From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Europe (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Switzerland (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Map Query[edit]

If CERN is the "world's largest particle physics laboratory, situated in the northwest suburbs of Geneva on the Franco-Swiss border", why doesn't the map at the top of the article clearly illustrate where it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2898 (UTC)

Title of the LHC section[edit]

The title of the section called The accelerators of the Future: LHC, should be called something different, as it currently sounds like an advertisement. Calling it The Large Hadron Collider or similar should be fineButtc0 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Networking at CERN[edit]

Does CERN also deal with some networking standards? I assume this dates back to ARPNET. we may want to clarify this.

Normally no, but they did develop the initial World-Wide Web infrastructure, originally for internal documentation purposes. David.Monniaux 00:47, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The line "It also has very impressive computer and wide-area networking facilities which are primarily used for experimental data analysis." baffles me. What, exactly, is the "it" specified in the first sentence? The accelerator complex? Or the CERN organization? Situated at the beginning of a section as this is, one should not use ambiguous pronouns. Evilweevil 13:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have modified the article to clarify this. --Jll 16:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Grid, which AFAIK is being developed mainly at CERN, definitely deserves a section in the article. However, I don't know the inside of the project, so some CERN IT department employee should probably step forward. PS: There is already a Grid computing article.

I'll get to this when i have a moment - i can probably even claim its work!

mirror of the original CERN "WWW homepage"[edit]

I recently picked this up from a now defunct site. The webmaster was giving away pages and I snagged this, what I think is the only surviving mirror of the original CERN WorldWideWeb Homepage. Is this not correct? humblefool®Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal 4 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)

Unfortunately the site is down. Does anyone have the page? Or will the archives be lost forever? It's a pity to see the page disappear. Jorophose 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


There is a conflict regarding the actual name of the organization in this article. The beginning of the article says that CERN is the "European Organization for Nuclear Research," and later in the article it says, "European Center for Nuclear Research." The latter actually makes more sense, since in French, it actually fits the acronym.

I guess it's possible that the CERN people wanted to change it to "Organization," but didn't want to change the acronym to CORN. I will look into this...

The name at the top of the page is correct. There's a discussion of the name and acronym near the bottom of the article. The inconsistency in the middle was probably a well-meaning, but wrong, correction. I'll check and fix it if so. -- SCZenz 06:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, CERN is an acronym for Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, that's at least what was told me by the Librarian when I was down there with my Physics class in 2010. Eikabird (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It was about 50 years ago. You just need to look at their home page to see that the article is correct. Cheers Khukri 07:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it would be useful to explain that the original name was "european council for nuclear research" and only later was it changed to "european organization for nuclear research", without changing the acronym. It is explained in their website. Also, too many people think CERN stands for "european centre for nuclear research" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The acronym is clearly explained in CERN's website (
The name CERN is derived from the acronym for the French "Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire", or European Council for Nuclear Research, a provisional body founded in 1952 with the mandate of establishing a world-class fundamental physics research organization in Europe. At that time, pure physics research concentrated on understanding the inside of the atom, hence the word "nuclear".
Today, our understanding of matter goes much deeper than the nucleus, and CERN's main area of research is particle physics – the study of the fundamental constituents of matter and the forces acting between them. Because of this, the laboratory operated by CERN is often referred to as the European Laboratory for Particle Physics. (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It is derived from, that doesn't imply that it still is the correct full name. The name in French is here,, and nowhere is it currently known as the conseil or council which stems from the organisations conception. This is a common misconception that has been corrected many times over the years. (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The English name is "European Organization for Nuclear Research" [1]. The French name is "l’Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire" [2]. This is official and final. People please stop changing it to council/conseil -- (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You do understand the concept of acronyms, right? Yes, the organisation is no longer known as "Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire", but that remains where the acronym was derived from. It's looks plain daft saying CERN as an abbreviation without explanation as the letters are wrong. Adding the French for the new title is basically meaningless, so i'm replacing that with where it was derived from as that is a lot more use to readers. Guy.shrimpton (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The wording was "known as CERN". That's not the same thing as saying "abbreviated to CERN". If you're a stinker for acronyms, avoid the article for ATLAS. The explanation was and still is in the history section, and users were directed to it. I've left the French name of the council from which the acronym is derived, but made the explanation shorter as it's sort of redundant and breaks the flow of the introduction. I have also reinstated the French name of the organisation, since it's physically located in a Francophone region. -- (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A different question about the name[edit]

