Talk:Paul Frampton

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


  • The things about his teaching are not true at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note I have removed the notability tag, a published academic as a guide is a fair indication as being a notable person on a topic, he has one book that was published 1974 that was the first one published on string theory add to that it was reprinted in 1986 additionally his books are in libraries outside of his home country[1][2].
  • The issue of Autobiographical rather than speculations can editors please address specific concerns in the article that need further addressing. I have added an alternative bio source from the Lifeboat Foundation and made some layout adjustments to the article. Gnangarra 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It isn't speculation. The article was started by and almost entirely created by Paul Frampton himself, by his own admission. Hence it being tagged as it is, from my understanding of the problem. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I presume then that there isnt any specific issue about the article content that can be addressed only that your concerned over who has edited the article. I'll adjust to the appropriate tagging of the article to reflect this. Gnangarra 03:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It isn't my concern, really. I just got involved due to the issues with the edit warring. If others are gonna work on it to fix it, and will keep an eye out to keep Frampton from repeating his actions, that's cool. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a re-write of "Research" from Paul Frampton, avoiding primary sources.


Frampton's Oxford thesis analyzed the relationship between current algebra and superconvergence sum rules, and contained a 1967 sum rule, derived with Taylor. With Nambu, he analyzed the absence of ghosts in the Veneziano amplitude.

Two examples of his extensions of the standard model are the chiral color model, with Glashow in 1987, which predicts axigluons and the 331 model, in 1992, which can explain the number of quark-lepton generations, and predicts bileptons. Bileptons and axigluons serve as targets of opportunity for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). In 2002, with Glashow and Yanagida, he built a model relating matter-antimatter asymmetry in the early universe to measurements possible on Earth.

In slightly more formal directions, three examples are that he calculated, in 1976, the rate of vacuum decay in quantum field theory; in 1982, he analyzed, with Kephart, ten-dimensional gauge field theory, and its hexagon anomaly, before the first superstring revolution; in 1988, with Okada, he constructed the lagrangian which describes the dynamics of the p-Adic string.

In 2007, with Baum, he built, for cosmology, a cyclic model which can solve a 75-year-old entropy problem discussed by Tolman.

In 2010, he discussed, with Easson and Smoot, and alone, that dark energy can be better understood, by studying temperature and entropy. A dark matter choice can be the primordial black hole, which was discussed with Kawasaki, Takahashi and Yanagida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The material above has been provided by Paul Frampton as a proposed replacement for the large amount of autobiographical material I deleted earlier. While this material remains autobiographical it has been written in good faith and is a substantial improvement on previous versions. I have therefore added it to the main article. It is, however, still autobiographical and lacking in references, and other editors should of course feel free to edit it to reflect these facts. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


  • P.H. Frampton and J.C. Taylor, Superconvergence Sum Rules in Pi-Rho Scattering, Nuov. Cim. 49A, 152 (1967).
  • P.H. Frampton and Y. Nambu, Asymptotic Behavior of Partial Widths , published in Wentzel's festschrift (1970).
  • P.H. Frampton and T.W. Kephart, Anomalies in Higher Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1343, 1347 (1983); Phys. Rev. D28, 1010 (1983).
  • P.H. Frampton and S.L. Glashow, Chiral Color: Alternative to the Standard Model, Phys. Lett. 190B, 157 (1987); Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 2168 (1987).
  • P.H. Frampton and Y. Okada, Effective Scalar Field Theory of the p-Adic String, Phys. Rev. D37, 3077 (1988).
  • P.H. Frampton, Chiral Dilepton Model and the Flavor Question, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2889 (1992).
  • P.H. Frampton, S.L. Glashow and T. Yanagida, Cosmological Sign of Neutrino CP Violation, Phys. Lett. B548 119 (2002).
  • La Belle Epoque of High Energy Physics and Cosmology, Editors: T. Curtright, S. Mintz and A. Perlmutter, World Scientific Publishing Company (2004).
  • International Journal of Modern Physics Volume A20 No 6 March 10 2005 dedicated to P.H. Frampton.
  • L. Baum and P.H. Frampton, Turnaround in Cyclic Cosmology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 071301 (2007).
  • P.H. Frampton, M. Kawasaki, F. Takahashi and T. Yanagida, Primordial Black Holes as All Dark Matter. JCAP 1004:023 (2010). arXiv:1001.2308 [hep-ph].
  • D.A. Easson, P.H. Frampton and G.F. Smoot, Entropic Accelerating Universe. arXiv: 1002.4278 [hep-th] (2010).
  • P.H. Frampton, Possible Solution of Dark Matter, The Solution of Dark Energy and Gell-Mann as Great Theoretician. arXiv:1004.1285 [hep-ph] (2010). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Original Research[edit]

The Research section of this article is entirely based on primary sources in breach of WP:NOR. It is also entirely autobigraphical. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will start clearing out this stuff. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The removed material was re-added by User:JohnHarold who is Paul Frampton. I have reverted back to the trimmed version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

DOE Reference[edit]

I believe that the statement that Frampton is also Senior Scientist and Principal Investigator at the U.S. Department of Energy is inaccurate. Frampton has been listed as principal investigator on a number of DOE grants (see for information about DOE grants), but he does not - and has not - as far as I can determine, work at the DOE or show up on the DOE Science Office staff list: This sentence probably needs to be re-written to reflect this? Mylorin (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I would just take it out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Mylorin (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2013[edit]

Re-order from Research-Conviction-Publications to Research-Publications-Conviction

FredLamb (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: No reason given for change. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC).

