Wikipedia page on Joy Christian

[gill1109]

I have written a very, very brief biography of Dr Christian, and brief discussion of his work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gill110951/Joy_Christian. It is in my Wikipedia “user space” which means that it is not part of the regular encyclopedia, it’s just in a kind of sand-box, where Wikipedia editors can collaborate in drafting a potential Wikipedia article. It has its own talk page, where anyone can also make comments, share information.

I need to create links to existing relevant Wikipedia articles, and to the literature, since everything in a Wikipedia article needs to be supported by “reliable sources”. Only after that has been done, can it be copied into Wikipedia itself.

Wikipedia has very firm deadlines on writing biographies of living persons.

[Heinera]

I'm afraid such a page would violate both WP:N (notability) and WP:NOR (no original research).

[gill1109]

I'm afraid such a page would violate both WP:N (notability) and WP:NOR (no original research).

I disagree. Just finding out when Dr Christian got his PhD etc is not original research. The information which needs to be gathered is public information, in fact, *must be* public information.

The notability question is arguable. He has published a whole suite of highly controversial papers in top journals. Some have been retracted after acrimonious debates. It is easy to give reliable sources on these statements.

The article *cannot take a stand* on whether or not the work is correct. No new research in mathematics or physics is needed.

In the time of Copernicus, Wikipedia, by its own rules, would have reported that, according to reliable sources, the Earth is flat and it is the centre of the universe. They could have reported that some maverick scientists dispute that. There could have been an article on Copernicus since he was a notable person independently of his scientific views.

[Heinera]

I'm afraid such a page would violate both WP:N (notability) and WP:NOR (no original research).

The notability question is arguable. He has published a whole suite of highly controversial papers in top journals. Some have been retracted after acrimonious debates. It is easy to give reliable sources on these statements.

I would not call them "top journals", and over the last 10 years we are talking about five papers (I guess). I think most postdocs would be slightly embarrassed if they were not more prolific than that.

The article *cannot take a stand* on whether or not the work is correct. No new research in mathematics or physics is needed.

Problem is we can't even describe the work due to WP:NOR.

[gill1109]

I'm afraid such a page would violate both WP:N (notability) and WP:NOR (no original research).

The notability question is arguable. He has published a whole suite of highly controversial papers in top journals. Some have been retracted after acrimonious debates. It is easy to give reliable sources on these statements.

I would not call them "top journals", and over the last 10 years we are talking about five papers (I guess). I think most postdocs would be slightly embarrassed if they were not more prolific than that.

The article *cannot take a stand* on whether or not the work is correct. No new research in mathematics or physics is needed.

Problem is we can't even describe the work due to WP:NOR.

We don’t have to describe the work, and I don’t want to. It’s an article about a person. I don’t want to put in more information beyond what is needed to support what I wrote so far (dates, references, links). I think it is notable that a PhD student of Abner Shimony (he’s the S of CHSH), who was a fellow at Perimeter Institute and at Oxford, publishes in journals of IEEE and of the Royal Society, that Bell was wrong. Anyway, once the page is made a Wikipedia article, the notability can be more broadly discussed and disputed, and if necessary, the page can be removed again.

[Heinera]

I think it is notable that a PhD student of Abner Shimony (he’s the S of CHSH), who was a fellow at Perimeter Institute and at Oxford, publishes in journals of IEEE and of the Royal Society, that Bell was wrong.

While I think it's unusual, I don't think this is enough to merit it's own Wikipedia entry.

Anyway, once the page is made a Wikipedia article, the notability can be more broadly discussed and disputed, and if necessary, the page can be removed again.

Can you imagine what kind of a sh*tshow the edits of this page would soon become?

[gill1109]

I think it is notable that a PhD student of Abner Shimony (he’s the S of CHSH), who was a fellow at Perimeter Institute and at Oxford, publishes in journals of IEEE and of the Royal Society, that Bell was wrong.

While I think it's unusual, I don't think this is enough to merit its own Wikipedia entry.

So there are two opposing points of view. The only way to find out which view wins the day is to go ahead and try. One of the key Wikipedia precepts is "be bold"! Wikipedia has mechanisms for collectively deciding whether or not a topic is notable. Christian has jointly edited a book in honour of Shimony, together with a colleague. There is a photo of Bell, Christian, and Shimony together at a conference in Italy (it could even go on this page, if the present owner of the photo would give their permission).

Anyway, once the page is made a Wikipedia article, the notability can be more broadly discussed and disputed, and if necessary, the page can be removed again.

Can you imagine what kind of a sh*tshow the edits of this page would soon become?

I do, for me, that's a good reason to start it. Wikipedia has mechanisms for collectively dealing with sh*tshows, and they work pretty well.

[FrediFizzx]

And... Gill's sick obsession with Joy continues unabated.
.