Talk:Myron Evans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Myron Evans article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

This article was nominated for deletion on December 16, 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
  1. Antiquity – mid Feb 2006
  2. mid Feb 2006 – mid Sep 2006

Contents

[edit] Free Energy?

Explain where a typical charge gets its energy from... Then you can debunk Evans as a free-energy nut case. Ohh that's right... None of you have any idea, and anyone who even starts a conversation about it is immediately chastised. I'm sure only a few will read this before it is removed from the discussion page. None of you will reply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.248.119.175 (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Evans A Quack?

Explain why and provide counter arguments to his solutions to old problems in physics. As long as you can't come up with counter-points, Evans has the right to stay.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.32.5.98 (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Einstein–Cartan theory

You people write this arcticle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-Cartan_theory yet you write this crap about Myron Evans? This is a place for discussion of new ideas. Not dogmatic scientific rhetoric. This isn't a scientific journal, and careers aren't on the line. This can be an anonymous forum. Penis sizes are not being compared here.

You won't even allow an arcticle about Evan's theories or allow him to add to his own arcticle. What proof do you have to support "Einstein-Cartan" that can't be applied to Evans theory? They're very similar (at least to a layman like myself).

Your theories are incomplete and lacking total descriptions of reality. Behavior like what I see here is why. When did you "scientists" stop being scientists and start being crusaders fighting for old crap models that you know are incomplete? Does Steven Hawking have to come up with it for you to even consider it?

The links on this arcticle are hateful and misleading. There are no links to real information that is available on the web. All such links are removed immediately. I wager that none of you here are real scientists. You wonder why you never discover anything new? It's because you're college trained robots who have forgotten how to think for themselves.

You think Evans is bunk? Fine. Tag the top of the arcticle. Allow free information because that's what this site is for. I just wish that my donation to Wiki could be kept away from those of you participating in this supression of ideas. Maybe not correct information. But ideas are what's important here. Tag it and STFU and let ideas be free.

Thanks.

The wikipedia article is a biographical stub, not a forum for discussing new ideas. Please sign your contributions and place your new comments in order at the end of the discussion. Mathsci 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evans' right to overwrite completely the wikipedia page

A recent addition to Evans' blog suggests that he now considers that it is his right to rewrite the wikipedia page completely. In these circumstances, I suggest that the whole page be suppressed. In its present form at least it serves as a warning as to how some parts of crank science operate.

"As mentioned by Emeritus Professor Willliam O. George, the abusive e mail received from Penn State and TU Darmstadt amounts to gross professional misconduct. I have made several complaints to Penn State and TU Darmstadt and it is up to the Unviversity Administrations to dismiss the harassers for misconduct, then the abusive e mailing and phoning will be brought to an end. University facilities are being used to abuse and harass the general public in other countries. I attach samples of this abuse, it was traced to Penn State University. I have made many complaints to Wikipedia but no response of any kind has been recieved. So we are within our rights to overwrite the defamation on Wikipedia with a true biography. This overwriting can be done automatically. If Wikipedia disseminates lies and crude character assassination, it cannot complain if the lies are replaced by well established career facts. I encourage colleagues interested in truth and justice to establish stickies elsewhere on Wikipedia and to overwrite the garbage. The next steps in escalation are to complain to the Penn State President and the Governor of Pennsylvania. I have already complained to the Dean and President at TU Darmstadt. So the onus is clearly on the senior administration to act effectively. The evidence against A. Lakhtakia is overwhelming, the attached gutter abuse was traced to Penn State last Spring, I complained to the Penn State Police and Lakhtakia's Chair, and the gutter abuse abruptly stopped. The only person I know at Penn State is Lakhtakia, who has a long history of personal bile, of attacking me in print, and alwasy behind my back, never directly. He knows that he cannot stand up to me in scientific debate. He then resumed his activities on Wikipedia under the name "Science Guy" and tried to stop rebuttals of his lies there going on to Wikipedia. The rebuttals are very popular on www.aias.us. He then started a campaign of phone calls, two of these were picked up and reported to me. This is all being done at the US taxpayers' expense, and the abuse is directed at people who support my ideas. So he must be dismissed for misconduct. Otherwise the publicly funded Penn State University will be shown to be itself responsible for abusing the general public that funds it. The evidence of aggravated harassment is overwhelming, there are many witnesses, many who have been abused and harassed. This is a felony, and a felony results in dismissal for misconduct. I have no choice except to press for his dismissal. At present Penn State is being seen to protect Lakhtakia by not doing anything effective. So colleagues should make an avalanche of complaints until he is dismissed. This is the only way to end this abuse and harassment. British Civil List Scientist."

