Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetically Modified Cement ("EMC Cement")

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Energetically Modified Cement ("EMC Cement")

[edit]
Energetically Modified Cement ("EMC Cement") (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is written like an advertisement, and most of the references are from a single site. Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Absolutely not. EMC Cement comprises TWENTY years of advanced research and field usage This page faithfully reports some aspects of that.
The page is being edited upon the input of major academics in the area. There are no peacock terms in there. Virtually every sentence contains a valid citation, many to articles published in leading journals by leading academics in the field. Out of 26 references, only a very few point to a single site, and this is because some of the academic papers are sitting on a server or is information (e.g. independent test data) made available for the readers further investigation.
The following message has been placed on the user's talk page (see, talk), as follows:
"You have placed a very damaging "considered for deletion" message on the page for EMC Cement.
Please understand that this article is being edited upon the input of leading academics in the field. You will note that virtually every sentence contains a citation to a reference (in many cases to published entries in leading journals, by leading academics in the field.).
Until we understand what your objections are, then your notice will be removed as it is vandalism.
Further, please outline your activities/professional qualifications/interest in advanced material sciences"
The user Cloudyjbg27512 seems to have no academic background in science, let alone the field of ::advanced material sciences. As such, unless there is valid objective justification, this is an act of vandalism, possibly perpetrated for improper reasons.
Jono2013 (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jono2013, a farmer doesn't need to have udders before he can judge his cows. Cloudyjbg27512's academic background (or lack of it) has nothing to do with the listing of your article, it's about Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks.  Yintan  20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I do suggest some copy editing. The article constantly mentions "EMC Cements" (note the capital C) which is also the name of a (the?) company. That's confusing and adds to the advertising feel of the article.  Yintan  20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Yintan: Your comments are thoughtful in the second comment and I will deal with them in a moment. But first, in respect of your first comment, we are not talking about "cows" or "udders". We are talking about (highly advanced) material science. I agree that your metaphor has relevance to cows and udders but not to EMC Cement. I have asked for the originator Cloudyjbg27512 to justify. And so far, nothing. There is not one, not one, peacock term in there.
Re your second comment:
(i) You will note that nowhere in the article is the company mentioned. This is because the article is purely about the science, application and validity (i.e., also in normative terms) of EMC Cement. Nor, is there any mention of the patents, nor the steps taken to commericalize the introduction of the technology. This is because the article is being written under the guidance of leading academics, who, have debated for several years whether or not to commit their time towards expanding the Wiki "knowledge base" so as to also include EMC Cement.
(ii) The actions of the user Cloudyjbg27512 has caused so much disgust, that there is pressure that we remove the article entirely. That would be unfortunate, as wiki would lose reference to what some consider to be one of the most important scientific innovations in cementitious materials innovations.
(iii) The actions of the user Cloudyjbg27512 will be shared with other academics, teaching staff and students. There may be discussion to entirely ban Wikipedia as a research tool for submitted assessed essays etc. You may find such "soft protests" neither here nor there, but so be it.
(iv) Now, regarding "EMC Cements". It is deliberately and consistently in the plural because, there is no such thing as ONE type of EMC Cement. EMC Activation is a scientific "phenomenon", that yields one type of EMC Cement or another, depending on the RAW MATERIAL used. So in fact, there are several "types", just as there is no such thing as one type of "cement". An EMC made from fly ash, is quite different to one made form natural pozzolan, quite different to one made from silica sand, quite different to one made from Portland cement - and so on and so forth. The difference will be in application characteristics, strength developments and OPC replacement-capabilities (as the article makes clear). I hope it is now clear why there is deliberate usage of the Plural. It bears no relation to whether the company name is accurate or not from a strict "scientific" construct.
(v) "EMC" and "EMC Cement" reflect names given in the academic and user-world to "energetically modified cements". We do not use "EMC" here, as we do not want it to be mistaken for other uses of "EMC", which are plentiful. Simply, it is what it is. The Company name reflects this, rather than the "other way around". In other words, the company was named "after the event" (several years after the discovery and reporting, by all accounts) - and not the other way around.
I hope the above assists.
Finally, this was the second act by the user Cloudyjbg27512 to deface the EMC Cement page. About 18 hours ago, he placed an "advert" sticker on the page. I removed it as it was clearly unjustified. Then, the user Cloudyjbg27512 took the action to mark it for deletion. But, rather than mark it as a PROD, he went one step further. I believe that that was an act of "pique" and non-justifiable on any other footing. This is inexcusable if, like me, the preservation of Wiki's integrity in "serious" science articles is to be preserved.
Jono2013 (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletion only. I thought that the deletion may be controversial, so I sent it to WP:XFD instead. -- Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to give you the greatest benefit of doubt, nevertheless this does not explain why you went "straight for delete" without discussing first on the page's talk page, or by sending me a message first. Nor does it explain why you yourself have removed the message I posted (see above) on your user talk page. It is common, if not de rigueur for exchanges to take place on talk page of a User who has proposed a contentious edit, let alone the extreme step of deletion. You risk your conduct as being reasonably construed as displaying a consistent pattern of (i) not justifying your actions and (ii) not wishing to take responsibly for your conduct. Further, because your first action (namely the advert sticker you had placed on there, again without discussing first) was removed by me, you knew full well that I would have likely removed the PROD label -- and that would have been the end of it. That is TWO times you added contentious content to the article page, without having the courtesy to discuss first. Further, you also know full well that there are only two outcomes of this process that you instigated, and either way, this page will be deleted. Hence you have removed the above comment from your talk page, so there is no trace of it there too, "ahead of the event".

