Talk:Squashed entanglement

Physics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Someone has objected to this page as being a possible vanity page because "almost all references are unpublished preprints." The preprints are in ArXiv. They can be accessed by anyone. They have a time stamp. Thus they are published. Publishing does not mean publishing in paper. I haven't seen you point out anything incorrect in the article or the preprints. Superperro (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, that was me. Perhaps I should have said "self-published" instead of "unpublished", but for Wikipedia purposes they are the same. Wikipedia's standard of documentation for this type of material involves citations to peer-reviewed journals. If some are available, could you fix up the article appropriately so that it does not appear to contain original research? I left a note at WT:PHY asking for someone else to look at the article but got no response, so I prodded it. Thanks. (Note, I left a further request there.[1]) 67.122.209.126 (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had taken just a few seconds to follow the arxiv links, you would have found out that many of the referenced papers have indeed been published in peer reviewed journals. I have use Citation Bot to complete these references. The only references that appear to be suspect are the ones by Robert R. Tucci. None of these have been published, in fact I have only found one of his 32 papers on arxiv published. So there might be an issue with undue weight given to his work, which would need further inquiry. (which I don't have the inclination to do for the moment.) (TimothyRias (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, it doesn't appear that Tucci believes in publishing in peer reviewed journals, but at least ArXiv puts an *indelible* time stamp on all papers. Of course, wikipedia (or many other great internet resources) are not peer reviewed either, but erasing them for that reason would be a great loss for humanity :) You can easily check from the article's citations that the assertions about Tucci's work are accurate. You can check, for example, that reference Chr03 cites within it two of Tucci's eprints as their reference 26 Superperro (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means that its reliability derives from citing secondary sources like refereed journal articles. It "outsources" the refereeing process to the journals instead of trying to evaluate original research itself. It's fine that Tucci doesn't believe in publishing in refereed journals, but a consequence is that Wikipedia in principle is not supposed to cite Tucci. I'm not as big a stickler for this particular policy as some editors are, but the reasons for it are sound and I'm not persuaded that this article deserves an exception. Anyway, I'll wait and see what others have to say. I see that Timothy Rias has improved the references somewhat, which is promising. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]