Membership of Institute of Physics[edit]

Frampton is no longer a member of the Institute of Physics (UK) and was not a member at the time of his arrest. This was confirmed to me by the Institute's Director of Membership, John Brindley, yesterday.

The Daily Mail citation is a reliable third-party source as regards to the current status of his membership of the IoP, as per Wikipedia:NEWSORG - the Mail is a well-established news outlet. Please do not revert edits that indicate Frampton is no longer a member of the IoP. SheffGruff (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Former membership of a learned society is not in itself notable, so I have just removed the whole phrase. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, especially as it seems the original statement was not sourced to a RS. a13ean (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Conviction section[edit]

Editors planning to add more details of Frampton's arrest and conviction are urged to read the discussions on the BLP noticeboard at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive173#Paul_Frampton and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive174#Paul_Frampton before doing so; you may also find it useful to review the edit history during March and April 2013. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul Frampton: The Movie[edit]

Two sources [3] and [4] have mentioned the possibility of a film about recent events in Frampton's life. I am keeping an eye on developments, but do not currently intend to include this information until things become clearer. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


I'm hearing that Frampton has now been released and is back in the UK; however no reliable sources have confirmed this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Strongly object to obvious libel and defamation[edit]

@AlexiusHoratius: I strongly object to your semiprotection of this page while it included obvious libel and defamation. I am not the subject, but I am in correspondence with him, so this is not a legal threat in any way. However, I think it is quite obvious that you have, by your actions and neglect, exposed the Wikimedia Foundation and/or editors of this article to very serious legal liability. Have you read the Appeals Court opinion? 2601:282:402:2C00:F94F:626B:4466:F3DB (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read it but in this case I don't know what difference it would make as to whether the article should be protected or not. Please use this page to discuss the edits with others and arrive at a consensus about what should be done rather than simply reverting each other. AlexiusHoratius 11:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that Paul Frampton has a long history of edit warring at this article under a wide range of names you might find some scepticism of your claims. This is not helped by the fact that you are making legal threats while pretending that you are not making legal threats. But putting this all aside, the underlying position is very simple: if Paul Frampton wants changes to this page then he need to provide sources which back up the edits he thinks should be made. Proposals should be made at this page comprising a proposed edit, a proposed source, and (unless it is self-evident) an explanation of why he thinks the source backs up the edit. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jonathan A Jones: Are you claiming that the article in its present state does not constitute defamation and libel because it presents as fact statements from mass news media sources where were found by the appeals court to have been insufficient for any of the adverse actions to have been taken? If you were in the subject's position, what do you think would be fair for an article about you? (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
All I have asked is that you present some evidence in support of your claims. So far you have studiously refused to do this and instead resorted to making legal threats. If you want some action I strongly suggest you stop doing the latter and start doing the former. It's not rocket science. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jonathan A Jones: Would you please answer the question: Is there any reason to believe that the article does not constitute a serious liability to the Foundation and editors in its present state? Per WP:BLP removing defamation and libel is not considered edit warring. Is there any reason that the appeals court decision, as reported in the media, does not therefore support removal of the defamatory statements in the introduction and giving equal weight to Frampton's side in the body? I strongly object to your implication that my observations as a third party without standing could be construed as a legal threat, and to your demands for evidence when the record is already clear in the media. (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
All I have asked is that you present some evidence in support of your claims. So far you have studiously refused to do this and instead simply resorted to repeating your claim while providing no sourcing ("reported in the media" is not a source) and repeating your previous legal threats. If you want some action I strongly suggest that you provide more evidence and fewer threats. It's really not rocket science. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jonathan A Jones: What additional evidence do you need beyond what you can easily google that the appeals court reversed the adverse actions? Would you please answer whether or not you know of any reason to believe that the implications of the current version do not involve substantial legal liability? And how I as a third party without standing could possibly make a legal threat on this matter? And what you, if you had been through what Frampton has, would prefer that your article say about you? (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
All I have asked is that you present some sources in support of your claims. So far you have studiously refused to do this and instead simply resorted to repeating your claim while providing no sourcing ("reported in the media" is not a source) and repeating your previous legal threats. If you want some action I strongly suggest that you provide more sources and fewer threats. It's really not rocket science. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
[5]. Please answer the questions. (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a source. This source is aleady included in the article in support of the statements "In June 2015, a court ordered the university to restore Frampton's back salary" and "On June 16, 2015 an appeals court in North Carolina unanimously ruled that the university's imposition of unpaid personal leave without Frampton's request violated its own rules of tenure and ordered the university to restore Frampton's back salary and benefits", and the article is indeed a reliable source for these statements. This source does not, however, support the claim made (presumably by you?) in an edit summary that "An American appeals court found the Argentenian conviction did not match suffice t standards of evidence, so implications that it was just are defamatory". If you disagree with that assessment then please quote the exact text which you believe supports your contention. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome. I will gladly do as you ask after you answer my final question: If you had been through what Frampton has, what would prefer that your article say about you? In the mean time, should you wish to do your own research instead of requiring others trying to uphold WP:BLP do it for you, I would point out that the Appeals Court opinion is a public record. (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
You seem to think that this is some sort of game. I have already explained to you repeatedly what you have to do if you actually want to persuade other editors that your proposed edits are appropriate. Until you do this the likelihood of you achieving anything is very low indeed. Unless and until you start behaving more reasonably I really have nothing more to say to you on this matter. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@AlexiusHoratius: Do you believe that Jones has any interest in respecting WP:BLP or engaging in productive discussion? Would you please join me in asking him to answer how he would want the article to read if the same events had happened to him? Please note that he has deleted my request to do so from his talk page. Should I be required to post the Appeals Court opinion? (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to argue. WP:BLP says that, in a nutshell, contentious material has to be well sourced. If you're saying that that means we should mention how a court ruled that the school owed him back-pay, then that's fine in my opinion. But it sounds like you're saying that the Argentina conviction should be removed from the article due to the US appeals court ruling, and I think that's taking it too far. I mean, it's not defamation to say that he was convicted of this in Argentina. AlexiusHoratius 22:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@AlexiusHoratius: My preferred version is [6]. I understand Frampton's preferred version is [7]. So clearly you and I agree. Would you please remove the second paragraph from the introduction and change the section heading to something less false and damaging, and give equal weight to both sides instead of dwelling on the reversed penalties? (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on drug smuggling conviction material[edit]

