Talk:Florentin Smarandache/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Moved speculations from the article

Axel Boldt has speculated that "Charles T. Le", a frequent author about Smarandache notions, may be a pseudonym used by Smarandache, based only on the following evidence:

  • Le made an edit ([1]) to Wikipedia from the IP address commonly used by Smarandache and located at the University of New Mexico at Gallup. He is however not known at the department of Mathematics and Science of that university.
  • In [2], Le gives an institutional affiliation of "Arizona State University, Tempe", yet he is not known there. His only known email address is "CharlesTLe@yahoo.com".
  • In [3], Le identifies himself as affiliated with American Research Press.
  • The approximately 130 google hits for "Charles T. Le" or "Le, Charles T." all involve the promotion of Smarandache's ideas.
"Le Charles" sounds a bit like LeChuck from the Monkey Island :) Bogdan 16:26, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • There are some usenet users that posted only about Smarandache, just like some users in wikipedia or Charles T. Le.
    • Mike Anthony [4]
    • Carol Hastleste [5]
    • David Singh [6]
    • Paul Jasper [7]

Hmm. How did this page survive so long without anyone crying foul, or at the very least trying to wikifyi it? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 16:21 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it's fear to delete this page of a man who published over 60 books and 80 research paper, while you include biographies of people I never heard of! User:Lit-sci

This page should be deleted

It is hard to say anything about Smarandache, since there is so much which appears to be deliberate obfuscation on his part or on the part of his followers. I don't want to see Wikipedia used for personal aggrandizement; on the other hand I don't think we should be in the business of writing hit pieces. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem possible to write anything objective about him without clearly questioning the validity of any of his work.

For instance, in the entire library, all branches of a major U. S. State University, there is not a single work listed under Smarandache! Yet this guy claims to have gazillions of publications; see the note on Bowker's books in print.

Please, let's delete this page! CSTAR 22:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep. Everything that can be found on the internet on him was written by him. He seems to have a self-agrandizing mania, but his "new ideas" are not good enough to make him known. For example, why did he had his PhD in Chişinău, Moldova and not in the US, where he lives, or even in Romania, where he was born ? Simply because it was easier to get it and he wouldn't have to work that hard for it.
Also interesting was an article by a Romanian literary critic about a certain Romanian-American named just by the initials were "F.S.", that came to his office in order to review one of his poem books, but was infurrieted that the critic said he might or might not review his book (as he gets lots of books to review per month and can't read them all) and took the book away and slammed the door. All hints lead to him. :-) Bogdan | Talk 22:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well - I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusions about his merits. However, as much as I respect your noble desire not to write hit pieces, think about all the work that you have put into this. And think about the people who could use it. Case in point: The German wikipedia has de:Neutrosophie, de:Paradoxismus, de:Smarandache-Wellin-Zahl, de:Dezert-Smarandache-Theorie etc - most of these translated by a gullible (and otherwise respected and productive) user from the English WP! I can now point to the facts that you have dug out when discussing and editing these article on de:. Users on the Swedish, French or Romanian WP (who have received their share of entries on FS topics) could use them too.
Or consider the guys from MathWorld, where a search for Smarandache turns up 35 entries (among them http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Smarandache-WellinNumber.html, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SmarandacheFunction.html, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SmarandacheParadox.html ...!).
There will be numerous other places and times where people will be confronted with his claims to academic and artistic fame, and will find it very hard to verify or refute them. Deleting our article now, just as it is approaching an npov state, will only help to increase the number of his victims. Regards, High on a tree 01:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Valid point. CSTAR 03:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also think the first sentence should read
F. S. (born whenever) is a Romanian-American University Professor, regarded as a polymath by his followers.
I would ask someone else to put it in. I've had enough of this.CSTAR 18:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Done. (Are you implying his birth date is in doubt, too?) Regards, High on a tree 10:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have no reason to doubt the birthdate. CSTAR 15:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