Is it actually true that "European Organization for Nuclear Research" and/or "Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire" is the official name of this organization? The discussion above cites CERN's "About" page, which says "At CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, physicists and engineers are probing the fundamental structure of the universe." This could be read to mean that the name of the organization is simply "CERN", with "the European Organization for Nuclear Research" being a description rather than the name of the organization. I presume this isn't the case, but it wouldn't be the first time a Wikipedia article has messed up something this obvious. Can someone please confirm (ideally with reference to a reliable source), that "European Organization for Nuclear Research" is actually the official name?--Srleffler (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That is the name of the organisation, as set out in the 1953 Convention:

-- (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Srleffler (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"West Area"[edit]

The article refers to "the main Meyrin site (also known as the West Area)...". This is incorrect. The main Meyrin site includes many buildings and facilities *including* the "West Area". The name "West Area" refers specifically to the experimental halls that receive particle beams from the west extraction zone of the SPS. The main buildings, the computer centre, the PS accelerator (and injectors), the old ISRs and so on are not part of the West Area. -- Ian 11:30, 17 January 2005 (UTC)

LHC Olympics[edit]

The LHC Olympics are in the news a lot - Should a reference go in the article? LHC Olympics --Zegoma beach 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A link in the article would be appropriate—an actual text section might be more appropriate in the Large Hadron Collider article. I'm surprised to hear that the LHC Olympics are in the news a lot—I've heard of them because I have friends working on it, but my impression is that they're not all that exciting. -- SCZenz 00:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Am I correct that "CERN" is pronounced "surn"? If yes, I think that should be added to the article. -- Felix Wiemann 20:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That's how English-speakers pronounce it in my experience. French-speakers pronounce it the way it looks in French (the e sounds the same as in English "bear"). There's a funny story relating to this and the first time I tried to take a cab in Geneva, but this really isn't the place to tell it. -- SCZenz 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I usually say C E R N, as separate letters. CodyM2001 (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I added "surn" and "sèrn" at the beginning. If someone can spell this with IPA, please go ahead (even though I might not understand it anymore then ;-)). -- Felix Wiemann 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1,800mb per second[edit]

I am just writing this here so it doesn't get a revert. There was a short sentence in the article regarding how CERN must acheive triple this (600 mb per second) for it to work properly (the LHC) by 2007. I changed the "triple this" sentence to reflect an actual number, as ther was some minor discussion elsewhere with people wondering if it was triple it in terms of 600^3 or just 600 x 3. So, I checked it out, and it is indeed 1,800MB per second. Check my discussion page to chat about it. Sod Aries 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think tend to think "triple" was clear enough; not only is cubing a number with units meaningless, but I can't imagine that any significant fraction of readers would ever become confused on this point in the first place. -- SCZenz 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"This accelerator will generate vast quantities of computer data, which CERN will stream to laboratories around the world for distributed processing (the GRID technology). In April 2005, a trial successfully streamed 600 MB per second to seven different sites across the world. If all the data generated by the LHC is to be analysed, then scientists must achieve 1,800 MB per second before 2008." ---It now is 2008, can the above quote be updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

' Notice ot all! As of next year, Cern will not be alowing trips to see the particle accelerator as a new experiment is going to be taking place, and no doubtly for a number of years. just to let you no. Geo

ton and tonnes[edit]

Someone corrected the crane from lifting tonnes to tons, surly a belgium crane would lift metric tonnes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteveTraylen (talkcontribs) 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Another change to the name in first paragraph[edit]

User shandris has edited the first paragraph to say that CERN was "formerly" known as "Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire". I think that this is inappropriate for the following reasons:

1. The current organisation known as CERN was never known as the "Conseil". The "Conseil" was a different entity that was responsible for setting up the current organisation in 1952-1954 (see the "CERN Acronym" paragraph).

2. Even if the two were the same entity, it is more than 50 years since it was thus called.

3. The resulting initial sentence becomes quite hard to read.

I propose to revert the change.