Malformed RfC. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2016 (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.

  1. Are there any reasons to include a summary of the mule honeypot ruse conviction in the article's introduction?
  2. Are there any reasons that the header of the section describing it should be called "Drug smuggling conviction" instead of "Personal life"?
  3. Are there any reasons that the Argentine court's ruling should be given greater weight than the US appeals court's or Frampton's point of view? 08:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Are there any concrete proposals as to how to improve the article? ... No, there are not. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The proposal is to remove sections for which there are no reasons to keep. (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 1.) The lead should summarize the article's most important content 2.) The heading accurately describes the content it encompasses and 3.) the Argentine court's ruling should not be given greater weight. Meatsgains (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Is a honeypot drug mule ruse important? If so, why? (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Please describe which US appeals court rulings you are referring to, and how these affect the Argentine court's ruling. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The appeals court ruling is a public record. Please say so if you are unable to find it. What would you want your article to say about you if the situations Frampton has experienced were experienced by you? (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This RfC is on a high-speed train line to nowhere. False premises abound. Discussion of the topic in this context is really quite pointless. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The IP editor has been asked repeatedly to present evidence supporting his contentions and has so far simply refused to do so. Indeed he hasn't even defined what he means by "the ruling of the US appeals court"; the statement above is a typical example. The only sources he has referred to have only discussed a US civil court ruling concerning breach of contract by Frampton's university. Roxy the dog™ nailed this at the very start. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think the story which has been in the article before I ever edited it, [8], is insufficient evidence for its plain language assertion that the US appeals court reversed the adverse actions against him? It is clearly referred to as a state appeals court. (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The appeals court overturned the action of the University as employer,not the Argentinian conviction, which stands.Martinlc (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
That has been explained to the IP repeatedly, for example in this edit [9]. However the IP seems unmoved by this simple point of fact and continues to misrepresent the significance of the court's decision, for example in this edit [10]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you understand the concept of jurisdiction? The appeals court can't overturn the conviction, but in review of the standards of evidence and the extent to which the Argentine justice system is corrupt, what more could they have done to reverse any other penalties? (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Which premises do you claim are false? (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Since the drug smuggling and conviction is (presumably) addressed at length in Frampton's book there are no grounds for claiming that this does not form part of his notability and should be reflected accordingly in the article. In dealing the actions of the courts we should be using secondary sources (reviews of the book) rather than the book itself.Martinlc (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I have not read Frampton's book. Where has it been reviewed? (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no strong objection to this affair appearing in the lead. Looking at the sourcing, it seems like there would almost be an argument for not having an article on this researcher, if not for the conviction; only the existence of the festschrift just barely pushes Frampton over the line of notability under WP:Academic. Meanwhile, insofar as viable, independent and secondary sourcing is concerned, the bulk of available references concern the drug smuggling conviction, so I see no reason why this information should not appear in the lead. The IP needs to understand that it is not our place to vindicate or support the claims found in popular media; we simply report them. I agree with others commenting here that this IP user seems to show strong signs of some sort of relationship to Dr. Frampton, very probably arising to the level of meatpuppetry, and that they would be well served to read WP:NPOV and WP:COI.
As to their more particular inquiries, 1) the section on the drug smuggling should have a title which reflects its subject matter (its not in any sense about his personal life, but indeed a public conviction and related legal battles) and 2) We're not here to adjudicate which court "got it right"; we're not even likely to discuss those cases at all except insofar as they are discussed by WP:secondary, WP:reliable sources. In any event, those cases have almost nothing to do with one-another, other than that they are both the fallout of the alleged drugs activity: they took place in different nations, using different law, one involved a criminal conviction while the other was a civil suit, and they each concerned a different factual determination (did he commit the crime in Argentina/were his employment rights violated by a university in North Carolina). However, even if this were a case where we were looking at a direct appeal to the original charge, with differing interpretations of the same facts, we'd still not be engaging in a personal parsing of the rulings (that is, WP:Original research).
However, I rather expect that we are dealing with an WP:SPA-like/WP:NOTHERE issue here, so I'm skeptical that any of the above points will get through the motivation filter. Snow let's rap 05:52, 21 February 2016 (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.