from votes for deletion

I don't know about neutrosophy, but I can say with some confidence that Smarandache's theories in physics are pure crackpottery. Same old misinterpretation of quantum nonlocality — unfortunately even some physicists are confused by the fact that the apparent "action at a distance" is merely a product of the flawed Copenhagen interpretation, and doesn't have any physical reality. He even cites the age-old confusion over superluminal group velocity and phase velocity as evidence of his "no speed limit" hypothesis. Yawn. -- Tim Starling 07:32 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I fear that Florentin Smarandache may become a victim of the Cartesian fundamentalists. Yes, these pages could do with some work, particularly comparison with Triolectics and Aymara. As reagrads the remark about the "flawed" Copenhagen interpretation the controversy has been raging for over two thirds of a century, so perhaps Tim Starling 's contribution should be regarded as being somewhat povie. Harry Potter
My contribution above was 100% my POV, and it's not against Wikipedia rules to express an opinion on a discussion page. I consider myself reasonably qualified to make such an assertion, since I spend 5 days a week researching and utilising the mathematics of QM. I'm certainly not alone in my opinion -- there was an article in Scientific American not so long ago, attacking the Copenhagen interpretation and pointing out that it has little real support anymore. Do you want a reference? With "coalface" physicists such as myself, Feynmann's "null interpretation" is certainly the most popular. -- Tim Starling 07:42 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I reinserted the fact that the Journal and the publisher both give the ~smarandache URL at Gallup. It was removed by the new user:Dave1999 who is active in Smarandache's pages. The close connection between the publisher and Smarandache seems to me to be important information.

Furthermore, reinserted the fact that publisher Perez only gives a yahoo.com email address. It underscores the point that American Research Press is tiny and that Dr Perez does not have an institutional affiliation. Indeed, I have some doubts regarding the existence of a Dr Minh Perez or Dr. M.L. Perez; the only references to him I can find is as editor of the Journal and as contact for the American Research Press. His webpage http://www.geocities.com/m_l_perez/QuantumPhysics.html doesn't list his Ph.D. and is a collection of Smarandache's speculations in quantum physics. The MathSciNet database finds two references to M. Perez: one as editor of a book by Smarandache, another as coauthor of a Spanish article about Smarandache functions. It seems possible that Perez is a pseudonym for Smarandache. AxelBoldt 17:33 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Again me: why do you hate or discriminate that much this man? Only on internet you search? Marcosantonio

Feel free to provide other references. It's probably best to provide references to material written by people other than Florentin Smarandache and the people who work with him, in order to get a better picture of how his work is perceived by others. -- Oliver P. 00:45 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Gentlemen, pay attention, you risk to be sued for defaming, slandering articles. Don't use speculations.
I read Axel Boldt's antiamerican article at http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/us-d.html where he positively cites HITLER! Why do you host in your pages a link to such pages and have a such antisemitic editor? In America we say: if you don't love it, leave it! Nobody keeps him here if he does not like America.
Your pages should be neither "for" nor "against" a subject or person, but neutral.
Some people are very biased here, which is not scientific. No more racism here in America please, we got enough! M. Antonio

Marcosantonio, for the sake of clarity, Axel Boldt does not cite Hitler on his page, although Hitler is mentioned there.
In the opening statement of that page Axel says in part:
There are many stereotypes in Germany about life in the United States. Here I will try to compare these stereotypes to the reality in the US as I perceive it. In this comparison, I will also portrait the situation in Germany so that Americans might learn something about my country and Germans have something to criticize. I am constantly generalizing here; I'm talking about "the Americans" and about "the Germans" and I'm aware of the fact that, strictly speaking, these generalizations are wrong; I'm trying to capture a hypothetical average. [...] Of course, this comparison is necessarily subjective - take it as just another data point.
From this, it seems quite clear that he is giving his personal, subjective, and critical perspective on some U.S and German matters. I don´t see how his views can be construed to be defamatory (or antisemitic or anti-american). Kosebamse 19:10 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Mr. Boldt was undocumented, because only a few books were publised by ARP, among 61 he published, others were published by various editors from various countries. See for example a site of literary books by many publishing houses at http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/eBooksLiterature.htm. I understand his hatred but it cannot go before the truth.
Also, neutrosophy is related to dialectics not with logics - what I fixed. M. Antonio

