Wikipedia Erases the A-B-C Preon Model From Its Database

I am rather concerned by this action and the implication for scientific theories in general. I wonder what the motives were behind this action.

On the 27th of March a rather well-written article was created in Wikipedia, the most popular online encyclopedia and source of knowledge. The article explained to great extents the details of the ABC Preon Model, one of the most complete preon model recently proposed with the goal to account for all of matter and energy. In fact it was because of the Wikipedian entry that the A-B-C preon model came to my attention in the first place. Even though the A-B-C Preon Model represents a competition to my own preonic model, I was glad to be informed of this other scientific theory, I was glad to explore alternatives previously unknown to me. It is my opinion that the entry was very well written, illustrated and sourced.

Proposed by D. J. Larson in 1997, the theory, which is yet to be experimentally checked (but has not been falsified), makes use of only 3 preons to account for most of the Standard Model of physics. Larson's Model represents a significant advance (in a preon theoretician’s point of view) relative to the old Rishon Model.

Yet: a couple of days ago, the entry on the A-B-C Preon Model was deleted by Wikipedia. Its link now leads to an empty page and all main references to this scientific theory were erased. Yet, paradoxically, the page of the old (1979) Rishon Model survived, and all references to it are still intact. Wikipedia gave a short time for votes before the deletion. I tried to support the survival of Larson's entry, but Wikipedia's voting system eluded my understanding. Yesterday I was kind of shocked to discover that the A-B-C Preon Model entry has been completely erased from existence.

Larson's theory was formerly located at this address: en.wikipedia.org... Now the most complete online encyclopedia has no main records of Larson's theory.

a reply to: swanne

From the deletion discussion:

The original source has collected zero citations in its many years of existence, according to Google scholar. That means that it has had no impact on science and (because it lacks adequate secondary sourcing) does not pass WP:GNG

Seems fair enough to me.

a reply to: swanne

From the deletion log:

Lack of notability The subject of this article does not "exist" in the physics litterature. It has only been published by one person 17 years ago in a single paper. That paper appears in a journal which may or may not have used peer review at the time. The journal is also clearly outside the mainstream journals for publishing groundbreaking new theoretical works in physics (as this article claims to be). The paper has not been cited anywhere. It has not been the subject of any courses or textbooks. No additional published works has since appeared. Bj norge (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the ABC preon model should, at the most, just be a subentry on the Preon wiki page if anything. The Rishon model is located there, so I imagine if someone wanted to edit the Preon page to include the ABC model it would be ok.

a reply to: Rob48

Zero citation?

But this model is all over the place:

www.quora.com...

www.cartesio-episteme.net...

www.physicsforums.com...

www.youtube.com...

larsonism.com...

inspirehep.net...

I'm not saying Wikipedia's deletion policy is wrong - I'm just saying that Larson's ABC preon model is not unknown. And even if it was, I wouldn't mind if Wikipedia would have kept it - even if it was only so that more of us can know about it. I mean, isn't this the whole point of an encyclopedia? Open our mind to things we don't know as much as things we do know??

Keep. I believe this article fully meets the general notability guideline, since the basis for this article is a publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Physics Essays. I am quite certain that Physics Essays used peer review for its entire existence, and I can clearly vouch for the fact that peer review was indeed obtained for the publication that is the basis for the article. The Physics Essays publication clearly addresses the topic of the article directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the vast majority of the article's content, although the article does include discussion of additional experimental data that has been obtained after the time of publication. The journal Physics Essays appears on many library shelves within Physics Departments and it is easy to verify that the article exists by going to such a library. I am the page author, and please note that I went through the process of having a separate editor look at this before posting it. Please see the article's talk page for more discussion. I would welcome any comments on how to improve the article, but I do not wish to have it deleted entirely. Delbert7 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Looks like the ABC preon model should, at the most, just be a subentry on the Preon wiki page if anything. The Rishon model is located there, so I imagine if someone wanted to edit the Preon page to include the ABC model it would be ok.

It was a subentry in the Preon page. But even the subentry was removed a couple of days ago. Only the Rishon Model remains.

Here you can still see the link if you're interested.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Rob48

Zero citation?

But this model is all over the place:

www.quora.com...

That is a yahoo answers type page and hardly an authority on scientific studies.

www.cartesio-episteme.net...

Link to the original paper that the deletion log acknowledges as the only existing source on the material. Dated 1997 by the way.

www.physicsforums.com...

A physics forum.

www.youtube.com...

Youtube. Enough said.

larsonism.com...

Reproduction of the essay from the second link (in other words the same information)

inspirehep.net...

See previous entry.

None of those are scientific journals or scientific discussions. The actual science provided is the ONE essay that the whole model originates from back in 1997. There is no new information at all.

a reply to: swanne

That is why I said the phrase "at the most," obviously the wiki mods didn't agree there and removed it all together. I can't blame them, there is no new study on this topic since the essay was originally published in 1997.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The actual science provided is the ONE essay that the whole model originates from back in 1997.

But then, isn't the whole point of an encyclopedia to allow us to consider new things, things we do not know as much as things we do know?

I mean, it's not as if this preon model was presented as factual - it was specifically presented as a theory, and if I may, a good one at that - especially compared with the Rishon Model.

