Talk:Future Circular Collider

Sponsored by whom?

The article isn't clear about who is soliciting the proposal for this collider.

The article cannot be clearer than funding reality: it is an interesting concept, but there are no detailed plans yet. CERN has some particular interest, that could get added. --mfb (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Advertisement tag

What exactly is advertisement in the article? The IP deleted one image - I think that was an improvement. If no one finds something else that does have to be rewritten, I'll remove the tag again. --mfb (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed. --mfb (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I put it back in. A few examples of sentences that are written like an advertisement or heavily opinionated:

• ′Reaching this goal within the 21st century in an efficient and reliable way calls for a larger circular collider.′
• ′Innovative technologies have to be developed in diverse fields [...]′
• ′Creativity and innovation are needed to develop the physics case, meet the required accelerator parameters and realise unprecedented experiments.′
• ′creating new opportunities′
• ′offers an opportunity to push the exploration of [...] to new frontiers′
• ′exploring the unknown′
• ′Technology R&D relies on interdisciplinary synergies [...]′
• ′The rich and diverse FCC R&D programme attracts significant interest from students of different fields [...]′
• ′LEP and LHC have shown that a time-frame of 30 years is appropriate for the design and construction of a large accelerator complex and particle detectors. The significant lead time calls for a coordinated global effort. The goal is to ensure the seamless continuation [...].′
• ′It so channels the contributions from the Participants of the Collaboration aiming at a geographically well-balanced and topically complementary network of contributions′

I could go on, but I think this makes it clear what the problem is. --Tobias (Talk) 11:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It does. Just phrasing, fortunately, I started adjusting it. --mfb (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the article, mfb. I also just now added a small paragraph on criticism for balance, but in large parts the article still reads like an ad, at least judging from the tone of the article. Also, nowhere is there any criticism, alternative views, etc., despite widespread coverage of such criticism (the only exception is in the paragraph that I just added). Perhaps it would make sense to try to find another editor to review the article and give an opinion? What would be the best point to seek such an opinion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, ...? Best, --Tobias (Talk) 09:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

An advertisement for what? The article is about a study. The study, and correspondingly the article, shows what such an accelerator could potentially do, and what is necessary to achieve that. Is the LHC article an advertisement because it reports what the accelerator does and how this was achieved? The "widespread coverage of criticism" is essentially Hossenfelder saying it is not worth the cost because she thinks it is unlikely to discover something new. That is subjective, and correspondingly this article doesn't make a statement about a "probability to find something new". The potential funding sources will have to decide in the future if they want to fund it. In a future where we will have more LHC and SuperKEKB results. They might find a compelling reason to build the FCC, we don't know that yet. --mfb (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a request on Wikipedia:Third opinion, since I think feedback from uninvolved Wikipedians may be helpful. --Tobias (Talk) 08:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on if wording in article currently constitutesan advertising tone):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Future Circular Collider and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

@mfb and @Tobias: The intro is fine, imo. A little less technical jargon on the second sentence wouldn't be amiss, but that's beside the point mentioned here. Section Motivation has a lot of quotes, with no in-line citations. Phrasing such as "...has greatly enhanced our understanding of matter..." does smack of a biased or advertising tone. While the information should probably remain, it can be rephrased, with appropriate citations, to show a more balanced point of view. First step would be to attribute anything in quotes, and either attribute bold claims (such as above, using phrasing like "CERN, along with many in the international community of physicists, has stated that the motivation for the FCC is based on their desire to improve on the earlier success of the LHC and similar devices. Such success have included..." I'll watch this page, and I'm happy to provide an outside perspective as your editing continues, and I'll add more comments as I continue reviewing the article. Trumblej1986 (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

New, comprehensive, official information source - 2017, April 26th

http://cerncourier.com/cws/download/May17