Having said this, every few weeks or months someone comes along and decides that the first sentence must be wrong because the acronym does not appear to fit (despite there being clear comments in the HTML). Does anyone have any suggestions ? For example, what if thtere were a link from the first paragraph to the "CERN acronym" paragraph. -- 16:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right; that addition kind of missed the nuances of the acronym. As for people who come through and change the first sentence, despite the HTML comments, I can't imagine anything but to revert. I fear a link at the start would make the intro cumbersome. -- SCZenz 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Map is wrong[edit]

Sweden, Norway and Yugoslavia are greyed out, but should be blue. 14:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Already asked the orignal author to re-do it. See members.svg here. Cheers Khukri 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Request Yes check.svg Done FANSTAR 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Some (extremist) Christians say that the logo of CERN has a 666 hidden in it. I can see what they are talking about, but I'm sure that is unintentional. Does anyone have any background on the logo? Thanks!    DangerousNerd    talk    contribs    email   20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Most probably the same lot that see devil worshipping in the Proctor & Gamble logo, or the fact they may have read it in Dan Brown's book and thought it must be real because he only writes about stuff based on facts. The CERN logo depicts the PS, SPS and LEP (now LHC) accelerators with the lines coming of each ring representing the injection lines from the smaller accelerator leading into the successive larger ones. Khukri 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!   Dangerous  Nerd   18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Complete re-write[edit]

I'm looking to do a complete re-write of this article, to bring it up to GA/FA status. Currently the article is very disjointed and doesn't flow, and am hopefully getting some other people at CERN to participate. If you're interested (at CERN or not) please let me know. Khukri 09:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In principle, yes. It's not easy to get an article like this one to flow, though; CERN does a lot of different things, and has a lot of interesting facts associated with it. — SCZenz 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you've done or had a good hand in alot of the periphery articles, but what I'd like to do is have an article more detailed on CERN itself expanding on it's history, and it's status etc. Then have a number of subarticles, asking the guys round here who work on some of them to de-stub them.
As a start point I've tried to list and find as many of the sub CERN pages and list them here so we can get an overview. Feel free to add anymore or like CNGS (added) that don't have articles but should. Khukri 09:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Maddox listed in 'In fiction' section[edit]

Is there any real justification in having this in the article? Aside from the fact that the satire article does not even have a citation; the fact that the worlds largest particle physics lab is mentioned somewhere in an article written by a moderately popular internet writer does not in my opinion add anything of value to the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple verb tense problem[edit]

I can't believe I have to bring this to the talk page, but I've been reverted twice now, by different users.

"The 1984 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer for the developments that lead to the discoveries of the W and Z bosons."

Am I crazy to think it should be "led" instead of "lead"?

The sentence doesn't seem like part of a present tense styled timeline, which seems like the only excuse.

- Misha 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Misha. I see you have changed "lead" to "led" again in the scientific achievements section. This has, as you observe, been reverted twice. I think the problem is one of US vs British spelling and convention. In British english "lead" can also be the past tense and is pronounced like "led". To UK eyes "led to the..." looks odd and (not to put too fine a point on it) American. The rest of the article uses UK/European spelling (centre, metre and so on) and so it is felt that "lead" would be more appropriate here. This is in line with the Wikipedia convention of having each article independantly adopt a consistent style on US/UK spelling.

Thanks. Ian 13:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Ian. I loved your polite and reasoned response to my annoying edits. I'm sure you would know better than I, but I can't find any evidence of this difference in my New Oxford Dictionary of English, or in a Google search. I am very willing to be convinced otherwise. At least one of us is bound to learn something new.

Thank you! Misha 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A removed link[edit]

Khukri recently removed this link:

The Potential for Danger in Particle Collider Experiments

While this link may be worthy of deletion, the justification given in the edit summery did not refute or address the specific claims made at the linked page. That page actually took into consideration what Khukri said. I'm not sure that Khukri actually read the page.

– Misha (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, What assumption did you base your reasoning on that I didn't read the article, edit summaries only have a finite space to leave a rationale. I did read it and though the piece does have some credible references the article itself draws too many conclusions, and is over dramatic to say the least. The conclusion is a narrative, and a subjective opinion. It is blatantly scare mongering, jumping from the topic of black holes to using terminology such as death in blood which is not scientific in the least, and it's my opinion this paper would struggle to be published by any credible journal.
Though personally I think the notion is ridiculous, credible arguments have been made on this subject, hence there is a paragraph on the subject within the LHC article and that will certainly not be deleted, no matter what my personal viewpoint is. Khukri 10:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there right back. Sorry for my late response. (In answer to your question, I do not believe I made any assumptions, nor did I reach any conclusions other than my own uncertainty.)
It is unfortunate that you didn't have adequate space to leave a fuller justification of the deletion. I still feel that your choice of edit summary was unfortunate. The rationale you did leave was the cosmic ray argument regularly used to allay fears of danger. The same cosmic ray argument was a prominent subject of criticism in the article. If you choose to criticize the article to justify deleting a link, you have to criticize the logic and facts in the article, not just repeat the argument that that article is "debunking". I hope that makes sense.
Thank you very much for your time,
– Misha (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the introduction[edit]

I attempted to correct a few issues and was reverted by Khukri.