  1. Personal attacks are not welcome here. Calling someone an anti-Semite is a personal attack. If you can't play nicely, find somewhere else to play.
  2. If Smarandache wishes to sue either Axel Boldt, or Jimbo Wales, he is of course free to do so. I'm sure it would make a most interesting case. Martin

For the sake of the truth, not for Smarandache's fan I changed the text on number of books. Only a few has he published by Am.Res.Pr., most others were published in his Romania. Check the two e-libraries:
www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/eBooksLiterature.htm &
www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/eBooks-otherformats.htm to be convinced. Do a search at BOOKS ON DEMAND to see 40-50 books published there, not only "a few". You're blinded by hatred, please use your NPOV style. For your curiosity see other publishers in the previous sites that have published Smarandache's work: Aius, Tempus, Offset Color, Adabdaba, Anotimpul, Litera, Macarie, Doris, Perpessicius, Conphys, Infomed, Paralela 45, Haiku in Romania; Express, Artistiques, Somipress in Morocco; Editions de la Tombe in Canada; Inter-Noreal in France; University Press of Kishinev, Cartier in Moldova; Dorul in Denmark, etc. I don't have time to number all of them. Now I'm wonder if you are so biased in all your articles you have written? Gianni

Hi again Smarandache-fan. No apology for insulting Axel, I note.
It's possible that addall.com lists only books published in English. That would be an explanation for the discrepancy. I'll edit appropriately.
Hatred? More like mirth :) Martin
No, I didnot want to vex Axel Boldt, but he published only 3 papers!! Why was this stuff deleted from this page? Do a serach at www.emis.de on his name. Lit-sci
Not being any fan or (non)fan, in a scientific encyclopedia there is no place for speculations. Antonio
Axel's comments can be re-added phrased differently. I'll take this upon myself at some point, if nobody else does. No rush.
Incidentally, you're right: this is an encyclopedia. That's why we remove unverified or unverifiable information. It's not always removed immediately, but it is always removed. Martin 19:43 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Charlie was his literary agent. He had more. They were in the same network. Dave
Sorry, I come back because the link to addall.com gives the books DISTRIBUTED through American Research Press, not published by American Research Press. This may be the confusion. With translated books FS has published over 100 books, but we cited the original 60 books only. Mr. Perez was one of the distributors of his European-published books in America. Dave

I have removed much of the following:

Smarandache has a number of what are either loyal followers, or else pen names, some of whom have edited Wikipedia: see User:Smarandache fan. Dr. Minh Perez, already mentioned, is one example of distributors of his European-published books in America..
Another example is "Charles T. Le". All of Le's google hits involve the promotion of Smarandache's ideas. "Le" has edited Wikipedia [8] from a computer commonly used by Smarandache and located at his university. He is however not known at the department of Mathematics and Science of that university. Le has given an institutional affiliation of "Arizona State University, Tempe" [9], yet he is not known there either. His only known email address is "CharlesTLe@yahoo.com". Le has also identified himself as affiliated with American Research Press. One source describes him as Smarandache's literary agent.

This is largely a combination of original research and speculation by Wikipedians. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, second section, point no. 10. Furthermore, the statement that followers of a person have occasionally edited the Wikipedia is not really relevant, except as an amusing excercise in self-reference; the implication behind the statement is furthermore editorial speculation. I couldn't tell how much has come from what people have said on the Wikipedia and how much comes from external sources, so I've left some some things in there, but probably more needs to be removed. -- Oliver P. 02:11 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have also removed this:

The Bitch Goddess of Blog responded to a "Ken Prasad" posting the outer-art "manifesto" to a poetry mailing list, saying in part:
"If [Smarandache] REALLY wanted to be an anti art fart, he should be firmly in the gutter... refuse all publicity and name... refuse to do art... refuse to think art... refuse to even think. If he would just fester in a cesspool and do it so completely that his mind rotten in its shell, and his bones rot beneath his skin. Then I would praise this seething putrid mass of excrement as being fully and completely anti/non/not/unArt. But I'd hold my nose well doing it".

