Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M/z misconception

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, discounting the sockpuppet votes.--Adam ^(talk) 13:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M/z misconception

This article is highly biased and unencyclopedic. A small group of users is replacing any occurrence of m/z with m/q, e.g. in Mass-to-charge ratio and Mass spectrometry. Google ("m/q mass spectra" vs "m/z mass spectra") and the scientific literature clearly shows that m/z is the most common term. The probably more correct but minority term m/q is already adequately mentioned in the cited articles. This page should be deleted, the arguments should be added to the respectve articles Cacycle 16:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete this article. Read it instead and try to understand it. m/z as a dimensionless quantity is wrong! You are free to find better arguments - but don't just delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli (talk • contribs) 16:13 1 April 2006

• Delete as original research, or merge non-OR parts with Mass-to-charge ratio. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not biased: This article is not biased. It defends the official IUPAC policy which is summed up in the IUPAC green book. It is the relatively small mass spec community which does not keep to the wider rules of the green book. Therefore consensus among the majority of scientists would be that m/z is not acceptable.

• not unencyclopedic: This article is not unencyclopedic. In all enciclopedias you will find that mass spectrometers measure a physical quantity called mass-to-charge which is not dimensionless. This is why if anything then the m/z is unencyclopedic.

• Google: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Therefore it is irrelevant wether you find more m/z or more m/q on Google. As ist stated in the Google test page: the Google test checks popular usage, not correctness. For example, a search for the incorrect Charles Windsor gives 10 times more results than the correct Charles Mountbatten-Windsor.

• Cacycle writes: The probably more correct but minority term m/q is ... - even you mention that m/q is more correct. However, if you read my article then you will see that m/z is wrong. Therefore m/q is the only correct version.

• not OR: This article is not original research, because it cites the IUPAC green book which exactly explains how to handle the issue. The fact that you find many m/q in Google also shows that it is not original research.

• This article may not represent the majority thinking in the (small) mass spec community, but just deleting it is against Wikipedia guideline.

• Procedure: if you think m/z is more correct then please add your point of view in the Mass-to-charge ratio page. Do not just delete what is more correct but less frequently used. Wikipedia is not made for reinforcing wrong majority terms.

• Balanced: the wrong m/z is adequately mentioned in my article, even with a quote of the IUPAC. This shows that it is well balanced.

• missing deletion arguments: there may not be a consensus wether m/z or m/q is better. However, since m/q is widely used in journals there is no reason to beleive that m/q is wrong. If you want to change back to m/z you should only do so based on better arguments - not based on majority thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli (talk • contribs)

• Delete, WP:OR, WP:OR, WP:OR! --Deville (Talk) 18:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is quite possibly the most confusing afd page I've ever seen, all those unsigned comments. The article seems to be making a good point, but it could probably use more outside sources. Morganite 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sources: in the WP:OR it says: Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. Since "m/q mass spectra" shows 71'200 hits on Google it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that this should be OR!

• Sources: see here for a journal using m/q. There are many others. m/q is widely used. This clearly shows that the OR claim is completely wrong. Please stop this [instruction creep]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli (talk • contribs)

I don't think anyone is disputing that m/q is used. But m/z is also used. If the use of m/q is suggested or required by some journals, a link to those policies would give more support to your argument. (And please, please, sign your comments...) Morganite 19:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• If both, m/q and m/z are used, why keeps Cacycle changing from m/q to m/z? Why am I not allowed to change back? Kehrli 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have given a reference to such a journal where m/q is used.

• Nobody ever uses z as a symbol for charge. Everyone uses q. And in the mass spectrometry page m/q is explicitly refering to the mass and charge of the formulas in this page. Therfeore m/z would make the article INCONSISTENT. Kehrli 22:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would guess because m/z is what was used in earlier versions of the article. On the sources issue, a journal article where m/q is used is not the same as a journal policy about the use of m/q. The latter is really the sort of thing you need if this is to not be considered original research.

Morganite: already in the very earlyest stage of the article there was the Lorenz formula included, and in this formula q was used, not z. So there was always an inconsistency between the Lorenz formula and the m/z. This is why it was necessary to change to m/q. I mean, we should write consistent articles in Wikipedia, shouldn't we? Kehrli 14:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Journals: many Journals have a policy to allow both, m/q and m/z as mass spectra x-axis labels. However, once you use q in the Lorenz formula most journals would probably insist on using m/q in the text (maybe not in the mass spectra labels) for mass/charge, otherwise it is just inconsistent. Kehrli 14:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious from searching that there's a fair amount of inconsistency in the usage of m/q and m/z - many pages seem to be using both. (I also ran into one page describing m/q as "archaic", which is surprising given that it seems to be the more recent development from what I've seen.) Trying to merge information on this with Mass-to-charge ratio might just confuse things further, and this seems to be an issue that should be mentioned somewhere. Morganite 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct: m/q is the more original version. m/z was introduced later by mass spec users (no longer designers), probably by analytical chemists that did no longer understand the physiscs behind their instrument. If you do the math you realize very quickly that m/z is not dimensionless. Kehrli 14:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Deletion Policies: Wikipedia Deletion Policy clearly says: If in doubt, don't delete. If even the person that initialized the deletion request thinks that m/q might be more correct, then don't delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli (talk • contribs)

