Talk:High-Frequency Gravitational Waves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] ref?

This reference does not appear to refer to an extant article in Physical Review D.


^ a b Li, Fangyu, Baker, R. M L Jr., Stephenson, E., and Chen, Z. (2007). Piezoelectric-Crystal-Resonator High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Generation and Synchro-Resonance Detection. Physical Review D.

No articles appear to have been published by this set of authors in this journal. Perhaps if the volume and page number were provided, it would be possible to verify this source. wesino //t// 20:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete?

I, for one, think this page should be deleted. It seems to be a scam to generate hits to GravWave.com. The page directs readers to GravWave.com multiple times: during the text, in the references (without qualifying the link at all), and in the External links section. Expect an IPO soon. There are other, more explicitly wikipedian reasons, for suggesting a delete:

1. Blatant copyright infringement. Entire sections of the article are lifted word-for-word from http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/A-Brief-History-of-HFGWs.pdf. I'm not sure if other parts of the article are copied from elsewhere, and it shouldn't be my job to enforce the intellectual honesty of other editors.
2. Lack of peer reviewed research. Most of the references (which are about HFGWs, rather than just gravitational waves per se) are from dubious non-peer reviewed conference proceedings. The other references are, on the whole, either of a general nature (such as Landau and Lefschetz), or apply just as well to gravitational waves (see point 4.)
3. Edits in bad faith. The author has made a number of bad-faith attempts to link other, sometimes even unrelated, pages here. Pages like telecommunications (!) My conjecture is that this is for the purpose of advertising in a covert effort to generate a storm of attention around GravWave, etc.
4. POV-fork. My sense is that, while there may be some good science here, it has been totally distorted to support the author's (advertising?) point of view. Thus the page clearly meets the criteria of a WP:POVFORK from the more solid gravitational wave article.

Silly rabbit 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that you have a good case here. Section 5 (on potential applications) is especially galling to me. This is a fairly well put-together article, but it fits a pattern of citation abuse that has been noted in other articles recently. Basically the article looks well-cited at first glance, but as one picks through the references they are either reliable and without reference to the topic, or are relevant to the topic but not reliable. Obviously there is no problem with the use of citations to set up the background principles, but without those principles becoming directly attached to the topic at hand with equally reliable references, they are useless.
My advice is to double check things before you proceed and be sure of what your case is. Articles like this are hard to delete unless you provide a clear, concise case for it. (Your write-up above is actually a good start. I would leave item 3 out of it however.) --EMS | Talk 04:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Yes, 3 has to go (anyway it's the weakest of the points). I also note that WP:NOR seems to apply, in spirit if not letter:
The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas. Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimbo Wales, has described the origin of the original research policy as follows: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 3, 2004)
(from Wikipedia:No original research)
I'm not sure if it's possible to work this observation into a case against the page, though. Silly rabbit 13:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That is the point of your item 2 IMO. Without a reliably-sourced connection between the core science and the topic, the topic becomes subject to WP:NOR.
In the meantime, ScienceApologist is being persistent on making this into a redirect, and that may end this issue. Let's see if it sticks before proceeding with an AfD. However, if you wish to discuss how to AfD this further, please feel free. There are other articles out there for which this discussion is relevant. --EMS | Talk 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

[edit] ref?

Will supply volume and page numbers

[edit] Delete ?

Will reduce links to GravWave.com

1. Blatant copyright infringement. The American Anti Gravity material (http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/A-Brief-History-of-HFGWs.pdf) is based upon verbal interviews with various contributors and “taken” from various informal documents and notes and is not a primary source. The material in the page in question was also obtained (in small part) from informal interviews and discussions with various scientists involved in high-frequency gravitational wave research and these scientists may have made responses consistent with their other interviews. Moreover, the history section, for example, is a collection of scientific-paper references taken in chronological order and that order has nothing to do with a “copyright.”

2. 'Lack of peer reviewed research.

Of the 35 references cited some 10 are taken from conference Proceedings. Only one of these Proceedings papers was not peer reviewed (23. authored by Leonid Grishchuk). The other 9 received two and often three peer reviews as has been directed by the Editor, M. S. El-Genk of the University of New Mexico. The proceedings of Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF) is an American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings and archived. It represents a forum attended by hundreds of scientists and engineers world-wide many of whom are at the forefront of high-frequency gravitational wave research. The citations that fail to mention peer reviewed work will be fixed.

3. Edits in bad faith.

There are a number of papers (peer reviewed) on the applications of high-frequency gravitational waves to telecommunications and this application may be one of the most important – so a link here is justified.

4. POV-fork.

Agreed “… good science here ...”; but “… totally distorted …” is an emotional statement and should be supported by factual material.

The same is true of the statement “Section 5 (on potential applications) is especially galling to me.” It may be “galling” , but dozens of PEER REVIEWED scientific papers are published on such applications.