--Mathsci 09:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyone who see rapid fire vandalizations of this or any other article should report it at once at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Unless you're sure you are seeing genuine robovandalism, try some of the user warning templates listed at WP:VANDAL first.
This talk page is getting rather filled up with stuff which is more about Evans's weird antics at the AIAS blog, his bizarre emails, etc., than about discussing possible alterations of the article, so it might be time to archive most of it, especially since it is becoming somewhat off-putting. (Wacky and obviously counterfactual claims by Evans "ECE has been used by hundreds of thousands of people in up to 116 countries" are only funny once, now it's getting boring.)
There are zillions of persons who say or do very odd things; only one aspect, it seems to me, makes Evans stand out from this cranky crowd: I feel that any sane person would expect that any other sane person would recoil in horror from Evan's bizarre rants, as amply documented at the AIAS blog, yet it seems that, to the contrary, he has a very small but apparently genuinely devoted group of supporters. Why? What on Earth could they possibly be thinking? Since no-one appears able or willing to answer that question, I propose that some kind editor should cut back this article back to a one paragraph summary like Tom Van Flandern. There is much to be said for the art of the deftly devastating understatement :-/ ---CH 09:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
His followers seem to be failed academics who are sliding down a very slippery slope. One of them Syrran, Gianni Giachetta, tried to sanitize the wikipedia page on Evans' behalf. In response to your remarks, I think it is only fairly recently that Evans has become obsessed with the wikipedia page in his rantings. The added references from the aias site contradict directly his own version of a brilliant scientific career. What I recorded in this discussion page were to a large part Evans' reactions to the wikipedia page. I would be quite happy for the wikipedia page to disappear without trace. On the other hand the aim of Evans and his followers seems to be to use the web to create the illusion that Evans' theory is a major advance that has changed modern physics; the wikipedia page corrects this point of view.
Perhaps it would be enough to have one short paragraph, giving the conventional view of Evans' claims, with references to published articles pointing out elementary errors in his work together with links to the documents covering his dismissal from UNCC and similar earlier episodes in the UK. --Mathsci 11:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Just took another look and I think this article has definitely become too long. Pjacobi, if you are reading this, what do you think about cutting it down to a one paragraph summary, keeping the most essential links? Or at most one for Evans/Civil List and one for ECE with infobox. Regarding ECE: despite Evans's rather pathetic claims, this is clearly a very obscure "theory" even among the fans of "new energy schemes" and such like, so probably does not really deserve a separate article. For one thing, one article is probably easier to watch than two. ---CH 00:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've watching this and I've consider this page to be rather silly. It's looking like a USENET-thread made into an article. My most recent attempt to trim down was reverted prompty and from that I concluded, that every cleanup attempt would lead to permanent involvelemt here. Which I consider to be not very amusing. Mathsci and others try to handle it in a way similiar to Space opera in Scientology doctrine and Scientology versus the Internet. -- Pjacobi 11:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure which reversions you're referring to. The only reversion I made on the wikipedia page was to remove the vandalism by Syrran. As far as I am aware, any other additions by me to the wikipedia page (references to published articles pointing out errors in Evans' mathematical reasoning or to documents concerning his career) were made in the standard way. I agree that a shorter page, possibly just a carefully referenced paragraph, might be preferable to what is there at the moment. Please could you clarify? --Mathsci 12:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be a case of failing memory. I've got reverted by 69.162.25.94
But you were arguing against stubbing the article at Talk:Myron_Evans/Archive_2#Rebuttal_by_the_British_Civil_List_Scientist (search for "pjacobi", was unfortunately archived by cut'n'paste).
Pjacobi 10:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
69.162.25.94 is not the fixed IP in Europe from which I edit, so I am afraid that it was not me. I happen to be at a scientific institute in Canada at the moment.
I have reverted directly only once. (I was not aware how to revert at the time of editing the page on the Riccati equation.)
I don't think in our discussion of Evans and the Bogdanov brothers anything specific was suggested and in fact I think I agreed with most of what you said. Didn't we talk about transferring the biography to a page on the "Theories of Evans"? I don't think I objected. I wrote: "But I agree, a page like "The Theories of Myron Evans" would seem to be more appropriate than a primarily biographical page." --Mathsci 12:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Loren Dillman