A quote from a person of no fame ranting about somebody on a mailing list is hardly appropriate material for an encyclopaedia. -- Oliver P. 02:11 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It's a review, and entirely appropriate. If you can find a review from someone more famous than "Bitch Goddess" that's great, but till then I think it should be in. Martin
You call that a review? All it says is that his art is a "seething putrid mass of excrement".
I think you've misread Sarah - she's not saying that Smarandache's "art" is excrement, but rather that if Smarandache himself became a seething putrid mass, then he might be considered "unArt". Martin
Ah, you're right. I seem to be misreading quite a few things today. I blame the lack of sleep... But okay, if it's not talking about his art, then how can it be considered a review? -- Oliver P. 10:18 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It's just a rant. On a weblog. (Not a mailing list, sorry - I misread the sentence above.) Anyone can just start up a weblog and write anything they want about anyone. It doesn't mean anything. We should only include commentary on a subject from people who have some sort of authority to speak on a subject. If I were to start a weblog, and write, "Smarandache's work is really good," would you put that in the article? -- Oliver P. 09:20 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It's NPOV. I'm not saying that Smarandache's "art" is uninteresting rubbish. Rather, I'm attributing that viewpoint to a named advocate, with a reference. As I always say when I do this - if you can find a better reference, do so. In terms of authority... well, she's an artist, and she's read his manifesto. That's a good start.
The view that "Smarandache's work is really good" is already in the article, properly attributed to Smarandache and his followers. We link to his website. Of course, anyone can just start up a website and write anything they like... ;-) Martin
Hmm... So can I get Ben Hajioff's opinions on Smarandache, and include them, too? ;) -- Oliver P. 10:18 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Maybe "review" was a bad word to choose. "opinion" or "reaction", then.
Ben's opinions... I think his opinions would be more relevant if/when Smarandache decides to enter the field of electronic dance music. Btw, my Sarah gets fifty times more google hits than your Ben... :-P Martin
So, can I put it back in? :) Martin 18:30 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hmm... I still don't see why we should take an attack by some random person on the Web (there are a few dozen Google hits for her, but I haven't found any that aren't her own pages) seriously. Okay, so she's an "artist". In that she's made some pictures and written some poems and an on-line novel. (Ben Hajioff's done pictures and, er, wordy things as well - didn't you visit his website? Oh, never mind, you're not missing much...) But everyone's done at least some of those things, haven't they? Anyone can call themselves an artist. Has her work been acknowledged as worthwhile by any other artist? Is her opinion respected in the world of the Arts? Not as far as I can tell... So why should we take it seriously? Okay, so the principle of NPOV says that we shouldn't let on about how seriously we take it. But if we do include this woman's opinion, we need to give the readers some idea of her status. Just saying "artist" gives a false impression, I think. How about "artist with no known critical acclaim whatsoever"? :P -- Oliver P. 02:59 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
"amateur artist"? :)
Ok, so you don't have to take her seriously... just as representative of a certain body of opinion. Martin

And please don't remove or edit my comments, Martin. The text I removed was the text I removed. If you edit it, it is no longer the text I removed. -- Oliver P. 09:32 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

sorry - I was just trying to work on the text. I also accidentally removed one of your paras, but that was just a mistake. Martin
Okay. But the text you were editing was still part of my message, and was described therein as the text I'd removed. If you changed it, it would no longer have been the text I'd removed, and so my message would have become false. You see my logic, yes? :) -- Oliver P. 10:18 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, yes. It just didn't seem important. I'll know for next time. :) Martin

Text edited by Martin follows:

Some people react very negatively to the promotion of Smarandache's work, such as "outer-art". For example, a "Ken Prasad", another name closely associated with Smarandache, posted the outer-art "manifesto" (and a biography) to a "farm poetry" mailing list. Sarah Smiles, an amateur artist, responded with the following review:
"If [Smarandache] REALLY wanted to be an anti art fart, he should be firmly in the gutter... refuse all publicity and name... refuse to do art... refuse to think art... refuse to even think. If he would just fester in a cesspool and do it so completely that his mind rotten in its shell, and his bones rot beneath his skin. Then I would praise this seething putrid mass of excrement as being fully and completely anti/non/not/unArt. But I'd hold my nose well doing it". [10] [11]
Charlie Le was a student not a faculty. At ASU there is a large collection with books, journals, documents on FS's work: http://www.asu.edu/lib/speccoll/info/entries.html. M. A.