Citations “…without reference to the topic, or are relevant to the topic but not reliable.” ?? Let’s be specific here. What references do not deal with the topic? Certainly they could be removed. What references are unreliable? As already mentioned all of the STAIF papers are peer reviewed and heard before an international audience. Leonid Grishchuk is a well-respected member of the “low-frequency” gravitational wave community and we would hesitate to remove that non-peer-reviewed reference. There are many important authors here cited for their high-frequency gravitational wave research such as Valentine Rudenko, Giorgio Fontana, Fangyu Li, Pankaj S. Joshi, R. Clive Woods (Chairman of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Louisiana State University), and on and on. Most of these scientists and engineers are from overseas where there is far more interest in high-frequency gravitational research than there is here in the US; but Wikipedia is international. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Csblack (talk • contribs) 19:37, May 11, 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of "high-frequency gravitational waves" before and the whole article stinks of fringe science and crystal-balling. I have been willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, as such waves can obviously exist, but the issue in a Wikipedia article is notability, not existance. (For example, Piltdown Man is obviously a worthy topic becuase of the impact that fraud had and its ongoing name recognition.)
I for one do not see the notability. Your citations do not include an article from a reliable soure that speficially documents HFGWs or the related research. If you have material that is peer-reviewed, let's see it, but do be advised that we have found "peer-reviewed" and "reliable source" to be two different things. I will also make it clear that noone else coming to the defense of this article is not a good sign. A genuinely notable topic will have usually have multiple defenders. --EMS | Talk 19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the fact that no one has ever heard of it before is more proof that this article SHOULD be posted again. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to inform. The following is a letter from a member of STAIF in defence of this article:
Based upon instructions from Prof. M. S. El-Genk, the editor of the Proceedings of the Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF), an American Institute of Physics Proceedings, all papers must have at least two positive peer reviews that recommend the paper for publication in the Proceedings prior to acceptance.
Please also note that we in Conference F "New Frontiers and Advanced Concepts" have published many outstanding technical papers on numerous advanced terchnology topics to include high-frequency gravitational waves (HFGWs) that over the years, were also published in other journals to include Soviet Physics JETP , Il Nuovo Cimento, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Physical Review D, China Physics Letters, Physics Review, Physics Report (Review section of Physics Letters), Z. Naturforsch, IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine, Zeischrift fuer Physik, Class. Quantum Grav., ACTA Physsica Sisica, IEEE Spectrum, Journal of Applied Physics, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, Physical Review, and a few others.
In any event, we who are associated with STAIF (especially our foreign participants) and the American Institute of Physics consider research on high-frequency gravitational waves, which has gone on for decades, to be extremely valuable, of high interest, and worthy of publication.
Sincerely yours,
Paul Murad
Cochairman
5th Symposium on New Frontiers and Advanced Concepts
Space Technology and Applications International Forum
Csblack 17:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Alright, I for one am willing to back down off the last three points. It's still hard to take STAIF seriously, and I continue to have deep reservations about whether the article deserves a place on Wikipedia. But I leave it for other Learned Wikipedians to draw their own conclusions. In the meantime, my first objection still stands. The entire history section was ripped straight from an outside source. Attribution must be given, or substantial changes must be made. Silly rabbit 17:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I am less willing to be generous here. Anyone can write a letter like that: It is just text w/o any contact info or means of verification. If those voluminous references in respectable journals exist, then Csblack can produce a list of the most influential five or six of them. As-is, one editor's attempt to verify the claim of publication in Physical Review D failed (see the note at the top of this talk page), and that is not a good sign.
Csblack wrote above that
I thought the point of Wikipedia was to inform.
This is not quite accurate. The goal of Wikipedia is to document extant human knowledge. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Topics are expected to be notable and to represent existing, generally accepted knowledge. That is not to say that a new and unpopular theory cannot be documented here. If much of the scientific community knows about it, that is what makes it notable. Then it can be placed in Wikipedia and described from a neutral point of view, including the objections to it.
Csblack - You are free to restore the article yourself. There is no rule against that. However, if you do, someone will nominate it for deletion at WP:AfD. After that, if it gets removed by the AfD the rules prohibit you from recreating it with first getting approval from a deletion review. Also be advised that unless established editors come out of the woodwork to defend this article, it will be deleted. --EMS | Talk 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The history section will include a citation for the article mentioned. Concerning the papers, I will be more than happy to show you a few, but where should I put them since on here would be inappropriate. Some of the other cited papers can be read at gravwaves.com under recent publications. 71.105.94.187 18:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Wikipedia does not allow for original research which includes this attempted amalgamation. --ScienceApologist 19:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


I think it speaks for itself. Silly rabbit 19:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. email address has been removed from thread as it is no longer necessary


Time for me to bow out of this argument. Go ahead and delete the article. Csblack 03:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The article is now proposed for deletion. (This is a process that can only work if there are no objections, but given that it is much easier on everyone than AfD is.) --EMS | Talk 04:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


This page (High Frequency Gravitational Waves) has been redirected to Gravitational Waves and I would like that to be undone. It was argued that the research was O.R., but a list of contacts can be provided to assure that it is NOT O.R. Also there was a concern about weight since the page only discusses High-frequency. However the page on Gravitational Waves only discusses Low-frequency gravitational waves, therefore the High-Freq. page should balance that out. Csblack 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)