Jump to content

Talk:Mioara Mugur-Schächter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mioara Mugur-Schächter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted summary of unpublished book.

[edit]

In this edit I deleted a long summary of an unpublished and unreviewed manuscript. In general Wikipedia requires reliable sources meaning published and reviewed content. Wikipedia does not publish original research which means any kind of content that cannot be verified to reliable sources.

Please don't add the summary back without consensus from editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This content reflects unreviewed source and is therefore unreliable. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book may be usable as a reference in certain contexts under WP:SELFPUB. We can cite it as a reference to what Mugur-Schächter says about herself and her work. If the summary is just that—a summary of what the author says in the book—it's valid to support that content with a reference to the book. It being self-published and unreliable is not a barrier. That does not automatically mean this content is appropriate for the article, of course, but you have to decide that on grounds other than WP:RS.--Srleffler (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell you are agreeing with my edit. The self-published book was not about Mugur-Schächter, but a summary of theories of probability and quantum mechanics. I left a sentence describing the nature of the book and its relation to the author which I believe represents the work for the purpose of the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No secondary references to establish notability

[edit]

The article currently has no references other than work by the subject of the article. Secondary sources are essential:

Without secondary sources the article could be deleted. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per authority control she is probably worth mentioning but good sources are needed. Per the article history of deletion attempts and conflict of interests, there seems to be a larger isssue. I would remove all content and leave only the lead. Any user attempting to add more information has to provide a source. --ReyHahn (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth requesting semi-protection for this article? PianoDan (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My request was denied as "Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection." Johnjbarton (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I did not notice, this is a WP:BLP, this requires even extra attention.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the article for notability. With a (Google Scholar) h-factor of 12, highest cited article 89 and no awards I don't see how she passes WP:NPROF anywhere. She has 2-3 books (I am not sure about translations), but that might not be enough for WP:NAUTHOR. Maybe you (Johnjbarton, PianoDan, ReyHahn) have cut too much as I only had a quick look at the prior versions. As this stands it should go to AfD, it is very hard to defend IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition here. The only thing that makes her notable seems to be that she directed that sub-institute.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry this must have been posted while I was typing. Please see the next topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary reference with extensive biographical details.

[edit]

Chapter 19 of this book contains an interview of Mioara Mugur-Schächter

  • "The Human Face of Computing" Cristian S Calude (University of Auckland, New Zealand)Advances in Computer Science and Engineering: Texts. September 2015

This much alone, in my opinion, establishes notability. While we don't know how many of the details in the interview were fact checked by Cristian S Calude, we can assume some checking was done to even get to the point of selection and publication. There is nothing outrageous in the chapter. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One interview is not completely convincing, particularly as the ebook is not at any site I can access. At a minimum you would need to include some quotes from that source about her notability to be convincing. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side commentary for those who might be interested: in most of the pages I found about her, she claims to have found some important loophole to von Neumann's no hidden variables assumption. This sounded to me familiar, I went to check and John Bell's cited her for that, however he cited many other in the same citation. I think I was confusing her with the 1935 work of Grete Hermann which has a similar claim but it is more well known and 30 years older.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will volunteer to write some content for the article based on the interview if it will be kept, just let me know. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can also wait for the anonymous users to participate.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the IP user additions -- clearly inappropriate and reverting was the obvious decision.
I have a BIG problem with this page, and I think it should go to AfD even if Johnjbarton adds something. For certain data from a single interview which is in a paywalled book is not adequate. I assume that the interview in the book is the same as this. Sorry, but just having a single interview does not mean that her peers consider her work notable. In fact the lack of citations to her work indicates that her peers do not agree with her claims. At most her formulation might be mentioned in De Broglie–Bohm theory with this page redirected there. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a philosopher WikiProject has to be notified? I find several books mentioning her work but it is hard to say how notable those books are. Also it falls into interpretational issues, for example Bernard d'Espagnat dedicates a chapter to discuss the validity of her work [1].--ReyHahn (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable, why not ping them? Ldm1954 (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I left a message at WT:Philosophy.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The paywall is not relevant in assessing a source. Her work has double digit citations but in my opinion this reflects the very challenging and abstract nature of the work. There just aren't very many peers for detailed work on the meaning of probability. But that also means for Wikipedia the works are not notable. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update Fr

[edit]

Anonymous IP added various references to the French article see [2]. Only one of the sources added is secondary (news article): [3].--ReyHahn (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP request

[edit]

@193.49.37.237: please consider discussing what you want to add here first. For the text to remain we need secondary sources, sources not published by the author that talk about her. Please read WP:BLP. ReyHahn (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mioara_Mugur-Schächter&oldid=1259689149"