User talk:Benur6991

Liouville theory

I deleted your contributions to Liouville theory, and you reverted my deletions. Let me give you the reason for my deletion by quoting Wikipedia:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

There are hundreds of articles on Liouville theory, and you just cannot write a subsection for each of them, or the Wikipedia article will become a useless mess. Moreover, you added results from a very recent article whose importance is not at all clear, compared to all the others. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources.

To improve the Wikipedia article on Liouville theory, it would be useful to add some flesh to the sections Other applications or Relations with integrable models, which are very sketchy compared to all that is known. On the other hand, it is completely unreasonable to have a whole subsection on a subject that is marginal in the literature so far. (It could become prominent later, but it is too early to tell.)

If you are convinced, please revert your own reversion. If not, other people may need to get involved to resolve the issue. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I know the Wikipedia guidelines. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources, it is stated that "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. [....]" and further: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses".

Hence, the subsection about the worldline formalism of Liouville is perfectly legitimate, since it is based on a journal publication.

Incidentally, in some subsections like "Fields and reflection relation" or "Correlation functions and DOZZ formula", a paper of yours is cited ("Conformal field theory on the plane"). This paper is available at arXiv only, and is not featured in a peer-reviewed journal.

Moreover, the page does not become a useless mess if the new subsections are well written and organised (after all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). The interested reader can just skip what it is not important for them and can go to what is relevant for them. Furthemore, the worldline formalism is not marginal in the literature. For example, the subsection I added is a generalisation of what S. Abel did for bosonic string theory https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.07242 (but there are many other examples). I could expand the subsection citing this paper, if you want more context. Or I could shift the whole discussion to an already existing subsection, if you do not really want a new subsection.

To conclude, I did not want to modify the whole wiki page. I just wanted to contribute to the page by adding a little subsection about the worldline formulation of Liouville, since it is based on a publication and it is of interest for people working on the worldline formalism and for general audience as well. Benur6991 (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Ref. [1] has been vetted not by a journal, but by serving as a habilitation thesis, and by being cited many times. But this is not very relevant: [1] could easily be replaced by other sources on the same topics. The point is that the topics of the reflection relation, DOZZ formula, etc, are manifestly important for Liouville theory.

On the other hand, for the topic of the worldline formulation of Liouville theory, we still have only one source, which is very recent. The paper by S. Abel that you cite does not even mention Liouville theory. So I really do not see why this should be included. (Compare with the subsection on the path integral, a topic which has been the subject of so many works for 40 years.)

At most, we could have one sentence on the worldline formulation, just saying that it exists and giving a reference: I would still find it disproportionate, but I would not fight about it. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I got your point. I just cited the paper of Abel as an example of the fact that the worldline formalism is already spread in the literature. It just seems to me that you are deciding what is interesting and what is not. Only because a publication is recent, it does not mean that it does not deserve to be included in an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge about something. Personally, I would be happy if some other people one day would write another section about another not known aspect of Liouville theory. I, as a reader, if I am interested I read it, if not, I just skip it. But anyway, I also don't want to fight about this, since we are adult people. So, if you really only want to include one sentence about the worldline formalism of Liouville, then it's fine with me, please modify the page accordingly if you are truly convinced. Benur6991 (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It is the existing literature, not me, who decides what is important. And the literature is so large, one paper counts for little. Inspire finds 391 articles with "Liouville theory" in the title: only a fraction of their results can be mentioned in Wikipedia. A good rule of the thumb is to write about something in Wikipedia only provided it has made it into at least one review article.

I am pleased that you are OK with my "one sentence" proposal. However, I must ask you to do the change yourself, since I cannot take responsibility for content that I think does not really belong to the article. However, after you do the change, I can assist with copyediting and/or moving the sentence to a more appropriate place if need be. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I will modify it. Benur6991 (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that! I find nothing to improve further on that side. On the other hand, I would suggest that you review your other contributions to Wikipedia according to the same criterions. Your contributions are apparently biased towards the works of a certain Ruben Campos Delgado, which are all very recent. In theoretical physics, there is no shortage of older and more eminent results that should be mentioned but aren't. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)