The biggest "self-policing" mechanism on wiki is for those who take strong steps to disparage/criticize content, MUST be prepared to justify. Otherwise there is a distinct and real risk that such person is acting little better than an internet troll - and even worse, an unprincipled one at that. And I'm sorry, but a one-line justification to place an article into the Deletion category, does not count when (i) on TWO occasions you made no effort at all to discuss matters first, (ii) nor have you justified since either substantively or in terms of your posture (iii) self-deleted my reasonable request for your justification from your own user page.

I note your first edit was registered on 26 April 2013, so maybe you are inexperienced in such matters of etiquette and courtesy, and maybe you have a non-academic background and are therefore unaware of "academic courtesies" either.

Jono2013 (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment From this this article, page22 and this legal document, we see that V. Ronin is associated with and looks like a principal player in the "EMC Cement" company. The first set of photos are "All photos courtesy of Dr. V. Ronin", but in the attributions for all three files, they are claimed by user Jono2013 as "Own work". I'm lead to the conclusion that Jono2013 has some close relation with V. Ronin and thus there is a major conflict of interest here, per WP:COI: the principal author of the article on the "CemPozz" material likely has a professional or financial interest in the Texas company "EMC Cement" that produces the CemPozz material. It also means that all the papers with V. Ronin as an author probably cannot be considered independent reliable sources, per WP:RS. This is also true for the whitepapers referenced from EMC Cement's company website. --Mark viking (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Be aware you are directly raising a very strong innuendo which risks being construed as attacking the integrity and motivation of a leading academic who had nothing to do with writing the article. Moreover, you are completely wrong in your conclusions and your assertions are therefore false. What follows will explain why. Be assured, I am not "attacking you" by writing what I have written (nor by what follows) rather I am stating "as it is".
  • Vladimir Ronin is a professor at LTU, the inventor of the EMC Process, and also a "principal player" (as you put it) in the "EMC Cement" company (as you put it). The images have been supplied to me by him. The major images on the page are from LTU. All of the academic papers are either LTU papers, or other academic papers including Laurence Berkeley and various other universities (as far afield as China).
  • The white papers are by Twining inc., and independent. The test data is independently supplied by accredited labs.
  • The pdf link to which you refer is not even cited on the page. But while we're at it, note that oneof the authors of that pdf, is Professor Lennart Elfgren. Elfgren is regarded by many as being a one of the leading luminaries in Cement Technology. He is now an emeritus professor, but for many years, I understand he was the Dean of Civil Engineering at LTU, regarded by many Swedish academics as the most highly-ranked university in Sweden for material sciences.
  • Let's now take the most "damning" accusation you are making: All the papers by Vladimir Ronin "probably cannot be considered independent reliable sources". Have you any idea what you are stating here? Ronin is accredited as having invented the EMC process. You are aware the papers date back 20 years? Do you have any idea the number of times these papers have been independently cited?
  • For example, NONE of the academic papers have been written SOLELY by Ronin. For example, Justnes (a co-writer of some of the papers) is Chief Scientist at SINTEF, Norway, and a Professor in Cement and Concrete chemistry at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
  • This page is reporting important aspects of EMC Cement only. Nothing about commercialization, patents, patent portfolios, investments in patents, patent coverage.
  • If the best that can be said in support of "bias" is to make reference to a court case which has nothing to do with the page entry, and mistake a page which is faithfully reporting the various aspects of the subject completely objectively -- yet at all times, with no mention whatsoever of patent portfolios, efforts to commericalize etc -- then you need to try better than that. I repeat, a conscious effort was made to ensure the page reflects only about the properties of EMC Cement as reported in credible scientific journals (many of which before publication were peer-reviewed, by professional academics), by independent third parties, and via independent test data.
  • I am not Vladimir Ronin and I have no financial interest in any Company selling or licensing EMC Cement/technology.
  • As for the photos, the photos were supplied by EMC Cement BV or Professor Ronin. And yes, I registered the photos as being my own work, because that was the most efficient way of uploading.
  • If you look at my user profile, you'll see I've edited the TCA Cycle. My background is life sciences, but I learned of EMC some years back and was dismayed there was no entry on Wiki. I contacted the company and discussed it with Ronin and he was happy to provide photo material for the article PROVIDED that he had no input on the content. Other input has come from other academics (including China, the US, Japan, Australia and Europe)
  • Ronin has not contributed ONE word. Even the main section of photos was written by a third party academic, from a completely unrelated (leading) University in England, who is involved in newly emerging-field of biomimetic material sciences - and is extremely insistent that the "self-healing aspect" is included.
This is now the second allegation made towards the page, which cannot be substantiated. The first was that it "reads like an advert", which is not capable of being substantiated, except for the use of a capital "C" in "EMC Cement" (But that does not stand up to scrutiny for the reasons expounded). Having failed to identify any language whatsoever which is "peacocking", the next "attack" is "conflict of interest". Which cannot be supported.
If the page is removed, it will not be re-written. And over a month's work to ensure a concise entry spanning 20 years' work, to ensure an entry was objectively justifiable, having the input of a number of academics from all of the World, will have been for nothing. It will be Wiki's loss. So while, I have no problem responding to "critique" based on justifiable comments regarding the tone of an article, if a leading academic's reputation is going to be impugned, then we need to escalate this.
We cannot have a situation whereby Wikipedia is allowed to become a "feral" world, whereby those hiding behind anonymity are free to attack the integrity of leading academics when, as I have explained, such academics have had no part in writing any aspect of the entry. And by this I mean Professor Ronin, who has had NO part in its WRITING whatsoever. Email him directly and he will confirm this.
Indeed, should you email Ronin, no doubt he will ask for the page to be removed, not because the page is nonobjective or biased, but because of the risk of damaging unsubstantiated accusations regarding his professional integrity, being made by those who hide behind anonymity and have no background whatsoever in the field.
I trust this assists.

Jono2013 (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • keep after some editing. I consider it a ral topic, worth an article here.
Jono, we are discussing the article not editors. An "advertisement" tag was appropriate--removing it was not. Listing it for discussion here was also appropriate (there would have been no point listing it for Prod, as you could and would have removed the prod tag). If we know its going to be disputed , AfD is the place to deal with it. We assume everyone here intends to benefit WP. Nobody owns a WP article, and an attempt to insist on particular content and spelling indicates an attempt to claim the topic, or to promote it. One can promote an idea, a person, a method, a type of material, a view of the world, as well as a product: at WP we call all of this promotionalism, and avoid it, whether or not it advertises a particular company.
It's a real and appropriate topic, but the article is not organized according to our usual standards. I did the following
  1. I have changed to title to Energetically modified cement, which seems the standard term -- we do not use capitals in such cases. We use singular forms in our titles when possible, e.g. Cat, not Cats, although there are many forms of cats. And we use the full forms in the titles, not trademarks or abbreviations. I have made the necessary redirects, and I am also changing the section titles elsewhere to this form. While there, I also fixed the grammar & changed the punctuation not to use hyphens or dashes as a punctuation mark within sentences unless necessary. All these are standard conventions here, and any article must adhere to them. I also reduced the promotionalism and verbal redundancy of these sections. After this AfD, will be the time to consider whether they are necessary in both Cement and Portland cement. I also removed to inappropriate see also listings; listing a specific material like this as a see also for Ecodesign and Sustainability shows promotionalism; it should have given cause for thought to see no other materials are listed in either.
  2. The term "EMC Cements" is redundant, because the C refers to Cement. I gather from the previous discussion it is a proprietary term, & I am simplifying it wherever it occurs. I note none of the formal publications use it. The same for EMC Activation-- it's proprietary , and needs to be AMC activation.
  3. I have reduced the number of illustrations. The photo of a Poxxolan deposit is a good one for Pozzolan and I am moving it there--it had no illustration. The photo of road-making is irrelevant--it is not specific to EMC & would look the same no matter what sort of concrete were being used. I removed it, but it may be useful elsewhere. I am not sure the diagram of testing concrete is relevant either -- it's general to the subject of concrete, and may be useful elsewhere in WP. I removed it from here. I'm not sure the photo of a standard strength testing machine is closely relevant, but it is a dramatic photo, & one such usually improves an article is usually helped by one. . I do not thing the photos of crack healing are OR, exactly, but the copyright will need to be checked further. They are, however, a primary source, being the evidence used in the paper on the materials. I haven't removed them, but I leave this to further discussion. The diagram of activating the cement doesn't really show anything about the process, it's just a diagram of material passing through a mill, applicable to any material and any mill. I've left it for the moment.
  4. As for legends: We do not write elaborate legends here. We write text in the text portion of the article; this is different from the style in some technical publications where figure legends contain the key material, but we area general encyclopedia, not a technical publication. I'll move what isn't redundant.
  5. General statements about the environmental merits & other usefulness of the process need to used carefully. What is really needed for this is a statement in a reliable tertiary publication, like a standard textbook, not a paper discussing the particular product.
  6. References: References like "Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). EMC Cement Presentation January 18, 2011." are useless, because this is not enough information for anyone to find them. They will be removed. The reference to the Eureka award needs to be proved by a site from outside the company. And there is one key reference needed: since this is a patented process, we need a reference to the patent.

I'm reluctant to do too much of the detailed rewriting unless the article is kept, but I'm doing at least some of what will reduce the impression of promotion of the product, for the article would probably not be kept otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The general writing needs a considerable degree of rewriting and reorganization to remove duplication and add clarity.

Can we please keep this focused. This is inappropriate content for discussing whether to keep or not. Most of your comments are better dealt with to the page's talk page, AFTER deciding whether to keep or not. This said, you have taken it upon yourself, as non expert, to cause major changes to page without any discussion first. Let's deal with just a few of them:

1. The pozzolanic photo was specific to the entry being made. And is the photo used in the published academic paper. You have decided, without reference anyone that you are going to sequestrate it.

2. The other removals have not even been discussed first. I have sent you a message asking you to justify. You have stated "The diagram of activating the cement doesn't really show anything about the process, it's just a diagram of material passing through a mill, applicable to any material and any mill. I've left it for the moment." Really?

And so it goes on: The Bache diagram you have removed, shows lack of understanding. First, it sets out the method used to establish the results which are set out in what was the accompanying section. Second, the data in that diagram was for that process. Not every Bache method is the same. You have removed a specific diagram of specific reference. That shows what I would consider to be an "unjustifiable presumption".

3. Tertiary material re environment and sustainability: 2 publications are cited already, if you care to follow them. One is from Lawrence Berkeley, the other (from recollection) Illinois. Further, the CO2 emission and energy usage of the Portland Cement industry are well understood and extensively set out in many journals. The energy requirements of EMC Activation "is what it is"

4. The EUREKA award citation contains a link to the actual certificate itself. What more proof is needed? Are you saying that if EUREKA chooses not to publish recipients via its website, or has only recently started to do so, that a prior recipient cannot state that fact, even it is verifiable by the certificate itself? The whole purpose of making the certificate available was to verify the assertion.

5 You say "we are a general encyclopedia not a technical publication". Have you seen the entry for (for example) Pyruvate dehydrogenase complex?

6. USFWHA reference. See here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/110118.cfm . To kill two birds with one stone, note the reference to patents. The company website also confirms it controls patents for the EMC Activation process (among others). There is no doubt the process is patented. In the same way Viagra is also patented, but the closest to a reference to its patent are various news articles (see, for ex., Viagra, n.59-61). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jono2013 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What i fear is "blind" deference to the "everybody owns wiki" principle over expertise. Very very worrying. Note the spelling of "pozzolan" (two "zz"s, not two "xx"s)

I'll look for items you edit, but would prefer you discuss it first on the article's talk page, so that your perception can be modified/moderated before you rush to what might otherwise be rash judgments as a non-expert.

Jono2013 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


INCLUSION IN 2 WIKIPROJECTS

The energetically modified cement entry has had added to its talk page, two important wikiprojects: Civil Engineering and Chemistry, with assocated portals by Northamerica1000. I hasten to add this is without any lobbying or contact from me, although since learning of this, as a matter of courtesy, I have offered my thanks on his/her respective talk page.

Jono2013 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your withdrawal of the nomination has been copied to your entry at the top of this page, per the instructions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD#Withdrawing_a_nomination


Can this now be closed ASAP?

The following is stated as a matter of record:

  • Thank you to everyone who voted to keep the article. Since Saturday, I have made an enormous effort to continue the article. It is still not finished.
  • Thank you especially to DGG talk ) for his tremendous perseverance and displaying a posture that convinced me to labor matters and not seek MYSELF for the removal of the article. Despite his initial conduct which found no favor with me, his subsequent posture is a credit to Wiki.
  • This is a highly specialized subject. Any further comments regarding its substance please place on the page's talk page
  • Any comments regarding copy-editing please have in mind I am a retired (senior) academic, who went out on a limb to include the page on Wiki. I am not involved in EMC and never have been, whether at an academic or "financial interest" level.
  • This page should never have been placed here. To have done so was in flagrant disregard of Wiki Policy. I am not going to quote chapter and verse, but have in mind that when this page was "pounced upon", a cursory travail of its history would have led anyone to conclude it was still being developed. Moreover, this is the only page, and likely will remain the only page, I will ever write substantively on Wiki.
  • This experience ruined my weekend and caused me acute embarrassment to those academics who know of EMC, had been assisting me, but who did not trust wiki policy to ensure accuracy over and above "blind adherence" to the "everyone owns wiki" principle.
  • Ronin does not support the page's inclusion on wiki. But he has kindly allowed photo material because he knows I have nothing but the best of intentions.
  • I take my reputation seriously, and the embarrassment caused to me, viz. those academics who had (after my persuasion) been kindly assisting me, does not sit comfortably. The "attack" on "conflict of interest" regarding Ronin was a further example. You dont just rush to snap judgment like that and publish your accusation. Not when you're referring to a senior academic. You POLITELY ask first.
  • I have informed Ronin of the innuendo raised against him. He will write a statement formally disavowing ANY involvement in the writing of the article, in due course. This will be posted by me on the article's talk page. Anyone seeking to contact him can do so. But be prepared. I again remind those considering that, that he is a leading academic and may not take kindly to that. So I urge that anyone wishing to contact Ronin, viz. any allegation of Conflict of Interest, only does so only upon careful consideration and for the most stringent of reasons.
  • Further, Ronin has stated that any attempted contact of him will require full contact details and a resume of qualifications. Let me put it this way: that is NOT to be construed as a "general invite" for any wikipedian to bombard Ronin. He is being more than generous as it is with his time in even offering this.
  • I have no idea who Cloudyjbg27512 is, and whether he/she has any conflict of interest - for example, a "competing academic", a "paid-up member" of the Portland Cement industry, or even a person involved/"fronting" the litigation mentioned above (of which I have NO knowledge). All I know is Cloudyjbg27512 joined on April 26 of this year, well-after this article was first published, disregarded wiki policy twice over, and removed my request for a justification from his/her user page.

Once again, thank you to everyone who supported the keep. And to Cloudyjbg27512, if you have no COI, then thank you for "seeing common sense" (a cornerstone wiki policy) and I hope you learn from this - I trust you had a very pleasant weekend, because you surely turned mine "upside down".

Jono2013 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Mr. Markowitz: If you cannot make a constructive comment, please refrain. Your background? - oh I see it: no background whatsoever in ADVANCED material sciences. NO qualifications WHATSOEVER to assess. May I ask, do you see advanced Biochemistry as being more or less specialized than advanced material sciences? If MORE, what is your basis? Have you seen the entry for (for example) Pyruvate dehydrogenase complex? Or maybe try Histone_acetyltransferase. Are they easier or more difficult than the plain English of energetically modified cement? Or is it still too difficult for someone who has no background in ADVANCED material sciences? Please KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE and please stop giving the appearance of patronizing the SUBJECT by ASSUMING it's a "mickey mouse" or "low level" subject RIPE for the "armchair lawyer" brigade.
02:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jono2013 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energetically_Modified_Cement_(%22EMC_Cement%22)&oldid=1137828651"