Observations / comment / what you will[edit]

Thank you for the ping Jonathan. I have no intention of commenting further on the RfC above, as it has been answered by my own and other comments, and as has been observed, will lead nowhere. I would also note that I hate working on BLPs, it is a painful minefield deciding what is WP:UNDUE every time I look at them. That given, the drug smuggling and surrounding events are imho notable, including the issues surrounding tenure.

To friends of Frampton, thank you for restricting yourselves to commenting here on the Talk page, rather than directly editing the article itself. Doing so would lead to complications of 'conflict of interest' that we could all do without. I would also note that while 'what Paul wants' will be taken very seriously, writing articles for the encyclopaedia is written with Policy and Guidelines WP:PAG guiding (sorry) us. Paul has no more influence on what goes into his BLP than any other editor, but again I would emphasise that his suggestions are being taken very seriously.

I will declare that I have no COI here, except that I was born in Kidder too! -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not a personal friend of Frampton's. He and I have never met, have only corresponded over the past month, and have no financial, professional, or family ties whatsoever. I am simply appalled by the relish some people apparently take in presenting a crime and corruption victim so contrary to the findings of the court which reviewed his conviction and overturned all the penalties imposed against him in his absence. (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
According to the source you have presented the US court did not "[review] his conviction and [overturn] all the penalties imposed against him in his absence" as you claim. All it did was rule on a civil dispute between Frampton and his university. Misrepresentimng this source does not improve the credibility of your arguments. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Which penalties imposed against him were not reversed? How would it be possible for a court to restore back pay and benefits without effectively vacating a conviction, or reaching conclusions that would vacate a conviction for the same crime if it had been in the court's jurisdiction? Why do you repeatedly refuse to say what you would want your article to say about you if the same scam and corrupt prosecution had befallen you? (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The source is crystal clear: '"We conclude that UNC violated its own policies when it placed Frampton on unpaid personal leave instead of initiating formal disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the tenure policies," the appeals court ruled.' It's a narrow ruling on contractual matters which doesn't in any way touch the underlying conviction. Your continuing pretence that Frampton's conviction was vacated is becoming silly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
How would it be possible for a court to restore back pay and benefits without effectively vacating a conviction, or reaching conclusions that would vacate a conviction for the same crime if it had been in the court's jurisdiction? Why do you repeatedly refuse to say what you would want your article to say about you if the same scam and corrupt prosecution had befallen you? (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This is not altogether the central point other editors here are trying to impart to you (which is one concerning our pillar policies of WP:Neutrality, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and proscription of original research), but you also have fundamentally underdeveloped understanding of the legal structures and rulings you are trying to reference. The U.S. civil case was not functioning in anything like the role of an appellate court to the Argentinian criminal case--nor indeed could it, being as A) it is the court of an entirely different sovereign state from that in which the domestic criminal conviction was handed down and B) is not even a criminal court in its home jurisdiction.
More than this, the courts were considering entirely different issues of fact and questions of law; the U.S. court would not necessarily have to examine the details of the Argentinian case. And indeed, it is highly unlikely they did, other than to establish the superficial details necesary to understand the circumstances that lead to the legal question in the civil case, which was whether Frampton's former employer had behaved tortiously or in a manner otherwise legally improper in how they handled said employment and, if so, whether Frampton was entitled to compensation. That is an entirely separate matter from the topic you are trying to link to when you attempt to assert that the American civil case somehow vacates Frampton's Argentinian criminal conviction (or that the U.S. court somehow exonerated him on the criminal matter). That's not just an unambiguous (indeed, textbook) application of WP:Original research, it also demonstrates a profound level of confusion concerning the legal authorities and documents you are trying to leverage here. Snow let's rap 07:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
With regard to my restoration of the lead to include the drug smuggling note, the edit summary gives my reason, but when a noted academic has a notable event such as this happen, it needs to be in the lead, which is a summary of the body. As regards the American court ruling on the tenure issues, not the smuggling issues, I agree with Jonathan A Jones. To interpret any other way is to not understand the ruling. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think it isn't WP:UNDUE to include only the Argentine court's position, and not that of Frampton's or the reviewing court in the introduction? (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE relates to reflecting the balance of content on a topic as reflected in secondary sources. There is much more coverage of the Argentinian trial and its outcome than the US court or Frampton's version. Martinlc (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
That is not an answer to the question I asked. (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It is - please read WP:UNDUE. The policy I think you mean is WP:NPOV but again this is driven by reliable secondary sources, in this case press coverage, which overwhelmingly focuses on the conviction.Martinlc (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The question was, how can it not be undue weight to include only the Argentine court's position. There is ample evidence in the public record. It seems to me that you are referring to the bulk of the news media based on a corrupt justice system in proportion to the ease with which you are able to access it, not in proportion to which sources are more reliable, and the "overwhelming" conclusions drawn by them. (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Since the article does not only contain the Argentinian court's position, the question is moot, but I would refer you again to the policy on using reliable secondary sources; this isn't the same thing as court records which are primary sources.Martinlc (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Objection to deliberate BLP violation by removing NPOV and personal attack in edit summary: "your preferences aren't going to count for much"[edit]

