Talk:Super-recursive algorithm/Archive1

Are the claims made in this article accepted by the scientific community?

This article seems to be based mainly on the work of Mark Burgin, UCLA, which appeared as a Springer book. While this may look like a clear case of verified science, where only notability could be a concern, the sensational claim made in this article, and the unusual fact that a refutation of Burgin's book appeared in the Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, strongly suggest the opposite; i.e. we need to verify that the claims are accepted by the scientific community before presenting them as facts. (See WP:NPOV.) I currently do not have a strong opinion on this topic, but I will make myself acquainted with it.

In any case I would advise the new editor who has contributed this article and linked to it from various places (I reverted all links but one), to familiarise themselves with our policies and guidelines such as WP:FRINGE and WP:COI, to see if they might apply here, and, as the case may be, to prepare for arguing the opposite. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)