bloggers. And the "major" media coverage has motivated blog coverage. It's an unusual interaction, and itself has been of interest to researchers interested in the sociology of science:

A Preliminary Forensic Exploration of a Scientific Social Technologies Success

If you separate the coverage by significant blogs, such as Cosmic Variance (blog), then you lose the information implicit in the timeline of thes responses. By separating them, it won't be possible for a reader to see this relationship, which would be a loss.

Currently, the blog posts in the chronology are clearly labeled as "blog post," to segregate them from "major media" coverage. Is it worth it to destroy the current portrayal of the blog-media relationship in a timeline, in order to further distinguish blog post from media article?

Perhaps this segregation could be emphasized in some other way, such as with color coded dots, as in the Timeline_of_information_theory? That would be a lot less work. And this section would remain concise and factual, without excessive editorial verbiage.Scientryst (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's our job to interpret this interplay and bring it to the attention of the reader. It seems like original research, unless we have a source that discusses that interplay. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that no interpretation should be provided, as that would be synthesis, constituting original research, and also likely violate NPOV.Scientryst (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't picking the elements and interweaving them so that the reader draws the intended conclusion also interpretation? -- SCZenz (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Scientryst (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not if you select the material and present it in a manner that gets your point across. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you change that very sentence, where it is written in WP:SYN. I have included every significant piece of source material I could find, good and bad, strictly sticking to a NPOV. If you see an implication in this material that conflicts with your POV, then perhaps you should reconsider your POV, and in any case, stop inflicting it upon this article.Scientryst (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is true in general, but it's still possible to cherry-pick verifiable facts, and word them so that each sentence is neutral, but then put them in an order that strongly implies a point you like. Common sense tells me that's contrary to the spirit of WP:SYN. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

These are all the significant sources, put in chronological order. I didn't pick them, I didn't order them, and they're presented with NPOV. These are just the facts, in order. If you think I've missed any significant negative references, please add them in the same fashion. If you're worried the facts make your opinion look wrong, maybe the facts aren't the problem...Scientryst (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't even know what my opinion is. But what makes you think that every physicist's blog is a "significant source"..? They're not, and that's the problem. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This was the criteria I used, from WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."Scientryst (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The conversion from chronology to prose seems to have been abandoned for now, leaving things a bit of a mess. I'm going to go ahead and restore the "Chronology" title and format, while keeping Itsmejudith's commentary.Scientryst (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over last paragraph of intro

WP:NPOV states: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." This is precisely what we are dealing with here, in regards to the report in SciAm that the theory was being "largely but not entirely ignored by the mainstream physics community." This clearly conflicts with other verifiable reports. The proposed solution, on the NPOV page, in bold, is "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." This is why it is necessary to include "it was reported that." That is the only way to present a contentious statement in a way that remains neutral.Scientryst (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What source says that any significant fraction of the community is working on it? Counting blogs and arXiv posts doesn't count. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement you are pushing is that "the theory was being largely but not entirely ignored by the mainstream physics community." Being cited and discussed by all the most popular physics blogs, a large number of periodicals, and several arXiv preprints is not "being largely ignored." Therefore, this statement is contentious, is in contradiction with others, and requires "it was reported that" to be in accordance with WP:NPOV.Scientryst (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that is your interpretation of primary sources. Furthermore, the blog activity had died down by the SciAm piece was written, and is still in that state now. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no interpretation required here. ArXiv papers, physics blog posts, and articles have come out after the SciAm piece. As far as I can tell (and this is just speculation), you're upset because these facts imply that the SciAm piece is off base. So you're trying to get the Chronology section deleted, which, in my opinion, is a dirty trick.Scientryst (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I want the article to reflect the most reliable sources, rather than your personal interpretation of the primary sources. Unless you have other accounts, it appears to me you have limited experience with our verifiability and original research policies... and it shows. (For example in your appeal to me to "try to make editing decisions that reflect the truth, rather than merely the majority view.") Your interpretations of blog posts and arXiv article counting are reasonable, they might even be true, but they are original synthesis by Wikipedia's usual standards. So we are frustrated with each other; you think I'm imposing my opinion on the article by giving primacy to a source you believe is mistaken, while I think you're ignoring the most reliable sources we have and leaning on the blogs because you think their conclusions are more accurate. Clearly this is not an impasse we are going to resolve by arguing, not least because we understand policy differently. See below. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not inject an interpretation or synthesis into the article. I did arrange the pre-existing mix of sources into chronological order. Almost all these sources, including the physics blogs and the quotes chosen from physicists, were here in the Criticism section before being put in order. It would have been bad to remove them, as they're germane to the article. You are correct that I originally appealed to your sense of truth. But, when that appeal failed, I stuck strictly to using the Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V -- adhering fully to their spirit. You seem to be wanting to erase all other sources, placing this negative SciAm article in higher regard than all other periodicals, and not just the blogs, by putting it in the Introduction. I can only guess that this is because it agrees with your POV. So it has felt like a struggle between us, but not a terribly frustrating one, since I think we're both working in good faith, and trying to keep to Wikipedia policy. Personally, I don't think any contentious statements should be in the introduction. But, if they are, as they are now, then we should at least try to keep them neutral and balanced appropriately, in accordance with WP:YESPOV, since the many sources offer competing viewpoints.Scientryst (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is, I put reliable secondary sources ahead of primary sources, because that is my understanding of Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and verifiability. Reliable secondary sources means major newspapers and science magazines. I think presenting an accurate picture of the state of the theory, in the view of the mainstream physics community, is sufficiently important that it ought to be in the article lead. Your assertion that SciAm's statement is "contentious" is based on your interpretation of a number of combined primary sources, as far as I can tell, and not on any reliable secondary source; that's why I object to your insistence on qualifying it. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And it doesn't help that the primary sources in question are largely personal blogs, which are probably among the least reliable sources out there. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro currently only mentions Symmetry and SciAm, not the blogs. And I'm fairly satisfied with your last edit. Although I thought your use of "However" was too harsh a contradiction to the SciAm report. Seems appropriately balanced now. Your opinion?Scientryst (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'll accept "a few" rather than "some," then it's satisfactory for the time being. There are some remaining issues that I don't think we'll resolve except by getting a significant amount of comment from other editors, but I agree the lead at least is in a position where I'm comfortable leaving it as it is while thinking over what to work on next. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that the Scientific American piece was a news article, not an opinion or editorial. -- SCZenz (talk)