I'm saying this as the author of a competing model myself. I know how hard it is, and this voluntary ignorance of theories (let alone their deletion) based on their popularity instead of their actual predictive power, is, at least to me, slightly concerning.

Maybe the scientific ptb are making their own consensus and ridding the archives of all others They wouldn't want just anyone escaping the box . a reply to: swanne

a reply to: VoidHawk

Sorry, but with an impact factor of 0.36 I wouldn't say that Physics Essays are that great of a peer reviewed source. That's rather abysmal as far as impact factors go.

Impact factor

For comparison here are some other journals' impact factors:

LIST OF PHYSICS JOURNALS IMPACT FACTORS 2013

a reply to: swanne

If there are only 3 preons that make up all of reality, do you imagine that the entire universe is just a 3d network of closely packed preons, and the physical reality we are made of, exist in, and experience, is energy passing through or back and forth or vibrating and evolving over time with created novelty, throughout the 3d network realm? Like the material/substance of reality is a 3d pixilated screen (preon network), and the energy is some mysterious and confusing eludement of motion of the preons or their energetic relation to their neighbors, and some how the original energy was always circulating, but the entirety of reality fell into this preon network and with the left over energy, it was bouncing and cycling throughout and the current physical reality we are familiar with is the on going product, the ongoing solution to the problem of the existence of energy and matter?

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The actual science provided is the ONE essay that the whole model originates from back in 1997.

But then, isn't the whole point of an encyclopedia to allow us to consider new things, things we do not know as much as things we do know?

I mean, it's not as if this preon model was presented as factual - it was specifically presented as a theory, and if I may, a good one at that - especially compared with the Rishon Model.

It wasn't presented as a theory. A scientific theory requires MASS peer review and duplication of observations and experiments to obtain the same result from many different scientists. That model is barely a hypothesis.

I'm saying this as the author of a competing model myself. I know how hard it is, and this voluntary ignorance of theories (let alone their deletion) based on their popularity instead of their actual predictive power, is, at least to me, concerning.

This model ISN'T a theory. Stop calling it such. It's just an idea that ONE person had that was published in a dubious peer reviewed article and isn't taken seriously by any other scientist. If the scientist in question, Larson, wants to explore more of this HYPOTHESIS, he should publish in a more respectable journal and update his findings instead of letting us rely on findings from 17 years ago.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Rob48



Zero citation?



But this model is all over the place:



www.quora.com...



www.cartesio-episteme.net...



www.physicsforums.com...



www.youtube.com...



larsonism.com...



inspirehep.net...



I'm not saying Wikipedia's deletion policy is wrong - I'm just saying that Larson's ABC preon model is not unknown. And even if it was, I wouldn't mind if Wikipedia would have kept it - even if it was only so that more of us can know about it. I mean, isn't this the whole point of an encyclopedia? Open our mind to things we don't know as much as things we do know??

None of those are citations. Youtube is not a citation. An encyclopedia is meant to give accurate information, not false. If you like the theory petition someone to experimentally confirm it. As is, it has no value, and it was given every opportunity to be valued.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
If there are only 3 preons that make up all of reality, do you imagine that the entire universe is just a 3d network of closely packed preons, and the physical reality we are made of, exist in, and experience, is energy passing through or back and forth or vibrating and evolving over time with created novelty, throughout the 3d network realm?

But the Phoenix-I/II Theory predicts the existence of only 2 preons (well, only 1 if you consider the logoson as being the antiparticle of the primeon).

Additionally, our universe has 4 dimensions, not 3 - you forgot to include Time.

That model is barely a hypothesis. (...) This model ISN'T a theory. Stop calling it such. It's just an idea that ONE person had that was published in a dubious peer reviewed article and isn't taken seriously by any other scientist.

But so are preons in general. That's my point. None of the preon models are taken seriously by any other scientists. Preons are too small to be detected by current experiments, so basically, your statement that the model isn't verifiable actually applies to all preonic models in general. Following this logic, my point is: shouldn't Wikipedia have deleted the entry on the Rishon Model too?

originally posted by: swanne
But then, isn't the whole point of an encyclopedia to allow us to consider new things, things we do not know as much as things we do know?

A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability",[56] which usually means that it must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as mainstream media or major academic journals that are independent of the subject of the topic. Further, Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized.[57] It must not present new information or original research.

Does the article meet this standard?

No it does not, which is why it was deleted!

"No new information"... hm.

Arh, never mind.

I guess it's just me (who's concerned).

I stared you for your input, thanks.

a reply to: swanne

No, time was included in my expression. I said 3 spatial dimensions, + the existence of dynamisism/energy, thus change, this implies quite dramatically the existence of time. The 4th dimension is not physically spatial, its a 'following' of points movement through 3 spatial dimensions. The 'dimension' of time is the fact that stuff that occupies 3 spatial dimensions can move about. Pure 3 spatial dimensions without time would just be stuff that exists in 3 dimensions that is not dynamic, does not move, does not change, at all. The quality of change that exists when observing the stuff that exists in 3 dimensions needs a concept or quality to describe the existence of the fact of change, this concept and quality has been called 'time', and it is called, the 'temporal dimension', or the fact there needs to be a notion of spatial + temporal quality when speaking of a 3d material reality that is dynamic, that changes.