Added the address of American Research Press from http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/Contacts.htm.

Readers may be interested in the following.

This contains, among other bits, the following:

Received: from Florentin [63.225.11.115] by osprey.haidernetworks.com with ESMTP
[...]
From: "J. Andre" <jeanandre@ifrance.com>
Subject: Digital Library of Math

and in the body of the message,

E-books of mathematics to download, print, read for free can be found at 
XXXX://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/eBooks-otherformats.htm

"whois" says haidernetworks.com has a physical address in Gallup, NM.

  • Searching news.admin.net-abuse.sightings on Google for "Smarandache" yields two hits, one of which (dated 02 May 2002) is under Smarandache's own name, and the other (dated 9 Apr 2002) purports to be from "L. Kuciuk, University of New Mexico". Kuciuk isn't listed in UNM-Gallup's directory, and Google finds one reference at gallup.umn.edu, which is a citation within Smarandache's home page. The message body in each case is similar to the one above.

Sorry about the formatting. Regards, Grayhairednerd 17:25, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Second VfD Listing

  • Florentin Smarandache is a vanity page. If not delete, can't there be some disclaimer along the lines of "the information in this article is unverifiable" at the very least? but I'd like to see all vanity pages deleted. Especially since there such things as home pages and, here on Wiki, talk pages. Ensiform 15:50, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • He seems to have published quite a few books, or so the article says. Were they published by a vanity press, or are they recognized? At the least the article needs some serious NPOV editing. moink 20:59, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Quite a bit to this guy, see http://www.ad-astra.ro/whoswho/view_profile.php?user_id=91&lang=en Fred Bauder 21:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I might be wrong on this. The link above only leads to links on the guy's own home page for "support" of the claims; however, Amazon does have a lot of books by others on his work. My point (plaint?) about vanity pages, however, still stands. 68.90.10.4 23:49, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like a vanity page, quacks like a vanity page... Coren 00:41, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • The big problem with the page is its unverifiability. It seems from User:Smarandache fan and this old mailing list post that one person was adding lots of stuff about this guy (everywhere) back in June. This page should probably be deleted since it cannot be verified, or at least cut back to a minimal stub if reliable information is found. Maximus Rex 01:48, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • We've been through all this before. Florentin Smarandache is annoying in his self-promotion, but annoyingly well known. A number of researchers have taken up his idea of three-valued logic, and have put it to useful application. A number of people have studied the sequences he introduced. Check the talk page for the archived text of the first VFD listing. -- Tim Starling 10:07, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • From Florentin SmarandacheThank you for your e-mail.The article on Wikipedia is not a vanity page; many people have added, deleted, edited a text put by one of my former literary agents - without telling it to me in the beginning. As a prove to the fact that many people have worked in my mathematical and literary ideas, people who also contributed to Wikipedia, you can see the books that are selling in Amazon.com, or the books in many libraries - for example at the Library of Congress, Washington DC. Those people who contributed to some pages of my work were stigmatized by wikipedians who could not believe so many people have written about my work. I am not interested in Wikipedia because they are not fear, they look to be in some way against my work; I don't care what they do with that page. Dr. Florentin Smarandache. (Response in e-mail Fred Bauder 18:56, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC))
    • I recommend deleting the Smarandache page. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:16, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's quite verifiable - external links are provided, and a number of people have already gone through it for verifiability. Keep, but add a wikipedia:inclusion dispute header (yes, I know that's red). Martin 19:47, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • It's still a vanity page and so it should be deleted. I'll remind you that there is already a very large amount of Smarandache vanity material on the web; Wikipedia is just the latest chapter in a history of self-promotion. We needn't tolerate it here. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. JDR
    • Keep. -- Cyan 23:00, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I am a Romanian national. From my point of view, and after reading the pages about him at wikipedia and the external links provided, Dr. Smarandache *seems* to fit the profile of a self-promoting fraud. Of course, this is not a fact, but merely a speculation. However it could be considered as an educated guess on (ex-)Eastern European 'augmentation' of professional merits ;) As such, maybe it should stay here for anyone following this dispute to see. Catalin