Response to CH's comment above: The main article is not "too long" IMHO. It is the same length (or shorter) than many other Wikipedia articles on similar topics; and this is necessary to present the important facts. The one (and only) comment concerned about "length" can be resolved simply by improving the article's first paragraph, to summarize the main points. Then readers can decide for themselves whether to read further for details.

CH wrote, concerning Evans' very small group of supporters:

"What on Earth could they possibly be thinking? Since no-one appears able or willing to answer that question, I propose that some kind editor should cut back this article back to a one paragraph summary..."

I disagree with CH's logic here. First, the motivations of Evans' supporters should have no bearing on the length of this Wikipedia article. Physics is objective and fact-driven, and this article reflects that.

Second, to answer CH's question: Evans' supporters are neophytes (students and amateurs in physics) who are struggling with basic vector calculus; this is evident from their forum and blog. In fact, by CH's logic, this would be a reason for Wikipedia to provide not just bare-bones references to journal and online articles, but also to include more context to explain their significance for the technical issues involved -- eg., quantized angular momentum, Einstein-Cartan spacetime, differential geometry with torsion, unification theories, etc.

Third, Evans' supporters are free to object to any statements which (they might think) are unverifiable. But obviously no one has done so.

So the article should remain as is -- with the option of a revised first paragraph -- in my opinion. Loren Dillman 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC) LD

Loren, please reply (by email if you prefer) to my request on your user talk page. Please also take the time to examine User:Hillman/Archive and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience to see that I am no friend of the cranks.
You have badly misunderstood my position, which is really quite simple:
  1. Whether or not Evans is a nut is not in question: of course he is. Indeed, any Wikipedia reader sufficiently intrigued to visit the blog will soon discover for himself bizarre postings by Evans (assuming they are genuine) which can to my mind suggest only one possible conclusion about his mental competence, regardless of his/her scientific background. I cannot put this too strongly: if it is really the case, as you appear to believe, that to conclude that Evans is nuts, one must be not merely sane but a sane physicist, then I say there is truly no hope for the world and we should all cancel our subscriptions to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists forthwith. (See what I mean? Now you've got me talking about The Apocalypse.)
  2. Given the extreme obscurity of "ECE" in the literature, it seems that Evans is hardly if at all notable purely on the grounds of his so-called "theory" or his crazed posts at the AIAS blog.
  3. Just two unusual features make him more notable than the average nutcase:
    • The allegation that Evans is trying create a graduate program at Glamorgan, with support from a supposed retired Dean at Glamorgan, one "W. O. George",
    • The allegation of mysterious services to the British Crown, resulting in an alleged Civil List pension.
  4. Unfortunately, despite my repeated requests (mostly by email), no independently verifiable evidence has ever been offered that either of these two allegations have any basis in reality! At present, all the citations "supporting" these two claims seem to be links to the AIAS blog itself, which to my mind is the very model of an utterly unreliable source. Let's get real: Evans appears to be living in a fantasy world; we at Wikipedia cannot assume that anything claimed at that website has any basis in fact, certainly not if we have no independently verifiable supporting evidence.
I am growing increasingly concerned that the following users seem to form a group of meatpuppets whose almost sole activity is editing this article, which seems to be growing ever longer, more diffuse, more disorganized, and less valuable to our readers:
This activity smacks of fanaticism, which is surely what you guys claim to be opposed to (in the sense that cranks are fanatically devoted to their often ludicrously counterfactual notions)! In addition, it tends to suggest that Evans poses a somehow unusual threat. Despite my repeated requests, no-one seems able to tell us anything which leads me to suppose that this perception has a basis in realtity. In particular, I know of no evidence other than alleged "correspondence" posted at the AIAS blog (remember, nothing there counts as evidence of anything but Evans apparent looniness) that there is in fact any proposal to create a graduate program in "Welsh physics" at Glamorgan.
I propose again to trim this article (and the links at the end) to something like one fourth or one fifth its present length. If you want to give so much detail, you should put up a website (or put up stuff at one of the existing websites). Also, there is need to link to any website more than once. For example, if Bruhn's website, say, lacks adequate internal links or an index page we can link to, you should ask him to provide these.---CH 04:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Akhlesh

