Talk:Michał Gryziński

'Controversial'?

I've translated 'controversial' from the Polish page, but I couldn't find any concrete sources for that statement? It looks like there are some blurry comments about the model there, but also without any sources?Nick9876 (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

It seems that the redirect is not justified.--82.137.8.153 (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There is needed redirect in opposite direction: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model 149.156.69.178 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This really needs to be cleaned up

It does. The grammar is very bad. 144.13.140.190 (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Redirected from Free-fall atomic model) ??????

When I click a link on Wikipedia for a theoretical model, I want to see that model. I do NOT want some half-cooked biography. The redirect is foolish and irritating. There must be two seperate pages 124.169.149.140 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You are right. Thank you Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Improving the article

@Johnjbarton: the consensus was to keep and improve the article. Do you have any sources that could help? ReyHahn (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok I've done what I can here. Please review.

Note that the content in the free fall section with references is short, in proportion to its notability IMO. The section functions as an annotated bibliography rather than as a full scale encyclopedic entry on free-fall atom. This compromise gets the scope of Gryzinski's work across as well as the flavor of the free-fall model.

I was not able to find references for the content in the two unreferenced paragraphs. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Which two? I guess we can remove them and leave the article as it is for now.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry 3:

• ...This force bends the trajectory of the electron...
• ...rigid top approximation...
• ... Lagrangian for dynamics of a single electron in these models...

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh those. Let me check if I can find it in his articles, if not, off with the head.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The Lagrangian is in his book but it is quite different.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A second "Michał Gryziński" involved in physical science in Poland.

While searching for biographical information on "Michał Gryziński" I found conflicting information. I presume that the "Michał Gryziński" who authored the works discussed and listed in this article passed in 2004. A "Michał Gryziński" works on the Maria reactor and President of the 20th International Congress on Neutron Capture Therapy (ICNCT) meeting.

None of the current information in the article seems affected by this coincidence. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh right I just noticed it... Couldn't this article be better as an article of the free fall model and not the person?--ReyHahn (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Gryziński did two different majors works: Highly successful (classical) electron scattering model and free fall model. They are connected, but the less sexy electron scattering model is the notable part. So a free fall page would also have issues.

This page has a bio for Gryziński in Polish: https://tezeusz.pl/gryzinski-michal-sprawa-atomu-gryzinski-michal-1098045 . I'm trying to verify that this text is from the book and not somehow wikipedia content resurfacing. If that check succeeds then we have enough to justify the personal info the page. Otherwise we may need to take your suggestion. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Also do we need to cite all of his papers? Maybe if we attach each paper as a reference to the paragraph where it is discussed, it would be more beneficial.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand your question. Are you asking: Do we need to add in all his papers? IMO no. Are you asking Can we remove the Biblography, esp. since it duplicates the cited papers in the text? IMO yes. I was planning to do that anyway after I checked them. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any other biographical information on Gryzinsky? It seems that we cannot even confirm his birth/death date.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

His archived website, says that he had a daughter Hanna Gryzinska (the one that illustrated his book) and a son called Michał A. Gryziński, maybe that is the one working in Maria reactor.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I just found the same info in his book (no death date though).--ReyHahn (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Finally I got hold of his obituary.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Bates, Snyder article compares with some two different approximations - not experimental data

I see there is written "hydrogen atoms having the wrong velocity dependence" regarding Bates, Snyder article - what is not objective, this article only shows disagreement with some two approximations ... also disagreeing between each other.

Objectivity in physics requires comparison with experiment instead, and this article emphasizes "Laboratory data are not available for comparison" - its "unsatisfactory" only regards subjective model/approximation preferences of its authors.

In contrast, looking at practically any Gryzinski's paper, he always compares with experimental data - what needs to be emphasized in objective Wikipedia article. 89.64.58.97 (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bates Snyder article has no citations other than Bates in 50 years so I think the paper is not notable in any case. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I replaced the (dubious) "evaluation" paragraph with one based on citations listed on google scholar which should be qualitatively accurate for this time frame. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

OR

@Johnjbarton: while the phrase that you added about his free fall model being barely cited in the Schoolar gives the right perspective, it is not sourced correctly. It seems like WP:OR.ReyHahn (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

? How else would one source the number of citations?

