Talk:Kozyrev mirror

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Support for Deletion[edit]

Article is promotional literature. Reference in Cyrillic script. Deserves deletion.Tapered (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Objection for deletion[edit]

There's already been an extensive discussion about the value of this article here . The article content has been substantially improved so as to neutrally summarize the info on a popular topic mentioned in multiple sources (including printed encyclopedia and multiple press sources). The English version may be expanded based on Russian version. I'll try and improve the English version when time allows. -- Nazar (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Even if Wikipedia insists on maintaining its 'neutral' attitude, it should at least tag certain items as being 'generally agreed to be scientifically worthless'. Not doing so will greatly mislead the general public, and especially students. Wikipedia should also realize that the success which a scientist has had in one sphere of interest cannot justify treating that scientist's delusions with the same respect. This is obvious in other contexts: even Wiki would not take a 'neutral' view of child abuse simply because some celebrity had been guilty of it. Why can Wiki not properly distinguish science from pseudoscience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.195.5 (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Against re-creation[edit]

Please do not re-create this article unless you have information to add beyond what is already in the article at Nikolai_Aleksandrovich_Kozyrev#Kozyrev_mirror and can provide sources for all your content. Note the discussion at Talk:Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev. Thank you. PamD 09:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The pseudo-scientific "Kozyrev mirror" has no relation to the scientist Nikolai Kozyrev. However, this subject has been quite extensively presented in mass media (newspaper articles and TV documentaries in Russia, so it deserves a place in Wikipedia with due criticism. But not as re-direct to Nikolai_Aleksandrovich_Kozyrev. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Has new information now been added the Main article which, in some way, justifies the re-creation of the stand-alone Mirror article? If so, User:PamD's very reasonable directive seems a little paradoxical. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Protected the article as an alternative to blocking, if anyone really thinks it should be recreated an RfC would be the way to go. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The link for this is WP:RFC. That will attract other users. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Request not to re-direct this article to Nikolai_Aleksandrovich_Kozyrev[edit]

This article was merged and redirected into Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev after an extremely brief discussion in November 2013. There is a clear consensus below to reverse this merger on the basis that Kozyrev was a serious and reputable astrophysicist, while a Kozyrev Mirror is a device related to ESP. The redirect gives a completely false impression that Kozyrev would have approved of this pseudoscientific device that was posthumously named after him.

These are excellent grounds to enact the unmerge, and I am pleased to see that there is unanimous consensus for it after a full RfC.—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The pseudo-scientific "Kozyrev mirror" has no relation to the scientist Nikolai Kozyrev. However, this subject has been quite extensively presented in mass media (newspaper articles and TV documentaries in Russia, so it deserves a place in Wikipedia with due criticism. But not as re-direct to Nikolai_Aleksandrovich_Kozyrev. One of my recent versions in the history of this article can be taken as a reasonable stub. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 02:39 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly if the Kozyrev mirror has no connection to the astrophysicist of that name, we shouldn't be redirecting to his biography. As for whether the mirror deserves an article, clearly that will depend on sources - better ones than your stub, [1] which cites a broken link to a search, a YouTube citation which is probably unusable as a link to a copyright violation, and a link to what looks to be a tabloid newspaper website - which seems (from Google translate) to be directly linking the mirror with astrophysicist Nikolai Kozyrev! AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Independently of whether the YouTube link can be used or not, the documentary exists and can be properly cited. For the argument about relation/non-relation of mirrors to Kozyrev see the article in the Russian wikipedia. It can be translated and added to the English article. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
What sources does it use? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The attempted re-creation of this freestanding article was being done by copying, unattributed, the text which had been merged, with attribution, on 22 November 2013. If (and it's a serious "if"), it's decided that the topic ought to be back in a stand-alone article, then that copying of text from one article to another must be done properly, with the attribution shown, or alternatively a new article must be written in someone's own words, not copied from other editors' work. It is not correct just to "cut and paste" from one article to another. The editor stated that "it's not copying, it's a move!" but appears not to understand the Wikipedia principles of attribution. PamD 10:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It can (and possibly should anyway) be re-written. The text in the original article was a word-to-word translation from the Russian source it cited. Is a word-to-word translation an infringement of copyright in Wikipedia? And credibility of that source is also questionable. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev and Googling the mirror, it does look as if there might be scope for an article, eg if a reliable source can be found for the Russian patent [shown in Scribd]. There are a lot of Ghits out there (eg [2], [3], [4], [5] and even an attempt at crowdsourcing (with no investors yet) , though nothing which looks like a reliable source, but perhaps it has notability as a piece of pseudo-science. PamD 10:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The term 'Kozyrev Mirror' got its name by association with the work of N.Kozyrev whereby he describes the phenomena occurring simultaneously throughout the universe. It has a connotation with but no direct relation to, the scientist himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anichka7 (talkcontribs) 11:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is a good source (with further references) that describes Kozyrev as a serious scientist, it also touches the topic that he had nothing to do with what is now called "Kozyrev mirrors" (pseudoscientific): [6], same text with illustrations is here: [7]. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll support recreation of the article with the sources found by PamD, but making it clear that the subject is fringe pseudoscience. Darx9url (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Only here for the RFC. Know nothing about either of the subjects, but the discussion seems reasonable, so I incline to second what PamD, Sergei Gutnikov and kindred spirits suggest, both concerning the pseudoscience article and the Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev article. JonRichfield (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, concur with JonRichfield above. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems like a straightforward matter of determining whether there exist enough sources to justify a separate Kozyrev mirror article. In any case, not redirecting to the physicist is probably a good idea if the physicist had nothing to do with the mirror. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 15:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.