I have seen this website develop over the last year into a set of verifiable statements that also provides a context to the subject of the entry, his methods and accomplishments. I can see the merits of CH's argument. He thinks that Evans' scientific work will disgust people right away, so that there is no need to have distastefulmatters recorded on wikipedia. Indeed, that would be the reaction of many people. The problem is, as Loren Dillman points out, that neophytes would not be able to sift grain from chaff, and he continues to gather a steady stream of neophytes. Many, like Phil Carpenter, leave him after a while, but by then....... So, on balance, I am inclined to agree with Loren Dillman. If there is any unverifiable assertion in the entry, let someone challenge it. Perhaps, the first paragraph could be revised.Akhlesh 10:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Akhlesh,
  1. "I have seen this website develop over the last year..". This is one article in a website containing more than a million articles (most of no value whatever, to be sure). I am sure you just mispoke, but as it happens, this slip encapsulates my concern that you guys only seem to edit this one page. There's a whole darn wiki out there! Go forth and enjoy it! Or at least help us revert cruft at other problem articles.
  2. "Neophytes would not be able to sift grain from chaff". I would agree, were it not for the blizzard of obviously crazed posts which you yourself have noted at the AIAS blog. As I told Loren, I think that any sane person, scientifically illiterate or not, can immediately infer non compos mentis from such writings.
  3. From what you've told me, there are many more "distasteful matters" of which you have intimate knowledge, but you are reluctant to tell your story in public (say at your own website). I can understand that, and I am actually quite sympathetic toward your miserable encounter with Evans. Like most who have been involved in academia for any length of time, I know of other cases of persons who inveigle themselves into someplace where they don't belong, with endless trauma for all resulting when, as quickly happens in science, they are found out, and I also have "war stories" I could tell. But I feel you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. It seems that you could provide independent evidence which might make it easier to defend a long article on Evans, but if you are not willing to step foward, going on and on about what a nut he is in this article, just looks to Wikipedia readers like a weird and unsettling case of overkill. Do you see what I mean?
  4. "Phil Carpenter": sorry, I have no idea who he is.
I repeat that I propose to chop this article down to about one fourth or one fifth of its current size and to greatly consolidate/trim the external links.---CH 05:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(Refactored by User:Hillman: Akhlesh, in future, please omit blank lines between numbered items in a list, and in talk pages, put your comments at the bottom, not interleaved with mine. TIA ---CH 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC))