Defaimation campaign

    • Because he published a theatrical drama trilogy called “A Trilogy in pARadOXisM: avant-garde political dramas” where Ceaucescu’s dictatorship is compared (by others not by him) to Bush’s dictatorship a virulent defamation campaign was started against him and his work

[see http://regenerationtv.com/pipermail/imc-la/2004-July/009672.html ]

“Although the dissident Romanian playwright Florentin Smarandache originally wrote this manuscript while living under the repressive totalitarian rule of the Ceausescu dictatorship, with a few name changes, his work was easily adapted to represent the government of the country the author now lives in -- ironically the one he fled to in an attempt to be free to dissent, to have privacy, and be guarantee his own civil rights. The USA!

Besides being a unique read reflecting the behind-the-beltway goings-on by the neocons and petrocrats, A TRILOGY IN pARadOXisM is a guide to performance art for live theater. Although there is satire and humor in dialogue from Assistant Assfault, Rumbo, Pampolissa, and other recognizable characters, this book isn't for the prudish, or those easily shocked by scenarios from the dark side of power, sex, and manipulation -- such as we've all seen played out at Abu Ghraib.”

From http://www.ad-astra.ro/whoswho/view_profile.php?user_id=91&lang=en

“Invited to lecture at University of Berkeley (2003), Jadavpur University – India (2004), NASA Langley Research Center (2004), NATO Advance Study Institute (2005).

Very prolific, he is the author, co-author, and editor of 72 books published by twenty publishing houses in many countries, 91 scientific articles and notes, and contributed to over 100 literary and 50 scientific journals from around the world.

He published many articles on international journals, such as “Multiple Valued Logic”, “International Journal of Social Economics”, “InterStat - Statistics on the Internet at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University”, “International Journal of Tommography and Statistics”, “International Journal of Applied Mathematics”, “Gaceta Mathematica” (Spain), “Nieuw Archief Wiskunde” (Netherlands), “International Journal of Applied Mathematics & Statistics”, etc. and on various International Conferences’ Proceedings.”

      • I am a Romanian who does not the author but I read many of his books. When I read the history of this page and it looks to me that either this article is fullfiled with deliberateslies and specualtions and partial truths or it is a joke; some of the editors exagerated calling him a hitman, killer, terrorist. O my God!

Any positive information on the subject is immediately deleted by two cerbers that follow the subject with a big hatress. I hope my editing will not not be deleted since it is true and it is taken from the University of Berkeley, NASA, and NATO web sites whose prestige can not be doughted by Wile E. Heresiarch and CSTAR. He was an invited speaker at the prestigious University of Berkeley (2003 [12], [13] ), NASA (2004, [14]), NATO (2005, [15]), etc. Marian

I'm updating the German page right now, there they refer to this discussion page. I read some of his scientistic works and a lot of his literary works, and I think, they have a lot of value. Many of the changes there were not from a neutral point of view. A scientist with new ideas has difficulties every times. Best regards, Bernd --Hutschi 21:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion or reduction

Marian,

Not everyone that gives a talk at Berkeley merits an encyclopedia article! Not having an encyclopedia article doesn't make one a person with less value.

If we can't delete the article, I suggest it should be reduced to stating the minimum. He is an associate professor at UNM Gallup and he has written material classified diversely as such and such. Then give links.

What truth are we trying to suppress? If you look at the history of the article, I reverted the edit that claimed he was a hitman.

Frankly, everybody would be better off with the article deleted or a minimal 2-3 paragraph article.