  1. The IPA citation, including the French pronunciation, only serves to further clutter a poor introductory sentence. There isn't really any ambiguity in how to pronounce the acronym, and telling us how to do so in French has no place in the English Wikipedia.
  2. Because this is an international facility, showing the original French "Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire" may have a place somewhere in the article, but only serves to clutter the introductory sentence.
  3. The leap that the introductory paragraph should make at some point is how we get the acronym CERN. Thus, I proposed the following change:

The European Organization for Nuclear Research, commonly known as CERN (French: Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire) is the world's largest particle physics laboratory, situated in the northwest suburbs of Geneva on the border between France and Switzerland.

What are the issues with this change? --Benplowman (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Because your change is incorrect it is not known in French as "Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire" and hasn't been for quite a number of years in French it is "Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire". See here. cheers Khukri 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence in the first paragraph needs to be fixed. "Some 7931 scientists and engineers (representing 500 universities and 80 nationalities)." is NOT a complete sentence. I assume that it should say something like "CERN's members include some 7931 scientists and engineers (representing 500 universities and 80 nationalities)." but I'm not sure, since I don't know anything about CERN. Is there somebody who does know and wants to fix it? Superbatfish (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Brief History of Time[edit]

I removed the line in the "Fiction" section that said CERN was mentioned in "A Brief History of Time" since:

- The book is not fiction

- CERN is probably mentioned in dozens or hundreds of science related non-fiction books and so a mention in Hawking's book is not notable. (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical section[edit]

hasn't there been and isn't there a number of lawsuits to restrict the cerns program? Aren't there any critical views of this prodject that should be included? Did it take much longer then expected and cost much more then predicted? Don't get me wrong I would prefer that every article not have a critical section but that doesn't seem to be the wiki way... I just think it would be nice if this article had a "Concerns" section or something. I do see that there is an article about the LHC with a critical section, so maybe one isn't needed here, even though I believe it is the Cern that is getting sued not the LHC. I a may be confused though. Mantion (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

CERN itself can't be sued because it, and its officers have been granted immunity by the Member States. The best that can be done is for a member state to go to the International Court of Justice at the UN--and individuals and NGO's can't file suit at ICJ. But yeah, I agree that critical section would be useful. The overall tone of this article is not neutral. It reads like a brochure printed by CERN itself. Evidence for this is the whitewash over the devastation of several kilometers in the tunnel from the Sept 14 debable. E.g., "it was taken down for maintenance" Taken down by whom? The fact is it was shut down automatically because of a major malfunction. This malfunction constitutes a major event in the history of CERN. I for one would like to learn more about it. Perhaps some of the CERN people who maintain this article could elaborate some. :) Warren Platts (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Same as I wrote below, all these issues are covered in the LHC & Safety of the Large Hadron Collider articles Khukri 12:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of organizations are getting sued, including the National Science Foundation and United States Department of Energy, over the LHC. To put in a criticism section about the LHC for each of these organizations, just because a few people took them to court, would violate the Undue Weight provision of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any mention of the safety fears either, isn't there the slightest chance this thing could cause a mini blackhole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Try LHC or Safety of the Large Hadron Collider Khukri 14:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Do only the MEMBER STATE governments and their science research agencies fund CERN or do any of the OBSERVER STATES contribute any funding aswell? Is it only funded by Europe and not at all be the US Government? If i understand this right, I would like to put "(not involved in funding of CERN)" after the title of the observers section, but of course the article is locked for the next few months while idiots demand 100% GUARANTEES that all planned experimentation is 100% risk-free, which impossible. (See Risk.) -- (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, CERN does not only receive funding from member states. I don't know the details, but as an example, the US's contribution was $531 million in 2008. Snowb100 (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Member's contribtuon[edit]