Chris,

  1. Articles in encyclopedias are written by experts on those articles. Therefore, whether a contributor contributes to one topic or many is irrelevant. One contributes to an article if one feels that the article does not contain a significant item.
  2. Many people read those "obviously crazed posts" and still join Evans' group. (Some leave it later.) This has happened to many sane people like Mendel Sachs and Geoffrey Hunter. This is because Evans is able to put up a front that invites sympathy.
  3. I actually agree with most of the article as it was written before Pjacobi dramatically trimmed it. It contained enough and verifiable information, the verification being through various websites and quotes from published works. It could have been edited somewhat, but it would be unwieldy for a long time.
  4. Someone like John Hart or Jan Abas, who were inveigled into thinking that Evans is a great scientist. When such a person leaves, calumny is heaped on him by Evans.

(regarding stubbifying the article): Well, Pjacobi already did that. Someone named Minimizer has now reduced it to bare essentials. (I agree with this position as well. If the article cannot provide sufficient detail that is also verifiable in, say, your opinion, then such an article has no place in an encyclopedia. Perhaps, this topic should simply be banned.) Anyhow, I am done with this exchange here. Send me an e-mail for further exchanges. Akhlesh 12:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Akhlesh, your reply again illustrates the kind of problem which Pjacobi and I noted: you dropped some names but I have no idea who these people are and you have provided no independently verifiable evidence for any of your claims. I think the Wikipedia community also must now be concerned that Minimizer (talk • contribs) is simply the latest meatpuppet (or even worse, sockpuppet) in the group I noted above. All (one? two?) of you really need to give this a rest now to regain your perspective on the alleged danger posted by Evans, a "threat" for which you have failed to produce convincing evidence. When you return, I encourage you to review the goals of the Wikipedia and to contribute your expertise on non-Evans matters. I hope this matter is now closed.---CH 20:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by TheScienceGuy

I wrote the following statements on another wikipedia site: "Hi, CH. Evans has never personally harmed me. But I know the type quite well. His type of "researchers" attract novice researchers and spoil promising careers. Further, although he appears to appeal only to a very tiny minority among the crank population, that could change quite easily, because he is peddling a source of "free" energy. Follow the career of Randell Mills (Blacklight Power), as an example. He came to see me in 1994, with a mathematical theory showing that Schroedinger's equation predicts quantum states for the electron in an hydrogen atom not only as 1,2,3,4..... (which is correct) but also as (1/2, 1/3, 1/4,.....). I showed him that the latter solution was incorrect. I showed that by substituting his solution back into Schroedinger's equation. He persevered, and now utility companies are investing in Blacklight Power."

An encyclopedia is meant not only to provide information but also safeguards against misinformation. Since misinformation is easy to disseminate electronically these days, a mechanism for warning is necessary. If the entry is reduced to a paragraph, what would prevent Evans and his followers from adding to it?TheScienceGuy 10:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

TheScienceGuy.
You wrote "since misinformation is easy to disseminate electronically these days, a mechanism for warning is necessary." Here you are "preaching to the choir"; see my user pages. I have myself often used the Randell Mills affair as an example of the dangers of allowing wikishilling to go unchecked at Wikipedia, so we agree entirely about this. You asked "if the entry is reduced to a paragraph, what would prevent Evans and his followers from adding to it?" You should have asked "who", and my answer, in words of one syllable is: "you"!
For one thing, you guys will find it much much easier to maintain a short stub by quickly noticing and reverting pro-Evans additions should they occur (as indeed is not unlikely). (Now, if only we had such dedicated policemen for all those zillions of other problem articles we are always discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience...)
I intend to stubbify the article. Please respect my efforts. You can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience if you somehow fear that I will produce something which makes Evans and ECE out to be something other than "nuts".---CH 05:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to ask: you wrote "his type of "researchers" attract novice researchers and spoil promising careers." Can you document a specific example of a promising researcher who was somehow destroyed by working under Evans? Now that would be interesting! (In the same rubbernecking way that an article like Hindenburg disaster is interesting.) I would be horrified if Glamorgan really did create a graduate program in "Welsh physics" and put Evans in charge, but I have yet seen absolutely no evidence not originating from (apparently) Evans's own disordered fantasies suggesting that there is any chance of this happening. If you have such evidence, you need to make it public forthwith.---CH 05:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW, you wrote "and now utility companies are investing in Blacklight Power". I know that siliconbeat.com says that Mills has made that claim, but I don't know that there is any truth to it. Do you? Have you provided independently verifiable evidence at BlackLight Power? ---CH 05:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reduced to bio-stub