I'm curious what you meant by "cerber"? --CSTAR 22:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't write only lies and speculations

I don’t defend him because he is my con-national, but he does not deserve the humiliation you treat him… Smarandache is a popular writer in my city (Craiova) and well-known in Romania. Sure because of political reasons there might be pro and contra opinions. I’m objecting the fact than many things in this article are intentionally wrong, mystified, partially truncated, and all positive ideas are deleted. - Many of his articles are published in peer-reviewed journals, and they are listed; why does Wile E. Heresiarch lies saying that he published in only “non peer review journals?” This is really FALSE. [I read the talks and somebody has mentioned those journals above.] Why Wile E. Heresiarch desinform the readers? - For example, he was not “granted” a doctorate, there is not such thing, but he earned the degree. Granted is for doctor honoris causa. - About his writing as seen as “illogical” is totally false (did Wile E. Heresiarch read any of his Romanian and French books and found them illogical?... I dough it! Then how come he finds them “illogical”?… I am afraid he is the illogical one!!) Why Wile E. Heresiarch blindly deletes any positive aspect in this article? - Neutrosophic logic and neutrosophic set are not “idiosyncratic”; only a non-specialist can say that. There are Ph D theses on neutrosophic logic and set in American universities, and neutrosophic logic/set are used now in web semantics. If some people in this wiki don’t understand or don’t like them it doesn’t mean they don’t exist or they are wrong. - FS never published “anthologies of stories”, this is completely FALSE! Actually he published only 3 international anthologies of paradoxist poetry comprising over 300 writers from 20-30 countries, this shows how widespread is his paradoxism. - He did not published only in 3 publishing houses – see above in this talk – but in about 20 publishing houses (only in Romania from the books I read I remember seen 8-10 publishing houses). Then why Wile E. Heresiarch lies again? Some of them are universitary houses, college houses, professional houses. Why does Wile E. Heresiarch suppresses the truth? - You can get many of his books if you are in America in the Library of Congress, Washington DC, or buy them from Amazon.com – I just check them on Internet. - BTW the arXiv is not really “non peer-review”, it has a moderator and a team for each subject; there are papers which are rejected. - “Smarandache was the sole organizer” is also a lie, how can somebody organize himself a conference with himself or what? It looks to me either un-documented or maliciously written this phrase! I saw the proceedings published with many contributors from many countries. - In the review of Pluckings from the Tree of Smarandache Sequences and Functions it’s cited only the negative part of the review, but the positive not. You know how is it called? Truncation of the truth!! Such methods used the tortionary and dictatorial people. - If you put negative things you should also include positive things, that’s neutrality. So far this article IS NOT NEUTRAL! You either delete the article or write true things, not lies or speculations as other people observed before in his talk but their updates were also suppressed. [Actually Cerberus is the three-headed dog which gards the gate of the dead in the Roman and Greek mythology.] Look on Internet for Suppression of Science and Suppression of History of Science – that is unfortunately a plague today…

Marian

Reply to Marian

  1. Re Cerberos: Then you meant Kerberos of course...
  2. Re the review of "Pluckings from the Tree of Smarandache Sequences and Functions": Did you actually read the review that is cited? It didn't say much else. I would like to point out that the review was written by a well-known number-theorist.
  3. Re Publishers for Smarandache's work: The article quotes a definite source for the information about the publishers, e.g., Bowker's books in print. Talk to them; there is a link in the article.
  4. Re The arXiv: Having a moderator is not the same thing as being perr-reviewd.
  5. Re about his writing as seen as “illogical”: He makes that claim himself and seems to be proud of it.

Why don't you propose to delete the article? I will support you, and I suspect so will Wile E. Heresiarch.

Thanks for responding.---CSTAR 01:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Don't pin the blame on User:Wile E. Heresiarch. --CSTAR 02:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who pays you to mistify the truth and delete any positive thing

Dear CSTAR, - In the third world countries there is the belief that the third world country scientists and writers are ignored, entangled and more boycotted by westerners. First I did not trust this but now I am afraid this is what happens herein! - First of all, just for your information, Books on Demand is not a publisher, but a re-publisher, i.e. this republishes books from other publishing houses according to their contracts, as an example there are university publishing houses such as Princeton, etc. who are contracting with them. Hence, your statement that Smarandache published mostly in Books on Demand is unfortunately WRONG. I'm just curious, who pays you to watch and mistify the truth and delete any positive thing [things which are verifyable from renown universities and research institutions] on this page? Sure, you'll say nobody, but I don't buy this... - For example, why did you delete the positive statement about University of Berkeley, NASA, NATO? You had clear links to check them. - Why did you delete that he is a writer? Please do a search in Amazon.com and see his biography in just the American "Contemporary authors". I am afraid you do a deservice to wikipedia putting false statements. If you can not aford the truth sure you can delete the page! Marian

Please, no personal attacks. --CSTAR 18:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why did you, CSTAR, remove valuable information from this page?