• Comment The discussion on this issue at Mass Spec Terms Project might be of interest. Morganite 19:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Kehrli: Nobody disputes that m/q is more correct than the way more common m/z. But this is not the place to promote your personal opinion that only m/q should be used - this is an encyclopedia. Please see WP:NPOV for the way how we handle such issues here at Wikipedia. Please stop replacing m/z by m/q, instead write a neutral and short paragraph why m/q is more correct. I don't see a way to keep this biased article, especially under this title and I doubt that the topic deserves more than a short paragraph. (Please sign your contributions here by appending ~~~~)

• I did write a short article why m/q is more correct than m/z - and exactly this short article is now in danger of beeing deleted. Unfortunately the argument takes longer than just a paragraph. (In the mean time I learned how to sign) Kehrli 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• m/z cannot be used in the mass spectrometry page because the formulas in this article would no longer make sense. Please look it up. The m in m/q stands for mass and the q in m/q stands for charge. This is is a very different use of m/q than the one the m/z promoters claim. They claim to use m/z for the mass-to-charge ratio and they claim explicitly that z does not stand for charge and m does not stand for mass. In the formulas, however, there is mass and charge and therefore m/q MUST be used in this case. Otherwise the whole article is no longer consistent. Please, please look it up. Look up the formulas. There is no way you can have z in those formulas. Kehrli 22:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Cacycle: I agree that this topic does not deserve even a short paragraph. It should be completly clear that m/z is wrong. Unfortunately some people (not me) keep changing m/q into m/z which makes the mass spectrometry artcle inconsistent. In order to explain this to those people I had to write the page that is now in danger of being deleted. I am happy to delete the article as soon as the m/z is gone, but not before. The m/z makes the mass spectrometry page inconsistent and therefore cannot be tolerated. Kehrli 22:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per LukasPietsch, offends against WP:NOR Bucketsofg 21:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please tell me exactly what should be OR - then I can show you the reference that proves it is common knowledge. Kehrli 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Frankly, I don't think that a linguist can even understand what this discussion is about. I don't want to be arrogant, but I have dealt with mass spec for more than 20 years in my professional life, and I would be quite frustrated to have an article deleted by someone who just used the term mass spectrometry for the first time in his life. Kehrli 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia should reflect the general view of the scientific community not act as an advocate of change or opponent for that matter. Capitalistroadster 00:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• m/q is the traditional notation. m/z was introduced later and now gradually (and wrongly) replaces the m/q. Therefore, the use of m/z would promote a change, not the use of m/q. 195.186.218.219 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• the overhelming part of the scientific community and even the overhelming part of the chemical scientific community represented by the IUPAC green booksupports the m/q. It is only a part of the very small mass spec ccommunity (represented by the IUPAC orange book) that favors m/z. 195.186.218.219 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Units are chosen popularly, not by the book, which is why the United States still uses Standard for carpentry and construction. Also, WP:MOS and an ArbCom decision from last year say that whenever two different styles are appropriate (think of the serial comma) that making articles internally consistent correct but attempting to "correct" other articles is wrong. - CorbinSimpson 00:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Corbin: this is not a discussion about what units to use, it is a discussion if the physical quantity mass/charge has a dimenson or not. Even a carpenter would not say: the length of this pilar is dimansionless. In other words: I do not favor a specific unit, I just promote the correct dimension. Kehrli 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• WP:MOS: This is not a dicussion about style, it is a discussion about right or wrong. Should an encyclopedia promote something that is obviously wrong only because it is widely used? I don't think so. To see what is widely used we can use Google, we would not need Wikipedia. Kehrli 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Corbin: If you really don't like the style then improve it, but don't just delete it. Kehrli 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advocacy. Brian G. Crawford 00:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Brian: this is not about [1], it is about right or wrong. I do not have any interests in promoting m/q over m/z except that I would like to improve Wikipedia. I would hate to see Wikipedia spreading information that is so obviously wrong. Kehrli 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• which above? Kehrli 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advocacy. A mention on Mass-to-charge ratio would be appropriate, but I don't want to suggest merge because the article is so blatantly POV. --Sneftel 19:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sneftel, if you read the page carfuly you will see that the mass-to-charge ratio page IS referenced at the very bottom.