I really doubt that members have only contributed $1 billion, as the Hadron Collider costed $9 billion dollars. Where does that other $8 billion dollars come from? Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The cost to completion of the LHC (~6 billion euros) is the cost from 1995 (when the project was approved) to ...completion (14 years and counting). Yes, the 20 member countries contributed ~1 billion dollars ONLY in 2008, i.e. only for one year. CERN also receives funding from other sources, including observer status members (e.g. the US's contribution was $531 million in 2008). Snowb100 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


Our article says that European Commission, Russia, and others have observer status but does not say from when: Russia did not exist within CERN lifetime before 1991, and European Commission also did not exist when CERN was founded. One reading the article could assume that these observers have been associated with CERN since its foundation, when in reality they probably became observers sometime in the future. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Membership maps[edit]

I revert this edit which removed the membership maps gallery, until I get a good argument as to why the gallery is injurious or irrelevant to the wiki. Our purpose here in Wikipedia is to serve the reader, and my rationale in adding the gallery was to serve the readers who prefer to browse articles visually: instead of consulting the text list of member states, one could see the gallery and get the same information from there. The animated Gif is not enough because it does not convery the same information: it does not include the years or explanations of the membership changes (Spain left, Spain re-entered, etc). Therefore, deleting the gallery deletes visual information that is not in the animated map. Furthermore, when I added the gallery I put it into a collapsible DIV which means that it had a "show/hide" link on top of it, and everyone who does not like galleries can very easily click the link and hide the gallery from their screen. I want to see what others think about the utility of the gallery... if I see that other people have real reasons to consider the gallery unwanted, it's no problem to reinstate the edit which removed it. NerdyNSK (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Moreover, if you think the gallery should be collapsed by default, I am not opposed to that. NerdyNSK (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course I would also not oppose the removal of the gallery if one could volunteer some of their time in improving my animated Gif so that it includes the information present in the gallery but not in the current Gif, especially the years. NerdyNSK (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
How come that the map showing the history of CERN membership isn't visibly animated? That makes it pretty useless. Other animated images, however, do work, whether on the image description page or as thumbnail. The only way I was able to see the animation at all was by downloading the original file. What needs to be changed for the animation to be visible?
OK, I think I've just found the answer for the lack of animation here. Still, a very unsatisfying state. So is the only solution to reduce the size of the image? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


CERN and the LHC appear in the BBC radio play, Torchwood: Lost Souls. -- (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate for Accession to membership of CERN[edit]

Romania became an official candidate for accession. "Following a period of study, Romania was formally accepted as a Candidate for Accession to membership of CERN. Romania’s membership will be phased in over a five-year period during which the country’s contributions will ramp up to normal Member State levels in parallel with Romanian participation in CERN projects."[1]


Turkey is an Oberver not a member state so it should be listed in the Observer section not in the member list

Turkey to become Associate Member State of CERN | (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


Also, Austria just ceased being a member today. The map needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, it has to pass by their houses of parliament and won't come in until 2011. Khukri 10:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In fact, Austria reversed the decision to leave CERN. Snowb100 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding LEP accelerator[edit]

This article says in the list of particle accelerators at CERN that the LEP will be used to feel the LHC as of 2008, and in the LHC section below, it says the LEP was closed in 2000, and that the PS/PSP accelerators will feed the LHC The correct information should be determined and the wrong information corrected. Emelleebee (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I believe you've misread the section, is this is the one you are refering to?
The Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS), a circular accelerator with a diameter of 2 kilometres built in a tunnel, which started operation in 1976. It was designed to deliver an energy of 300 GeV and was gradually upgraded to 450 GeV. As well as having its own beamlines for fixed-target experiments, it has been operated as a proton-antiproton collider, and for accelerating high energy electrons and positrons which were injected into the Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP). From 2008 onwards, it will inject protons and heavy ions into the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
The SPS was used to inject particles into the LEP and from 2008 will inject into LHC. Maybe it should be reworded, what do you think. Khukri 07:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Power failure?[edit]

Is this true? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I had heard that (from my mother!). OTOH, the News section in their site mentions nothing like that. (And, considering the huge number of people I heard claiming having heard that the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake had something to do with the CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso experiment, I don't trust any rumour about any particle accelerator unless it comes from some source at least remotely connected with the people who run the accelerator.) --___A. di M. 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, I heard that from my mother a few days ago (and believed her, until I checked their website), but The Register has today's date, and appears to say it happened last night. --___A. di M. 20:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, hence why I'm asking for corroborating evidence. The author is pretty anti-nutjobs so I doubt he would make stuff up, but you never know. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


From the article: "This Cisco Systems router at CERN was probably one of the first IP routers deployed in Europe"

One of the first, yes. I would say Piet Beertema's router at EUnet/CWI in Amsterdam was earlier by the smallest of margins.