I've made this a very short biographical stub. The USENET discussions, blogging, etc. doesn't belong here. If the ECE is really considered notable enought, it needs an own article. I've also added an entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies.

If this gets simply reverted to the old version, I'll most likely re-revert and put up the issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

Pjacobi 09:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to say that we should also nominate for deletion Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study, which is a bad article on a silly non-notable Evans "institute". ---CH 18:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. ---CH 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with all these changes. In its present form, however, not every statement in the stub is immediately verifiable. --Mathsci 01:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC comments

While the urge to "protect" young researchers is laudable, it falls outside Wikipedia's mission. Users can create their own private websites for that purpose. Here our job is to include verifiable information per WP:BLP. If blogs or USENET threads have been covered in journalism reports that have been published in a reputable news source, then the news report itself could be quoted or summarized in the article - only as far as the news report actually covered those blogs and threads. Frankly it's possible for a group of people to blog or compose USENET threads about anything. I'm not saying in this case that those concerns are right or wrong, only that it would set Wikipedia on a slippery slope to make exceptions to WP:V and WP:RS. Durova 13:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Saw the RfC so I have popped in to comment... USENET threads and blogs are definitely not considered reliable sources under WP:RS. If you wish to include discussion about what is said on such websites, you have to find where a reliable source (such as a news paper) has commented on the sites and their claims. Blueboar 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Mathsci to Chris Hillman's accusation of sock puppetry

I feel that Chris Hillman has hastily jumped to an unjustified conclusion. As a professional senior research mathematician, I prefer to post anonymously. Even this job description gives a strong hint as to the country in which I am employed. I can easily be identified by my colleagues; indeed I referred to the wikipedia page on the Riccati equation during a recent talk at a conference in my subject, much to the amusement of the audience. I should add that this talk was explicitly coordinated with a preceding talk by another participant, so that technically I suppose I am a sock puppet of Vaughan Jones. I would also like to take this opportunity to quell all rumours that I am a fluffy bunny, although I did once have dinner with a white witch.

For other wikipedians:

I hereby publicly certify that to the best of my knowledge I have not been the sock puppet of MyronWyn, Loren Dillman,
TheScienceGuy, Lars Koenig or Mirondella.

[In my future writings on the Lamé equation and uniformization, I hope that I might become the sock puppet of Felix Klein.]

My personal connection with the Evans affair is the same as Hillman's, but perhaps less so :-)

There is nothing underhanded in adding references to mathscinet and UNCC documents that Evans himself made publicly available. Both these references speak volumes.

I am very glad that Evans' wikipedia page has been reduced to a stub. In its present form, however, not all the statements presented there can be verified by a wikipedia reader. Some link to the historical notes on the aias website seems necessary to make these statemeI nts verifiable.

