Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bell inequalities

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 redirect to Bell's inequalities Bell's theorem. Deathphoenix 14:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Bell's inequalities is a redirect to Bell's theorem). --Deathphoenix 19:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bell inequalities

This article, started 2005-Feb-10, is a POV fork of the old article Bell's theorem. Please note, that Bell's inequalities, created 2004-Nov-27 by Charles Matthews is a redirect to Bell's theorem. --Pjacobi 09:58, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

• REdirect. -Sean Curtin 03:02, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• delete POV fork and redirect. -Lethe | Talk 08:07, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bell's theorem. It's what a user would expect if (s)he searched for Bell inequalities. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete POV fork and redirect. Some sections might be subsumed in Bell test experiments, refering to specific experimental tests of certain inequalities. CSTAR 17:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Either keep or return to Bell's theorem. I am the main author of the page, and would like to point out that the material in it was formerly part of Bell's theorem. It was removed recently by CSTAR to the beginning of Bell test experiments (another page for which I hold the main responsibility). It is out of place there but could perhaps be shifted back to the Bell's theorem page. The material is necessary for a complete description of the theorem, the page at present concentrating on the quantum mechanics side of the story. Bell's actual contribution to physics consisted of the derivation using local realist principles of the first of the Bell inequalities.Caroline Thompson 18:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This appears to be an actual POV fork, rather than a subtopic spun out to its own article. As such, I make no vote about what happens to the content, but I vote for the article itself to be made a redirect to Bell's theorem. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) Update: By the evidence on Talk:Bell's theorem and on this VfD, it's become very clear that the content is original research, and that Caroline is not even trying to deny this but instead to argue that it's correct original research and should stay. I am changing my vote on the content to delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The present Bell's theorem page contains the description of only one of the Bell inequalities. This inequality is not the one Bell originally derived, is derived in an unnecessarily restricted manner, using non-standard notation, and is not accompanied by a clear description of how it is to be applied. To merely re-direct the current page to Bell's theorem is therefore not reasonable. As a source of information on the inequalities, the present page is totally inadequate. Caroline Thompson 09:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this appears to be an actual POV fork in the correct sense of the term, where the information, if true, belongs in the main original article -- the very one to which you are suggesting the material might be returned. Creating a new article that has a different title but is actually on the same subject, so that you can get in information that consensus will not let you get in the main article, is a POV fork and it's not a legitimate way to deal with a failure to get your material approved by consensus. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right, so the material should be returned to the main article, Bell's theorem. The notation in the new sections of this introduced by CSTAR is non-standard, though, so somebody will need to do a considerable amount of editing to convert it. Alternatively (my preference!) let's delete CSTAR's new sections, effectively reverting to the edition of 16:24, 3 Jan 2005. Caroline Thompson 10:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CSTAR: To say the material as now presented in the article is non-standard is ludicrous ...

[CHT: I did not say that. I said the notation was non-standard. In point of fact, though, CSTAT's section on correlations is irrelevant. Most of it is concerned with standard facts re the estimation of probabilities which, if it had been presented using, say, the probabilistic notation of Clauser and Horne's 1974 paper, could have been said in a couple of lines.]

CSTAR (continued): The current contents are the result of consensus, as the long record in the talk page clearly indicates ...

[CHT: That statement is open to question. From my point of view it seems a matter of just CSTAR and one or two others forcing through CSTAR's changes on the basis of appeal to authority. It has been assumed that because they looked sufficiently mathematical and were clearly written from the "accepted" point of view they must be superior to my contributions.]

CSTAR (continued): It also indicates a belligerent attitude on her part, full of personal attacks ...

[CHT: Methinks thou dost exaggerate! I queried at one stage, on your talk page, whether your qualifications were better than mine.]

CSTAR (continued) By non-standard of course she means that it mentions quantum mechanics and gives an example which uses spin operators. From the comments on the talk page for that article (and at various other places in WP and throughout the internet) one can see that her position has been consistently trying to claim quantum mechanics is a conspiracy (as is the theory of relativity!) CSTAR 14:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CHT: It does not matter what my opinion is! I'm concerned with presenting an accurate and if possible comprehensible version of the facts. It is necessary for this purpose to make it clear that there is more than one Bell inequality and that they are not all equivalent. [The statement that a Bell inequality has been violated carries different degrees of weight according as to which Bell inequality was used (and, incidentally, what adjustments may have been made to the data before analysis).] It is also necessary to use consistent notation. Caroline Thompson 18:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• delete This does not add value.--DrChinese 15:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I fear the above opinion is made in ignorance of some of the facts. Dr Chinese has elsewhere expressed the opinion that all the various inequalities are equivalent. Though this is widely believed it is not true, which is why the page is necessary. Different inequalities involve different assumptions, over and above the basic ones of local realism. Some inequalities have been used in practical applications, some not. Can it really be the case (as recent discussions have seemed to indicate) that wikipedia is totally uninterested in expanding human knowledge and correcting misconceptions, only in regurgitating that which is (in the opinion of the few who take part) already "well known"? Are people unable to read for themselves and see from the page that what is "well known" is, in this instance, clearly wrong? Caroline Thompson 22:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork, original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What part of Bell inequalities is considered to be original research? I, the main author of the page, did not invent any of the inequalities! I came into the picture in 1993, long after the inequalities had been discovered, and the page now contains no reference to my work. No, there is no original research there, so that is not a valid reason for deletion. It seems to me that there remain only the two options I suggested earlier: either keep or (after editing to standardise the notation of the existing page) re-insert in Bell's theorem. Caroline Thompson 10:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.