Benefits & Dangers?[edit]

It is highly undoubted that the works of CERN has provided us with the infamous World Wide Web. Accessing and sharing data has never been easier since the beginning of the internet. The current projects involving the particle colliders are quiet a great work of mankind in trying to understand the sub atomic particle nature of matter. After looking through the article, I asked myself a simple question: what is the significance of doing such research? If anything a section providing information on how such research might benefit mankind and any other technological advancement, would be useful. Sure it might help increase data bit transmission but how will it benefit society in general? And how useful would particle acceleration studies in the near future be? Part of the article to introduce such matters as well as provide external sources to benefits of studying particulate matter might be helpful. Also the article seems not to state the dangers of studying sub atomic particles and collision. Are there any major problems to be worried about? Does it pose any threat to works and the environment like nuclear reactors do? It would be useful if such questions are answered in the scope of the article, or if not, provide external valid sources that look into the benefits, security as well as dangers of studying particle collisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainstein001 (talkcontribs) 00:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Try this article Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider cheers Khukri 07:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That addresses the possible dangers, but a discussion of the possible benefits, in addition to providing employment to builders, operators, administrators, and scientists would improve the article. Just saying "basic research is good" is akin to saying "building the Pyramids was good," in that it kept people employed and lent prestige to the builders. Edison (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC).
No, it's like saying that brushing your teeth is good because history has shown that it has good consequences. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 01:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Beam Collision on March 30, 2010[edit]

I'm not sure whether this event merits its own section, or if it should simply be listed under the Scientific Achievements section of History. Information regarding the beams' collision is available from the Associated Press here: Geneva atom smasher sets collision record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koriyen (talkcontribs) 15:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It belongs more in the LHC article where it's been included in the lede, but the whole LHC subsection here needs a re-write to bring it in line with the LHC article. Thanks Khukri 15:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Does there really need to be six maps showing the members of CERN?[edit]

Does there really need to be six maps showing the members of CERN?

The first one shows all of the current members, the second shows all of the original members, then the third one is the same as the first but in different colours.

The fourth one shows the original members in one colour and the later joiners in another, so it's pretty much an amalgamation of the first two (or second and third) maps.

Then you have an animated map of the members joining, then you have a world map.

You don't need all these maps, it looks stupid, there's more maps than there are pictures of the facility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There are an awful lot of maps. CERN is an international organisation and but do we really need so many maps? Sophia 06:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

EU Member States and CERN Member States table comparison and map[edit]

Since CERN is a European organization there is an interest in a clear comparison between the Member States of the CERN and the Member States of the EU in a side by side table showing the funding, and the result should be visualized in a three colored map showing 1 CERN membership, 2 EU membership, 3 Both EU and CERN membership. Similarities has been done in for instance the article about NATO ( where the EU-NATO map is shown ( (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Section on Current Experiments[edit]

I think this would add substance to the article, and have searched their official website only to have found a focus on history on achievements rather than current and upcoming experiments. It would be good to obtain this with some level of technical detail and depth. Niluop (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to add information you think is missing. Cheers Khukri 08:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

intro contradicts itself, leads to confusion[edit]

The introduction states that CERN is a laboratory, but most of the article refers to CERN as an international organization. Which is it? I doubt even the world's largest particle physics laboratory is actually large enough to have nations as member states. Minaker (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the organisation is the name of CERN, that laboratory is what is and what it does, so in essence both are correct. CERN themselves intermix the two regularly as can be seen here as an example, so the CERN sites are a laboratory which is run by the organisation.... if that makes sense. If this is OK I'll let you remove the contradiction tag on the article page, or change it. Cheers Khukri 08:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your explanation doesn't change the fact that the introduction is contradictory and confusing, thus making a "contradiction" warning template both appropriate and necessary. First off, if an article is so confusing that it requires a discussion on the talk page to clarify ambiguity, that is not acceptable. Second, your explanation itself isn't clear. I think that you are saying that the term "CERN" can refer to either a particular laboratory named CERN or to the international organization that runs it. If this is the case, then the article, not the talk page, should reflect this, and make it absolutely clear, because at this point, regardless of whatever we decide or say on the talk page, the article still states that CERN is simply a laboratory with member states, which is nonsensical. Minaker (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to make this change myself, because if it was my change, it would be based on information provided by you in this discussion, which is not Wikipedia policy. However, if CERN refers to both a laboratory and to an organization, the intro should read something like this:

"The European Organization for Nuclear Research (French: Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire), known as CERN (see History), pronounced /ˈsɜrn/ (French pronunciation: [sɛʁn]), is an international organization whose purpose is to operate the world's largest particle physics laboratory, which is situated in the Northwest suburbs of Geneva on the Franco–Swiss border (46°14′3″N 6°3′19″E / 46.23417°N 6.05528°E / 46.23417; 6.05528). Established in 1954, the organization has twenty European member states.

The term "CERN" is also used to refer to the laboratory itself, which employs approximately 2,600 full-time employees, as well as some 7,931 scientists and engineers representing 580 universities and research facilities and 80 nationalities."

Note that this clarifies that the term "CERN" refers to both the laboratory and the organization. As I said, I can't really make this change myself, because my only source is this discussion. But a change like this has to be made to clarify an article whose introduction is completely confusing and contradictory. Minaker (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear enough, have a look round the CERN site, they explain their status quite clearly as an organisation and a laboratory one and the same at the same time, then WP:BOLD and make the changes to remove the ambiguity. Cheers Khukri 11:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The title for CERN in the lede is correct as European Organization for Nuclear Research or Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléair please see What we believe the naming should represent is irrelevant it is how CERN names themselves that is important. As to the previous naming of Council or Conseil this is noted in the history section. Regards Khukri 12:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC) (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture[edit]

Hi, Firstly please read WP:IPC and my last post in this section relating to the LHC when a similar situation arrived. If editors feel this should be included can they demonstrate the notable link between CERN and a fictional place that isn't CERN but just sounds like CERN? Just because a cartoon uses CERN or a fictionalised version of it as a MacGuffin with a different name doesn't make it inherently notable. Regards Khukri 07:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not revert again without discussing the issue and read WP:BRD, it may be apparent to you but it is not to me and just because you believe it is apparent certainly doesn't make it notable. I cannot revert due to 3rr and will let other editors express their views. Khukri 07:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem with that gibberish added by User:Jagged 85 is that SERN is not necessarily the same thing as CERN. It's like how cereal killer is not the same thing as serial killer. You need a reliable source making the connection to overcome Wikipedia:No original research. If "SERN" was also purportedly located in the Swiss countryside near the French border AND was building a giant supercollider, then that might be a strong enough resemblance to not need a reliable source, but the mere similarity of the name is not enough. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not original research, for crying out loud, it's straight forward reportage of a event in a media artfact, supported by the media artifact itself, and totally within policy. Lighten up, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so. I gave you two links with rationale of why it is not. I agree with Coolcaeser about the name as I have said in my original post, something sounding like something is not immediate grounds for inclusion, same as the fact that in half life the black mesa is interpreted by some as being CERN. WP:IPC lays out three pretty good points for inclusion the in popular culture section, and as I said in my post in the LHC article just because a storyline uses X as a plot or MacGuffin piece doesn't make X inherently notable or worth inclusion, that is covered by points 1 & 2. Khukri 09:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
In episode three of Steins;Gate, the Large Hadron Collider is mentioned by name, in the context that it has been built by SERN. SERN's full name according to the homepage that Daru accesses in episode three is "European Organization in Nuclear Research". The only difference here is that SERN has 'in' instead of 'of'. SERN's full Japanese name is oushuu soryuushi genshikaku kenkyuu kikou 欧州素粒子原子核研究機構. Compare with CERN's Japanese name, oushuu genshikaku kenkyuu kikou, 欧州原子核研究機構. The Japanese word for 'elementary particle' is added infront of nuclear, making SERN the European Organization for Elementary Particle Nuclear Research if translated, compare to European Organization for Nuclear Research. CERN and SERN are pronounced the same in Japanese. On previously mentioned homepage, it is also written that SERN is located near the Franco-Swiss border, and that it was founded in 1954, also same as CERN. Pictures extremely similar to those shown here on Wikipedia of the LHC are used in episode three as well. It is to me obvious that SERN equals CERN, the minor differences only being made to keep it fictious or to avoid copyright issues (whether IGOs have copyright I do not know, but they probably have it or something similar that would require their permission to use them in a work of fiction). If you would like screenshots, I can arrange that. If you think the reference lacks significance, then that's another matter, but SERN is definitely portrayed as being CERN. Gaadjin (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
And that is the issue, why is this notable again the three criteria from WP:IPC are a good starting point. Cheers Khukri 15:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)?
Just wanted to make sure that it wasn't being deleted because of doubt about whether it was really a reference to CERN. Since I can't strengthen the relevance in any way, I'll have to leave it at that. Gaadjin (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