I strongly object to [11] because it is a deliberate violation of WP:BLP removing Frampton's perspective, combined with a personal attack in the edit summary. (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for his perspective? It would help, and I would like to read it. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Frampton is responsive to email. (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
That is interesting. But do you have a reliable source for his perspective? It would help, and I would like to read it. -Roxy the dog™ woof 23:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Have you emailed him? Have you requested the appeals court records? I am so upset about how people have been treating me here that I refuse to do your research for you unless there is some reason that you are unable to do it yourself. (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
WP policy is to rely on strong secondary sources. The subject of a BLP article has no right of veto on the content of the article. Martinlc (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not the subject, and I don't know how to interact with other editors such as "Roxy the dog" for example, who said that Jonathan A. Jones's article is "the least hagiographic" he has ever seen. That is a direct quote. I find editing culture here to be corrupt, and I intend to write articles for mass media publication about the behavior of editors here. (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I am finding it increasingly difficult to interact with you. You clearly didn't read WP:UNDUE when it was suggested above, you don't understand even the basics of WP:NPOV, and increasingly I am of the opinion that you are acting as a WP:MEATPUPPET for Frampton. I also fail to understand, perhaps because of my slow doggy brain, the point of your quoting me without context above. We edit here within WP:PAG, and you would do well to assume good faith in fellow editors WP:AGF before throwing around accusations. We write this encyclopaedia based on WP:RS (reliable sources) which you consistently refuse to provide. Read WP:BURDEN to understand why you have been asked for sources. Rather than fly further off the handle, I will now stop. -Roxy the dog™ woof 22:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paul Frampton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


Two things - 1st I have reworded the mention of his conviction in the lede. It previously incorrect summarised the prose - he claimed during trial he was the victim of a scam but this was rejected - hence the conviction. 2nd My preferred option would be to delete the mention entirely from the lede - usually in a BLP if they are notable for things significantly other than criminal acts, it would be left to the prose where its one event. In this case his conviction constitutes a significant part of the article - but it really shouldnt given his other work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if OID read the previous comments on this page which led to the consensus to date. I have no problem with the rewording. -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I did, I was just making a general comment. As it was previously however it was both factually incorrect and did not summarise the content. It's only my opinion it shouldn't be at the top, but I know that's unlikely to fly with existing consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with the rewording, though I try to keep out of questions of this kind as I have an obvious conflict of interest (Frampton was a student at the Oxford college where I teach). For information the "science" parts of the article are almost entirely autobiographical and sourced only to primary sources, but as far as I can tell they are basically correct. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Edit by the subject, Paul Frampton[edit]

This is an annual update of my physics which involves editing sections 3 and 4 as follow



In 2015 he proposed a novel theory of dark matter where the dark matter constituents are primordial black holes (PBHs) with many solar masses. The Milky Way should contain billions of PBHs all physically smaller than the Sun and separated typical by over 100 light years.

In 2016, he submitted a proposal to use the Blanco 4m telescope at Cerro Tololo to test his dark matter idea.


Change one sentence to "He has published over 450 publications." (500 is an exaggeration)

Remove the last two publications listed (one was withdrawn, the other is not physics)


P.H. Frampton, "Search for Dark Matter Constituents with Many Solar Masses". Mod. Phys. Lett. A31, 1650180 (2016). arXiv:1510.00400[hep-ph]. G.F. Chapline and P.H. Frampton, "Intermediate Mass MACHOs: A New Direction for Dark Matter Searches". JCAP (2016, in press). arXiv:1608.04297[gr-qc]. P.H. Frampton, B. Carr, F. De Paolis, D. Minniti, A. Rest, F. Strafella and W. Sutherland, "Search for Intermediate-Mass Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects". Proposal to NOAO, submitted September 30, 2016.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Mostly done. Research proposals are not notable unless reported in independent reliable secondary sources. The research section still suffers from a complete lack of independent sourcing, but is arguably just about OK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


Suggested edit by the subject, Paul Frampton[edit]

Thank you for updating the professional part of my Wiki-profile which does fit into an Encyclopaedia Brittanica model for factual accuracy.

The personal part does not so fit. This talk page explains why: it reads as if by story editors at a tabloid rather than by encyclopedia makers intent on factual accuracy. A section heading “Conviction” is defamatory because in the UK it implies guilt. In Argentina it carries no such implication because of corruption. Every drug case there which gets to trial results in conviction, never acquittal, because the US war on drugs rewards Argentina tens of thousands of dollars. Because of this, the Argentina conviction does not appear as a criminal record in the UK.