I cannot understand why there are wikipedia pages on scientific cranks. However if these pages exist, the crankery should be made immediately apparent. I think my additions to this page have been: the mathscinet references which exposed the crankery; pointing out that the University of Glamorgan is a former polytechnic with no prowess in pure science; that Evans got himself fired from UNCC; and his invention of the idiotic term "Cartan geometry". --Mathsci 14:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If I did not post anonymously, I am sure that Evans would not hesitate to send one of his rants demanding my immediate dismissal to my employers, who fortunately would not understand a word that he had written. --Mathsci 15:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP Wikipedia needs to be cautious about making any negative assertion in a living person's biography. However, references to reliable sources are appropriate. Durova 18:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you are a historian, not a scientist. Do you see any reason to have a wikipedia biography of an unemployed living person of no distinction whatsoever? In this case a large body of scientific documentation has been provided that shows beyond doubt that Evans is a crackpot scientist, possibly with a serious mental illness. --Mathsci 18:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
My formal education is in history and writing, but my father was a scientist by profession. So while I don't profess expertise in the subject I did grow up with a lot of science (and crankery) discussed at the dinner table. The RfC regarded use of sources, not whether the article ought to be deleted. Perhaps a crank who gains a certain level of notoriety does merit a Wikipedia article? If you think not then open an RfD. Durova 03:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
ScienceGuy, you wrote "I hereby publicly certify that to the best of my knowledge I have not been the sock puppet of MyronWyn, Loren Dillman, TheScienceGuy, Lars Koenig or Mirondella." Thanks for your response. (The sarcasm was unneccessary, however. As you can see from my own contribs, I am no friend of the cranks.) ---CH 19:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Chris Hillman, you have incorrectly confused me with TheScienceGuy, whom I do not know. --Mathsci 23:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions

I have reverted two recent changes:

  • Mathsci (talk • contribs) added "he is currently unemployed", without offering any verification, and indeed it is hard to imagine how this could be verified, unless perhaps if Evans himself said this in a verifiable way, e.g. on a page at a website registered under his own identity (but not a blog post).
  • JzG (talk • contribs) altered the infobox, but the protocol for pseudoscience infobox states that that line should have the form "claim claim K", not "alleged crank claim". Under the admittedly sometimes strange WP rules, the fact that the claim is made is verifiable, and this is what the box asserts, together with the assertion (also verifiable) that this claim is dismissed by mainstream scientists.

---CH 14:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You did not carefully check the changes before reverting. MW Evans is on the RSC list of Meldola medal recipients. You did not take the trouble to verify this. Evans' 5 year SERC fellowship was held at the University of Wales Aberystwyth (as can be seen from the papers he wrote duting this period). He lives in Swansea as can be verified using BT directory enquiries. He has no academic employment on his own admission and this can be verified in the UK on the web. Did you notice all the changes before reverting?
I hope you're not becoming a control freak ;-) Since neither you nor Pjacobi have provided independent evidence of the circumstances of Evans' employment at IBM or Cornell without reference to his own website, there appear to be several unverified biographical details on the current page. There is also no mention of his undergraduate degree, also obtained at the University of Wales Aberystwyth. --Mathsci 20:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I did know about Meldola (you could look back at archived talk page discussions). I will take a second look at the changes you wanted, but in the mean time, can you see User talk:TheScienceGuy? Do you know if he really means the same R. J. Wiltshire whose papers on exact fluid solutions in gtr I already know? (And do not consider to be cranky.) Do you know why he (apparently) considers Wiltshire to be somehow involved with Evans? This would surprise me very much indeed if that is really his claim. TIA ---CH 21:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That unfortunately does not explain why you recently removed it from the biographical stub. All winners of the Harrison Memorial Prize and the Meldola Medal can be found on the website of the Royal Society of Chemistry. The requirement for both prizes is the same.
The University of Glamorgan has the possibility of obtaining a Ph.D. in absentia based on an evaluation of previous work without any course requirements (with no courses in physics, this is not entirely surprising). They probably require a sponsor or nominal thesis director, so theoretically this is being tried with Franklin Amador. However it is not clear whether this will be approved by the university authorities or whether Ron Wiltshire has had second thoughts. Does this have any relevance to the biographical stub? Evans apparently attempts to involve all sorts of people and contacts in his "projects" (for example his coauthor Lawrence B Crowell formerly of the University of New Mexico, Jan Abas of the University of Wales Bangor, etc, etc) but more often than not they later dissociate themselves from him (and are then subsequently dismissed in disgrace by Evans). --Mathsci 08:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, please, Mathsci; I put the Prize stuff back in several days ago. I just took out the unverifiable claim added earlier today by TheScienceGuy and also the mention of a grammar school because it seems very odd to mention the grammar school S attended by Barely Notable figure F (unless F happened to be, while attending S, a friend of Dylan Thomas, say).