uncited trivia[edit]

Hi - this trivia is uncited so I moved it from the article , if it has value and is notable please cite and replace - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Think this neatly links into the above section as well, OK by me. Cheers Khukri 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Status of Israel[edit]

Israel's status was upgraded to associate member (link). How should this be indicated in the Member states section?—Biosketch (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

israel was accepted as a full member status please put that in-- (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Currencies in Financing Chart[edit]

The two currencies in the financing chart seem to be confusing, it's not clear which currency is actually used for financing. I assume CHF and the EUR value indicates the value at exchange rates somewhen in 2009. But as exchange rates change over time, the budget needs to be in one particular currency, either the EUR or the CHF values would be completely different today. I think there should be an indication which currency values are actual and which are just derived. Makrom (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Has Israel joined CERN?[edit]

I've read that Israel has been joining CERN.Exx8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC).

Israel has been an observer state for quite a number of years. As of a couple of months back they now have associate member status which will be brought before the CERN council in 2013 with a view to becoming a full member. So they have already joined, but are in the process of increasing their involvement. Cheers Khukri 08:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
They have since become full members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talkcontribs) 07:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Real location[edit]

...of the Meyrin site

AFAIK the CERN facilities aren't in Geneva, but in other municipalities WhisperToMe (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, CERN has two principle sites originally called Lab 1 & 2, one in Meyrin which is a commune of Geneva, the other across the border in the small French village of Prevessin, there are 9 LHC sites (two for point 3) mainly on French soil, and 7 SPS sites 50/50 between the two, everything else is located on the two main sites. The head quarters of CERN is considered to be the main building (500) where the council chambers are, the DG's and all the other big cheeses offices. As it is such a big facility with so many sites across the borders the main building is considered the centre of CERN so to speak. Building 33 is just the reception and the entry to the microcosm. The main entrance to the site is in fact Entrance B, A is only open from 7am - 7pm. CERN is no different to any other organisation with distributed offices, some organisations have their buildings distributed around the world, CERNs are located in one region. As with a large organisation one building would be identified as the head quarters, with CERN this is building 500. I agree however about the Geneva, I would change the headquarters to Meyrin to be precise or Meyrin, Geneva Switzerland. Khukri 21:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

what is the breakdown of workers by nationality?[edit]

There are over 10,000 engineers, scientists, and other workers from 113 nations working on this. Which countries have the most amount of people involved in CERN, and what % of the total would they comprise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyvio[edit]

The second paragraph of the lead of the current version reads:

  • "The term CERN is also used to refer to the laboratory, which employs just under 2,400 full-time employees and hosts some 10,000 visiting scientists and engineers, representing 608 universities and research facilities and 113 nationalities."

Does anybody else find this uncomfortably too similar to the last section of this page of the CERN website (Copyright CERN 2008)?

In addition, that paragraph is not a summary of text in the body of the article, so really needs to be cited (presumably to that page). Is the "full-time" nature of the employees an assumption or citable from another source? --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Members, budget[edit]

Sources for a table of member states and their contributions to the CERN budget (a la ESA):

--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 17:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Stale text[edit]

The article says "If all the data generated by the LHC is to be analysed, then scientists must achieve 1,800 MB/s before 2008." Should this obsolete and speculative text just be removed, or does someone have info on how they worked out that kink? Edison (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No idea. I vote to dump it. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

CERN releases its photos under CC-BY-SA[edit]

From this page on the CERN site: "CERN releases photos under a Creative Commons licence". Perhaps there are adequate photos already in this article, but maybe there are photos useful for other articles. They explicitly mention Wikipedia as something that would benefit.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^