The Grujić review says something about the lack of impact of free fall atomic model, but it does not offer a source and it reads like an opinion. Is that better?

Or nothing also ok. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that is just a bad practice to base an argument on numbers, we are not the ones to interpret them. It would be ok to just not add that phrase. If Grujic says something it can be written as "Grujic reviewed the model and consider it lacking of impact". Also in this case, as the free fall model is not of importance scientifically, should we drop it from the lead and focus on his electron scattering+plasma achievements?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Well XOR'ester's essay says "Remember, peer review is the opinion of a few people, while citations are the opinion of a community." I wonder if the criteria for a science page might consider the numbers to be evidence of community opinion even if it is not so for other kinds of pages? For myself I find citation numbers highly informative on notability, esp. the simple criteria like hundreds vs dozens.

I'll raise it on Physics Talk so I know for future. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That paragraph in my essay was my attempt at recording the general community position that not everything which has been published needs or deserves to be in a Wikipedia article. Like here, for example: I find no reason for the whole subsection to exist. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Undue delete of material

In this edit a large amount of material with two secondary references was removed, claiming contrary to the content, WP:Primary.

The primary citations supplemented the content but did not justify it. All these citations were peer reviewed papers in reputable journals. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What is ironic is that Gryzinski seems to be popular in forums barely for that quirky model.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)--ReyHahn (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

So? The paltry secondary sourcing available in no way justifies the lengthy excursion on a topic of zero scientific consequence. (The removed citations: Gryziński, Gryziński, Gryziński, Gryziński, Gryziński, Grujić, Gryziński, Gryzinski, Gryziński.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

These citations were formerly in the Bibliography along with a couple that were opinion pieces. Brief summaries make the references more useful and ensured the opinion pieces were omitted. Of course they were authored by Gryzinski as that is the subject of the page.

Many bio pages have zero secondary physics references. Based on other discussions around Gryzinski it seems like pressure to eliminate him is driven by personal opinions about the nature of "reality" which are just as irrelevant as Gryzinski's opinion. All scientific models are approximations with some range of validity; there are no right or wrong or real models. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

While a physicist biography might exist without secondary references (e.g., all one needs to start a stub about an APS Fellow is a link to the APS, per WP:PROF#C3), we still need to base our decisions about what is worth mentioning within a biography on something other than the fact that the subject has written a heap of papers about a model. Speaking only for myself, personal opinions about the nature of "reality" have nothing to do with it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

So what is worth mentioning about Gryzinski? IMO 1) He developed a simple and effect way to calculate electron scattering cross sections based on variable electron velocity and 2) he showed that an entirely classical electron model could reproduce many atomic experimental results. Now we have half a story. Perhaps you don't like the way I presented it but I read the references to ensure accuracy and did my best on the text. Editing or suggesting edits seems like a better solution. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the article needs to say anything more than it already does. XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Gryzinski has Wikipedia articles in 6 languages due to Free-fall atomic model, somebody has removed here

Looks like there was a single person censorship/vandalism of materials Gryzinski is known for - dozens of peer-revied articles in top physics journals, focusing on agreement with experimental data.

In contrast, seems the only peer-reviewed criticism is disagreement with some approximations (not experimental data) and lack of popularity.

Wikipedia was supposed to be focused on objective information, not subjective believes of a single editor. If this person has a meritorious counterargument, he/she should write and publish article about it - not just censor/vandalize Wikipedia with own subjective feelings. 149.156.72.239 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

As somebody that edits in Wikipedia in other languages, I would say that English Wikipedia has the highest standards. Notability cannot be self-reliable on Wikipedia. Gryzinski's articles in other languages are very mediocre or are copies of the old version of the English article. Also Wikipedia is supported on secondary sources, primary sources coming from the author himself are not enough to indicate notability. If you have any secondary sources that we might have missed, please share.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Removing material from an encyclopedia because it is not encyclopedic is not "censorship". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of everything that has ever been published. Not every scientist who has gotten papers published needs a biography here, and in those biographies that do exist, not every publication needs to be detailed. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree, that a single person can not remove materials about Michal Gryzinski, his specific classical free-fall atomic model, supported by different experiments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobotkaa (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)