The reliable sources in the media sought in the talk page discussion simply do not exist because of corruption. Journalists in the UK are too unfamiliar with it. Journalists in the third-world country are aware, but dare not write on it for fear of losing their livelihood since the Argentina government itself is also rampant with corruption.

My preferred solution is to remove all personal material since my discoveries in physics, cited over ten thousand times in the scientific literature, are all. Being the victim of an internet scam five years ago is of no interest. There is an interesting initiative from the EU, of which the UK is still a member, that could be applied: the “right to be forgotten”.

Paul Frampton November 2, 2016.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Paul. You appear to be saying that because you weren't convicted in the UK, you weren't convicted at all. This cannot be put into your article on wikipedia because it isn't true. In other words, you have been convicted, and we have reliable sources that say so, and there is little chance your suggestion will change consensus. Your handwaving about corruption wont change that. Sorry. ADD. ... and another thing, the 'Right to be forgotten' that you mention doesn't give anybody the right to have their criminal record expunged, it relates to the 'right' to have internet search results concerning things a court agrees that the public have no need to find in an internet search, hidden. It is often used by people who, say, have been convicted of drug smuggling, and served a sentence, and wish that evidence of their criminal behaviour cannot be easily found by an everyday web search. The search engine will be 'nobbled' to prevent returning specific results. That's all the right to be forgotten does, prevents results being displayed. -Roxy the dog™ bark 14:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The UK could not have tried Frampton for drug smuggling even if someone in the UK had wanted to do this -- it's a simple matter of jurisdiction & where the crime was committed. The idea is a perfect straw man -- irrelevant to how we would edit this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
My vote is that this event has nothing to do with Frampton's notability, and it doesn't need to be in the article.
Furthermore, per our policy on BLP: if there's good reason to believe that a conviction isn't valid, we shouldn't say it's a conviction. Our very own Wiki article Corruption in Argentina gives some weight to Paul's argument; a quick google search turns up a lot more. JerryRussell (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, the discussions above mention that a US appeals court might have found Frampton's conviction invalid. However, we don't have a reliable secondary source that says so. In a case like this, I would argue that we could review a court document to verify that fact, if Paul can provide us with a copy of the document. We're allowed to make limited use of primary sources. JerryRussell (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Sadly none of that is ground in policy. The BLP says no such thing anyway. It only says in the case of not well-known figures accusations of criminality should not be listed without a conviction. Notable people are covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. There is in fact no reason at all to doubt the conviction. Speculation on what an appeal's court in a different country might have found is original research and forbidden by policy. Even had a court in a different country come up with a contradictory judgement, BLP actually says that everything (if reliably sourced) should be covered. At this point its easily arguable that he is more notable for the conviction and his subsequent related successful lawsuit for his back pay after he was fired. There are plenty of reliable third party sources that cover him in relation to his conviction. I have reverted your recent edits as they do not paint an accurate picture. He was tried, convicted and imprisoned for a crime. His defence it was a scam was rejected, largely due to the overwhelming evidence against him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Only in death does duty end, thanks for the thoughtful reply. BLP says Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that... is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Now, I have to admit that the most straightforward interpretation of that policy would be that the sources say it's a conviction, so that's what it is. But the implied conjecture is, that a conviction in Argentina actually means anything like it might elsewhere.
I agree that it's better if we can avoid any speculation. I'm hoping that maybe Paul can help here? If there are any reliable sources that specifically address the issue of corruption in Argentine drug trials, that would be something we could discuss, or cite in the article. If there's a US court document that reviews the Argentina proceedings, we can look at that too. JerryRussell (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Frampton mentions above that The reliable sources in the media sought in the talk page discussion simply do not exist. I'm sure that's true with respect to Frampton's specific case. But, it would surprise me if there's nothing out there discussing the general condition of the criminal courts in Argentina. If Paul can't turn anything up, I might try my Google skills myself. No time tonight, back Monday. JerryRussell (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like to point out that it doesn't matter how much WP:OR gets done here, Wikipedia will not be able to overturn Paul's conviction. Roxy the dog™ bark 09:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
It is an odd effect of Wikipedia policy that the article needs to include the conviction as part of his notability. If he had not been notable for his academic work, then WP:1E would have resulted in the article being deleted. As it is, though, there is significant newspaper and TV coverage, and his own published account of the story, which needs to be reflected here, and the objective fact that an Argentinian court convicted him has to remain.Martinlc (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


You continue with grievous error in my profile. The first two responders did not read me carefully enough and surely have insufficient experience to compare the third and first worlds; nevertheless, let me attempt humbly to respond to each of them using their adopted pseudonyms.

To: Roxy the Dog:

That is not what I wrote. I am saying that an Argentinian conviction Is different from a UK one because corruption is rife including regarding justice. Police and prison guards are reputed to have income three times their tiny salary, judges ten times. About prison guards I can testify at first hand for example after a raid which confiscated illegal drugs and cellphones the next day the guards illegally sold the same items back to prisoners. This corruption is not hand waving but real. In January 2012 I uniquely entered abruptly into the very lowest social class in a third-world country, Argentina, very likely the only professor ever to do so.