It was an editorial. Graham P. Collins is on the Board of Editors of Scientific American, and this article was an expression of his opinion, with no original reporting or interviews; just pieces pulled from blogs and previous articles.Scientryst (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, no. It's not labeled as an editorial in any way. It's in the news section. Nowhere does the author qualify his statements as his opinion, and your personal views of how the information was collected are not relevant. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment over sourcing

I propose we do a formal request for comment over the way sources are used in this article. The issue is how we balance secondary sources like the Scientific American article, as opposed to raw chronological descriptions of sources like blogs. Are there any comments or suggestions about how to resolve the impasse before I do this? -- SCZenz (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the significant statements of experts in the field are important enough to warrant the use of these self-published sources. And the previous editors of this page agreed, since they included most of these sources to begin with. I also think the chronology format is important for organization. I've suggested using colored dots to segregate the periodical pieces from the self-published sources. Another editor has injected commentary into the Chronology, which remains as another possibility. But, before submitting a RfC, what change are you suggesting here?Scientryst (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Overview rewrite

Given the "in need of attention" notice on the Overview, I've attempted to write an improved, technically correct Overview. Since this will be based on Lisi's paper, a primary source, I'm going to try to be very careful to not make any interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative extensions — in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. If I am insufficiently careful in this regard, or there are other issues with this rewrite of the overview, please discuss them here. I'll move the existing overview to a "non-technical overview" subsection for now.Scientryst (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Scientryst, SCZenz - I guess I'm not doing too well on my promise to stay out of the debate. The "secondary" vs "primary source" debate is appropriate to a degree, but we have to be careful to separate the scientific merits of Lisi's model, from the attention it received. Scientifically, his model is a "long shot", as he repeatedly calls it, without a clear outlook whether or not it could be made to work. Publicly, his model has received a vast amount of attention, due to its relation to popular topics such as "E8", "quantum gravity", and "theory of everything". These two fields (science, public attention) are independent: Success in one field does not warrant success in the other. That said, I felt that we'd already done the separation well. Furthermore, a timeline of sorts seemed perfectly well suited to me to underwrite "attention received". If a scientist with good reputation makes a statement on his or her blog, then this is significant, even if we would be editing from a "primary source": Blog messages can cost a scientist his/her reputation, and therefore could become a career-killer. SCZenz, you've been editing Lubos Motl's article in the past, you know well about the potential negative impact of blogging.

All in all, I fully support to quote blogs of notable scientists, to become reference material here. Not in the main section of the article on the model, but in an "attention received" section, similar to the way the article was structured before. Conversely, I urge caution when quoting scientists from blogs: If a person makes a statement, this stamenet has to mature, or be refined, or even recalled. We cannot hold someone to a single post he/she made on his/her blog. We have to take follow-ups into account. In a way, the Web 2.0 seems to put some extra workload onto its recordkeepers (i.e. us), but I'm perfectly fine with that, due to its merits. Thanks for staying on, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to write an improved "non-technical overview." In order to do this, I've started with an analogy that illustrates the geometry of a fiber bundle. If this sort of "description by analogy" is inappropriate, please let me know here. I believe I read this particular analogy in one of the references, and may be able to find it if necessary.Scientryst (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

about 20 new particles ?

A couple of places in the article reference '20' new particles. The actual number "predicted" or rather otherwise unassigned is 18 (i.e. 240 - 222), see the bottom of page 15 of [1]. 24.17.110.63 (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Consequences section contains text "20 elements out of the 248 basis"; "20" should probably be "18", and E8 has 240 roots so I don't know where 248 comes from. 24.17.110.63 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

E8 has 248 dimensions - E8_(mathematics)#Basic_description Tom Ruen (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the other 2 particles are the Pati-Salam partners to the $W^{\pm }$. Scientryst (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarify source for "most-downloaded" statement?

The source we're citing for this statement, a talk from a conference at DESY, doesn't appear to say anything about Lisi's paper. Can someone clarify the source for this statement? -- SCZenz (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's reported in Peter Woit's blog, on INSPIRE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.210.172 (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)