Talk:Bell's original inequality

What's going on? Why another attempt of forking? --Pjacobi 23:30, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

This is another of Caroline's attempts to reverse the effects of previous VfDs. I am removing all links to this as I find them and this page should be deleted ASAP. Caroline, this subject was settled so please stop.--DrChinese 03:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm merely trying to make sure that wikipedia gives sufficient information to enable the reader to make sense of what he encounters in the literature. No valid reason was given in the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_February_25#Bell_inequalities for not including the material somewhere. Pjacobi's idea of incorporating it into Bell's theorem might be reasonable were it not for a notation clash, and for the fact that many readers will find it a distraction to the main theme. A page (such as the re-directed one, Bell inequalities) on the full set of inequalities is really needed, mainly as supplementary information to accompany CHSH inequality and Clauser and Horne's 1974 Bell test, but also in its own right, as necessary background to the literature. This small page on Bell's original is part of the minimal alternative -- several small pages, each covering one inequality.

As I've explained in the Bell test experiments talk page, Bell's original inequality does not contravene any of wikipedia's guidelines. The decision in the VfD was regarding the page giving the full set of inequalities, which may indeed have been presented with a slight POV bias. Each individual inequality is neutral, though. I feel justified in assuming the VfD decision does not apply. Caroline Thompson 17:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is the problem? Someone needs to put their head down and take a nap. Break some parts of it up into small parts by all means. This wee bit here is just fine. More diagrams would be fun. It is an encyclopaedia after all. Part of making these really technical articles accessible is getting sections of them into manageable bits. Your average high school student in Sydney or Seattle wil look at the intricate and long articles and just chuck it in. On the other hand with all this venting and spleen, the techno heads at GIT and the Jet Propulsion Lab will just look at this childishness and roll their eyes--and hit ctl-W.

The software technology is more than capable of keeping these sections connected and that arrangement has a very strong appeal to John Q. Meantime the nerds can vent on the discussion pages. Do us a favour, don't merge everything into vast techno-fogs. Malangthon