  1. Okay, no personal attack.
  2. Another question: why did you for example remove this below paragraph:

Smarandache was the organizer of the First International Conference on Neutrosophy, Neutrosophic Logic, Set, Probability and Statistics apparently held on December 1-3, 2001, at the University of New Mexico in Gallup, where Smarandache has a teaching position. The conference accepted 12 papers, of which 3 were submitted by Smarandache himself, according to the official website of the conference [16].

  1. You can check it in the conference web page http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/FirstNeutConf.htm and in the proceedings of the conference:

http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/NeutrosophicProceedings.pdf. The conference was also listed in the Notices of American Mathematical Society. Marian

Because:
  1. The official website is that given by the link which was in the article entry you deleted. Be realistic, Smarandache (you?) can claim anything on a webpage you own. If there is no indepenedent well-known reference, then it shouldn't be put in. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing a personal resume.
  2. This is really not relevant information anyway; it was only there because you/Smarandache (or some acolyte) originally put it in. Do you see similar information on say Barry Mazur or Hilary Putnam or David Finkelstein or Alain Connes who certainly have at least as much scientific merit as Smarandache?
  3. Most of the information which you consider negative was put in the article (as best I can see) to balance lopsided information about Smarandache.
PS What makes you think I'm not from the 3rd world? --CSTAR 19:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is ridiculous now to label me Smarandache or smarandache fan or follower! Ha ha ha! When somebody dares to add anything positive on this page you and another one jump on him that he is either smarand=che or a folower and in this way you reject anybody daring to do so.

?Tu es espanol? Spanish is very close to Romanian, both Latin languages. Marian Popescu from Craiova [just for your kind reference]

Soy latinoamericano, pero esto no modifica nada, lamentablemente. --CSTAR 19:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 !Hola CSTAR! looking throught the history of fs page I observed your obstination against smarandache, as a romanian i am just curious where this hatress from?

Marian123

I have nothing against Smarandache. But the kind of fawning descriptions that were there when I first saw the page were certainly unencyclopedic and at the least very misleading. For instance, look at the first entry [17] dated April 2003.
If the article said merely Smarandache was a writer and faculty member at UNM and maybe a sentence or two about his life under Ceaucescu, I doubt anybody would have minded. Moreover, repeated attempts at either deletion or modification of the article were met with extreme hostility by supporters. Given that backgouund, it's hard to believe there is not a lot of self-promotion going on here.--CSTAR 19:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is suspicious to me is your insistance in this page more than anyone else, through i don't care but you're a pattern here!! Marian
Excuse me? Why are you saying: "What is suspicious to me..." Aren't you being a little bit paranoid here? As a matter of fact, if you look at any of my edit history on WP, once I start on an article (mostly physics and math) I am very careful to be able to document everything I put down; you are wrong in "suspecting" that my being thorough has anything to do with Smarandache. Trying to be thorough is the reason for instance I went to the library. You should also be aware that Smarandache has no listings in several large U.S. University libraries! That omission may be unfair or biased in your opinion, but it certainly should be enough to make anybody suspicious and check Bowker's books in print, as I did.--CSTAR 20:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not even our national poet, EMINESCU, a genius, is not to be found at large western University Libraries! Westerners ignore third world country (Latin Americans included) writers, scientists, etc. . Why did you delete "writer"? FS is included in American "Contemporary Authors," not any writer is included in there; see

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007SJD9E/qid=1120057366/sr=8-7/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/102-1084963-9082560?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Marian

I don't agree with your claim that "Westerners ignore third world country (Latin Americans included) writers, scientists, etc.."; but that's not relevant. Anyway I have no objection to your adding he is a writer. But please refrain from making the article Smarandache's personal resume.--CSTAR 29 June 2005 16:22 (UTC)