OK, I think we all pretty much agree on the basics now, so I'd like to archive this section and the above if no-one objects in the next few days. I don't think much of the discussion here has been very edifying; we've made much better progress in email, and as you know, I am looking into the question of whether there is really anything odd going on at Glamorgan. I propose that everyone take a break here for a bit (other than checking for possible vandalism or POV-pushing by pro-Evanites).---CH 05:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my typo about the Harrison Prize. According to the history page, the reference to the Meldola Medal was added for the second and last time by Mathsci at 20:09, 28 September 2006.
I'm not sure that a wild goose chase about possible crank Ph.D. programmes should be continued on this talk page: it seems to have nothing to do with the wikipedia biography. I agree that if two impressionable graduate students are being led astray by Evans then it is a cause for concern. You might privately be able to help there. Good luck! --Mathsci 10:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Careful, I didn't say I think those rumors are true. I said that when I get around to it, I intend to find out. And I suggest again that you take a break from this particular article and await results.---CH 11:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't understand you to say that either. I understood you to say that you wanted to see if you could check these rumours through your contacts. I think that might be a "wild goose chase". I am very happy with the current anodyne form of the biographical stub, including your latest minor changes which I think are unambiguous and well phrased. Please don't overinterpret my remarks ;-) If you reread my first private email to you, you'll also realise that your last request is a bit superfluous just at the moment (the beginning of Michaelmas term). Anyway good luck again in your activities as a sleuth and keep up the good work :-) --Mathsci 16:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Verifiable statements

The claims by Myron Evans on his blog to be "Chief Scientific Advisor to the Welsh Assembly" are just claims and probably simply amount to the fact that he sends emails every day to Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister of Wales. These claims are anecdotal and, until somebody can produce a newspaper article or an official UK governmental website explicitly mentioning such a post or appointment, they cannot be taken seriously. On the other hand it can be verified directly on the web whether somebody is affiliated with a university in the UK. The number of British universities is quite small. It is also often the case that governmental consultancy by British academics is unpublicized. This was for example the case with the Regius Professor of Modern History Quentin Skinner who was invited for discussions in Westminster in the late 1990's, although this is not mentioned in his wikipedia biography. --Mathsci 06:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So we should neither report the claims to be "Chief Scientific Advisor to the Welsh Assembly" nor comment on them. --Pjacobi 07:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


No, we should include the fact of that claim. Commenting, theorizing, etc. is OR origonal research. Find someone noteworthy who debunks the claim and THEN include that. Don't exclude facts. Sethie 23:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] references to Evans' comments

Evans some time ago wrote a defamatory and ranting "wikipedia rebuttal" which various editors have tried to include in this biographical stub. Until Evans can be bothered to write a careful critique of the current biographical stub, which seems completely fair and accurate, there seems to be no reason to include a reference to an out-dated diatribe on his unverifiable blog. Followers or supporters of Evans should encourage him to do his homework properly. --Mathsci 01:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've included link to his rebuttal not because it refers to present version (it does not) but because it contains references to Evans's answers to his critics. I put a remark about it in brackets. I think the link should return. You can't put a critique of a person and not give him right to defend himself. Btw: from what I know many scientists indeed are looking into his theory and it hasn't been at all debunked. What is your knowledge about it? SalvNaut 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I've looked into history and seen previous version of this article - it was indeed very POV-ed and one sided, so nothing strange that Evans wrote the rebuttal. SalvNaut 02:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
After a thought, I think that link to his site AIAS should be sufficient, though. SalvNaut 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/y/r/Talk%7EMyron_Evans_7384.html"