• The IUPAC orange book says abut m/z: "It has long been called the mass-to-charge ratio although m is not the ionic mass nor is z a multiple or the elementary (electronic) charge, e." The "it has long been" indicates that m/z is no longer considered to be the mass-to-charge ratio. And that makes sense since the mass-to-charge ratio is not dimensionless. Hence, the link that you request is no longer necessary. Kehrli 09:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NPOV. Stifle 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Title is inherently POV. To get something accepted in Wikipedia, you shouldn't prove that it is right, you should prove (with references) that it is considered right by many people. So, a reference needs to be provided which says that m/z is wrong. On the technical side, the article starts by claiming that "The concept of the dimensionless mass-to-charge ratio m/z is a misconception". However, as the IAPUC "orange book" says, m is the mass number, defined as "The sum of the total number of protons and neutrons in an atom, ion or molecule" [2], and z is the charge number, "the total charge on an ion divided by the elementary charge (e)." Both are dimensionless, hence m/z is also dimensionless. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Jitse: thanks for your effort - you are one of the few people that actually tries to give an argument for his opinion.

• according to the IUPAC green book m is a mass and not a mass number. According to the same book, mass number would be A. Therefore m/z is wrong according to IUPAC. If anything it would be A/z.

• mass spectrometers measure mass/charge, not mass number per charge number. This is mathematically proven on the mass spectrometry page. Therefore the physical quantity mass number per charge number, even in the correct notation A/z, has nothing to do with mass spectrometry. It may be a useful quantity in nuclear physics but not in mass spectrometry.

• You are correct: A/z is dimensionless, but this is irrelevant for this discussion since mass specs do not measure A/z, they measure mass/charge which is not dimensionless.

• I did give a reference: the IUPAC green book which is more basic and more important than the orange book.

• the title is not inherently POV because it can be proven that mass specs measure mass/charge and not some dimensionless quantity. Therefore it is proven that the use of dimensionless m/z in mass spectrometry is a misconception, even though many people believe in this misconception.

• as a mathematician you should know that 2+2=5 is wrong even if the majority of the people would claim it is correct. Hence 2+2 = 5 should not be in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should spell the truth, not the majority opinion. Kehrli 09:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am not convinced by your technical arguments. Different symbols are used for the same quantity, and the difference between mass/charge and mass-number/charge-number is just a constant factor, so saying that you can only use the former to report the results of mass spectroscopy goes a bit far for me. But more importantly, for the Wikipedia article to be kept we would need at least a reference which says that m/z is wrong. The references you provide only can be used to build an argument that m/z is wrong. To take your 2+2=5 example, of course I know that it's wrong, but if there is a reliable source which says that 2+2=5 and I can't find one which says that it is not 5, then there is no place in Wikipedia for an article on the "2+2=5 misconception". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. If this article is to be kept, it needs to link to external references that make the point it does. Right now it draws conclusions that are not stated in the references it lists. The argument it makes is actually a pretty good one, but Wikipedia isn't the place to present it. --Christopher Thomas 05:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Christopher: thanks for noticing that I made a good argument. It is too bad that you too want to delete it. You say your hobby is fighting pseudo-science on Wikipedia. So do I. m/z is pure pseudo-science. Please help me fight it. Kehrli 12:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• References: the conclusions in the article are based on very few references: (1) Newtons second and third Law, (2) the Lorenz formula, and (3) the IUPAC green book. There are no other references needed for the conclusions in the article. Reference (3) is mentioned, the other two can be found in any physics book. Kehrli 12:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I made extensive changes so that the article now gives an unbiased view on on the misconceptions of m/z. No more reason to delete it. 83.77.121.120 12:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:POV and WP:NOR to see what the criteria are for judging that an article endorses a point of view, or contains original research. The article as it presently stands still does both for about 80% of its length.

There are two major ways in which the article does not meet these policies at present that I can see. The first is that you need to link to external references that say that 1) m/z is misleading or incorrect, and 2) that do all of the calculations you're doing in the article, or equivalent calculations, in order to include those conclusions or arguments in the article. Otherwise it's "original research". The second is that in order to be "neutral", the article must represent opinions with coverage proportionate to the degree to which they are present in the associated expert communities. Mass spectrometrists are a community relevant to this article, and they apparently think that using the term "m/z" is fine. As far as I can see no attempt has been made to _count_ the number of scientists saying "m/z is bad, use m/q", but in order to have most of the article be a diatrabe against it, you're going to have to show that the number of scientists vocally opposing the use of "m/z" greatly outnumber the mass spectrometrists. This can't be done by hand-waving ("every scientist _should_ oppose"), but by citing bona fide statements and publications and texts and so forth that specifically state, "this is called 'm/z' in mass spectroscopy, and should not be".

I hope this clears up why there are objections to the article. --Christopher Thomas 17:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Lukas ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.