Useful Wiki-articles could be “Corruption in the Argentina Criminal Justice System” (I know of no accurate description – the Wiki “Corruption in Argentina” is woefully inadequate) and “Consequences of the US War on Drugs” (the Wiki “War on Drugs” is too incomplete). Regarding one of your further comments I have no criminal record in either the UK or the US.

What is at stake here is my honesty and trustworthiness, and whether I have the character and integrity to be a useful physics professor. I am pleased that the physics community, meaning active researchers, does have a solid consensus that my Argentina charge was preposterous.

Wiki-editors which include Jonathan A Jones could never have consensus, e.g. “Sources have mentioned a film about recent events in Frampton’s life. I am keeping an eye on developments.” (August 29, 2013).

“I’m hearing that Frampton has now been released and is back in the UK; however no reliable sources confirm this.” (July 22, 2014).
”I have an obvious conflict of interest (Frampton was a student at the same Oxford college where I teach)”. (August 22, 2016). 

which are a superposition of superciliousness and pettiness . Jonathan A Jones is a disaster for Wikipedia.


To: Nomakedasticity You must likewise have no first-hand experience? I am not the only innocent person convicted In Argentina: see e.g. Sharon Armstrong. It is anything but a straw man to contrast the third-world corruption and US war on drugs with the UK criminal justice system where neither is in play.


To clear up factual inaccuracies remaining in my Wikipedia Profile would require, if that section were kept, very many allegedly’s because it is all interpretation of sources. Certainly corruption in Argentina and the US war on drugs are relevant but these are both huge subjects which hardly fit in “Paul Frampton”.

To: JerryRussell Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I strongly encourage your research into the two key topics, to the extent that information is in the public domain. Wiki’s “War on Drugs” fails even to mention Argentina and Wiki’s “Corruption in Argentina” has no mention of the war on drugs. My case strongly suggests a connection. With an absence of any genuine evidence to support my conviction only, say, $100,000 from the US in its war on drugs could have led the judges to make such a grievously wrong decision. Somebody wrote texts about drugs as if I sent them the day before my arrest. They were invented for the prosecutor whose 45-minute presentation was a fairy tale. For example he claimed that I renewed my UK passport in 2011 in preparation for drug-trafficking and that I was constantly in collusion with the drug runners.

He spoke in Spanish then I replied in English, translated to Spanish simultaneously and unreliably by the court. Not surprisingly some of it emerged garbled. For example, I described the prosecutor’s fairy tale as a joke, but it came out as if I admitted sending the day-before drug messages as jokes --- which is impossible because only the following day did I suspect anything about drugs. There were also no messages about “street value” - that is a result of garbling.

There is probably a book here but I presently lack the time to write it. I spent a few days writing a very short e-book back in 2014.

When the tribunal of three judges quickly and surprisingly, at least to me and my defense lawyers, decided on a conviction instead of acquittal, their ruling summarily dismissed all defense arguments and stapled into it instead all the prosecutor’s fictitious presentation. That’s conviction in Argentina.


To: Martinic Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I am very pleased when you write that my physics accomplishments have notability, at least more so than my vacation in Latin America which is insignificant from any broader perspective. You agree about this entirely with JerryRussell, and with me.


With these comments in mind, I hope you can now render the “Paul Frampton” profile consistent with Wikipedia’s policy about Biographies of Living Persons(BLP). BLP says Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that... is a conjectural interpretation of a source.

