Talk:N-ray

message: I've half a mind to put a NPOV dispute header above this article. From this article it almost seems that the only ones actively advocating N-Rays were those who claimed to have discovered them. And that those who opposed were not merely fellow scientists, but even "notable scientists", not making the logical conjunction that all "notable scientists" rejected N-rays, but enouraging the reader to make that inference on his own. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 14:14, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
:If that's the impression that the article gives then it certainly gives the wrong one. I think that the fact that it mentions the Académie des Sciences enquiry into priority belies that. I would encourage you to have a go if you feel it can be made more NPOV. Cutler 15:49, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Implying that all notable scientist rejected N-rays

message: The word "shamed" seemed unnecessarily POV, and the grammar was a bit off in one place. I've fixed both. --DavidConrad 04:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "shamed"

message: I'm going to remove the hoaxes category; as I understand it, and as the article describes, the scientists genuinely thought they had discovered something new, rather than intentionally deceiving the scientific community.  N-rays were no more of a hoax than ancient astrology or animal magnetism (well, some of that was hoaxes, but not all); belief in these was caused by genuine experiences, even if the experiences were subjective creations of the mind.
: I agree.  They were not perpetrating a hoax.  They genuinely believed what they claimed.  It was a case of self delusion (the will to believe).  Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree, sources are very clear in that it was not a deliberate hoax but a good-faith self-delusion. I am removing it again. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoaxes category

message: Bill Baldwin, in his Helmsman series (science fiction), uses "N-Rays" as a method of fighting radiation fires.  I don't see this as worth mentioning in the N-ray article, but others might disagree? Mlwilson (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use in Fiction

message: has been set up with the English Translation published in 1905.  The text doesnt need to be typed.  It is available from the location mentioned in the "Source" field, which is currently down, hence the Google Cache link also provided. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikisource transcription project 

message: I tried to find sources that linked N-rays with pseudoscience, and the only one was "The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience". All the other sources qualify N-Rays as pathological science or similar. Given, this lack of sources, I am removing the cat. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  pseudophysics cat 

message: Wonders about the "approximately 120 other scientists", i.e. believers, that wrote about N rays in "300 published articles". According to the given source http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v45/i3/p281_s1?isAuthorized=no, these were published during the period 1903–1906. Can someone confirm this? Hexmaster (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: The article is currently titled "N ray" but most of the article refers to "N-rays". Although Blondlot originally called them "N rays", "N-ray" seems to have very quickly become just as popular a term in the literature (see my list of references here). "N-ray" is also used at other related pages such as Pathological science, Robert W. Wood; however, "N ray" is used at Prosper-René Blondlot. There is perhaps also an argument for keeping this article consistent with X-ray (where the hyphen is used). I suggest moving this page to N-ray and making changes where necessary for the sake of consistency. Thoughts? Una LagunaTalk 08:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article title should be plural, as that is the standard use. No one uses the singular. Not even the lead of this article! I tried to do a move, but it was disallowed. RobP (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  N ray versus N-ray 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved to N-ray. Proposal to add hyphen has more support than change to plural. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: N ray →  – The standard usage in discussion of this is of the plural form, as in "scientists believed they had discovered a new form of radiation, dubbed N rays." Even this article's lead uses only the plural form. In fact, the singular form appears just once vs. the 35 uses of the plural form in this article. See also: List of experimental errors and frauds in physics. RobP (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

text: *Radiation is not like saying horse vs horses, or the other examples at WP:SINGULAR. One cannot produce a single "ray" of radiation of any sort (real or imagined). No such technology exists. RobP (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

text: * Seems to me like that reason equates to “well, we started out making this mistake so let’s continue it.” RobP (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Prefixed "weak" to my oppose above (and the hyphen might be a good idea). But if we're going to change the convention for "ray" articles generally, this doesn't seem like a good way to start e.g., a multi-article move request that includes some more mainstream subjects would probably be better. My rough impression is that it is not so unusual to encounter these terms in the singular form, unlike examples such "trouser", "scissor" and "handcuff". — BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 March 2021 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Ν particle. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 24#Ν particle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ~~~~User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ν particle" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]