Thank you very much,

Paul H Frampton. November 7, 2016.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is a report by the Transnational Institute which states: in many cases the [Argentine] criminal justice system has been overzealous in its “war on drugs” role, subjecting innocent people to trial or inventing proceedings. Drug Laws and Prisons in Argentina
This looks like support for Paul's position to me. It's not WP:OR to evaluate our sources in light of all available information. On the contrary, this is our job as editors.
Paul, you didn't answer my question about whether the US appeals court for your back salary case made any review of the conviction in Argentina, and if so, what did they say. Considering the lack of consensus here on the talk page, there will need to be a dispute resolution process of some sort: either a post to WP:BLP/N or else an RfC. We should have as much information available as possible, before going into that. JerryRussell (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Bluntly, this is not an article for a discussion on the perceived failings of the Argentinian legal system. Using critical sources of their legal system in order to shed doubt on his conviction is both original research and synthesis. Its just not going to happen on this article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to retread the previous debate about the interlinking of the US back pay ruling and the Argentinian drugsmuggling one. They are not linked. The US court ruled that the university had failed to follow its own policies, irrespective of the justice of the charge. Martinlc (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Only in death does duty end, if we included text in the article that said "Frampton was convicted in Argentine court, but Transnational Institute said that the Argentine court system is corrupt and often convicts foreigners and women for trivial drug offenses, and fabricates whatever evidence it needs to do so", thereby encouraging our readers to draw their own conclusions, that would be original research and synthesis. If we as editors decide to omit all this controversial material as a potential BLP violation, that's simply a matter of exercising editorial judgment.
Martinlc, I don't see that there was any consensus at the end of the previous debate about the US court ruling. IP75 continued to insist that Frampton had been vindicated by the US court. I've suggested that we might re-open the question, but only if Paul can provide court documents that would support IP75's position. We can use primary sources if there's no debate about the clear meaning of the words, which can be quoted directly in the article as appropriate.
Paul -- considering the objections based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, we can't provide mitigating information about the Argentine court system, unless some secondary source puts this information in the same context with your own experience. However, if you were able to get a journalist to write something up, or even if you posted to your own blog page, this would then become a secondary source that could be used here. But, you might also consider the Streisand effect. Efforts to get your Wikipedia article fixed, might only call attention to a situation that the world is in the process of forgetting about. JerryRussell (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
What has been explained both here and in other locations is that including material about someones convictions is not by itself a BLP violation in this case. He was tried and convicted. This is a fact which is covered by numerous reliable sources and is not in any way controversial. His US civil court case has zero bearing on his conviction as it was solely regarding his claim for back pay from the University which violated its own procedures in order to suspend him without pay while he was being tried (and in prison). Even should it want to, a US civil court could not set aside, alter, or in any other way influence an Argentine criminal court decision. The problem is that his conviction was covered heavily because of his slight notability due to his profession and standing in the community, plus the nature of the crime. If he had zero notability otherwise, it would not be a valid article due to BLP1E. They are tied together. If the subject does not want himself covered at all in wikipedia, then a request at AFD to delete the article is really the only option at this point. Some sympathy is given to borderline notable subjects who want their biographies deleted. But it is unlikely there will ever be consensus to both keep his biography without details of his criminal convictions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I would add that if Frampton really wanted his conviction to be forgotten then writing a book about it is a strange way to start the process. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


The proposal by "Only in death does duty end" is OK that the Wikipedia profile "Paul Frampton" be deleted.

Paul Frampton (November 13, 2016)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be an unfortunate outcome for Wikipedia and for Paul. We also have WP:IAR, "Ignore All Rules", which is policy. Paul Frampton's notability as an academic is not borderline. If the Large Hadron Collider confirms axigluons and/or bileptons, he might become borderline famous. His conviction was in a kangaroo court in Argentina, and we should be allowed to say so. If that means bending the rule on WP:SYNTH, so be it. I say this is a matter of WP:BLUE.
Or another possible alternative: Paul, would you say there is some thematic continuity in your work on chirality, axigluons, bileptons, and flavor symmetry, so that material could be combined into a single article? If so, perhaps we could redirect Paul Frampton to that article, per WP:BLP1E. JerryRussell (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


I find the article is still not deleted nor the defamatory content removed. Why not? This BLP process does not converge. The conviction is four years and seven days old. I did not do it for money or love. Why is this even being discussed? I did not intentionally do it and the lack of mens rea would guarantee acquittal in the UK or US.

Since there was physics content in the article I have verified that it is fully represented by other Wiki-pages including chiral color, bilepton, binary tetrahedral group, cyclic model and a few others so there is no loss to Wikipedia’s science or to any person by its deletion.

Briefly addressing emails received, I do not really expect that axigluons or bileptons exist in Nature. I hope that I am wrong. My theory most likely to agree with experiment is a 2015 dark matter (DM) theory to be tested by an experiment proposed to start in 2017 which could confirm or refute it by 2019. I did add last month two DM theory papers, the second with Chapline, as well as the NOAO experimental test unusually proposed by me as a theorist. The editor Jones kept in the papers but removed the equally crucial proposal. Note that Jones admitted his COI about Brasenose College on August 22, 2016 after already having edited my BLP over 70 times. Why is he still contributing?

BLP guidelines rightly stress the danger of tabloidism. The New York Times, which published a disgraceful article fully worthy of a tabloid including incriminating evidence which was invented, is not a reliable source. Mention of it or the conviction is defamation.

This has already been discussed far too long. Immediately delete this article or, following the wisdom of a Wiki Judge, remove the defamatory material as he/she allows.

Paul Frampton. November 26, 2016.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Paul, I'm curious if you have considered contacting Wikimedia Foundation legal staff? I agree completely with your lawyer who said that the material here is defamatory and actionable. Unfortunately, the editorial process at this level of Wikipedia is badly broken, and a majority of editors feel that they can ignore BLP policies. Also, self-appointed "JudgeRM" has no standing to allow anyone to remove the defamatory material. If I were to go against the so-called "consensus" and delete the offending paragraph, I would be quickly overruled, and also possibly expose myself to "Arbitration Enforcement" sanctions. I believe at this point, only legal staff can fix this. And I don't think I have standing to contact them, but you would as the subject of the defamatory article.
Another option would be a "deletion review". But considering the strong majority opinion that the article should be kept, I doubt if this would succeed.
Or, as I mentioned earlier -- if you were to post the information about Argentine corruption and lack of due process with relation to your case, then I could use that as a source to put this exculpatory material into the article, and I think it would probably stick. JerryRussell (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion[edit]

I have contacted Paul off-wiki to verify his request that the article be deleted. The deletion discussion is here:


Also listed at BLP noticeboard: