Talk:DAMA/LIBRA

But... what is it?

What the heck is DAMA/Libra? The article forgets to tell us. 70.116.13.152 (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I added an introduction. I think the setup description is too detailed and there should be clearer information about the results. And then there is that ridiculous number of references. Lido (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Revert

I intend to revert this due to the fact that it fails to be sourced to peer-reviewed papers and secondary sources. I invite Headbomb to explain otherwise. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

These are preprints of refereed papers. It's trivial to switch them to journal citations. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and switch them. Many of the claims are not made in the refereed versions and some of the articles have no journal counterpart. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There, all cite journals. Now stop accusing me of lying. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are fine, though the preprint versions are markedly different in two of the cases. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Red Link

This article has a link to a page that was removed for being considered unreliable. We probably should remove that link. Dauto (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

New results

I see there are new results at http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6243 but I wonder how many labs have tried to replicate this signal, and how many have succeeded so far. (My understanding is that the answers are "about a handful" and "zero" respectively, but I was surprised not to find that here.)

Also, is this the only dark matter detection experiment with positive results so far? 70.59.18.251 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

citation overkill

this article has a TONE of citations, if someone could fix that, preferably by merging them, that would be best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_overkill Mralext20 (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

LNGS needs a link

LNGS needs to be expanded and made a link to the LNGS article. John G Hasler (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Signal explained as incorrect statistics

In 2020 the annual signal was reported (by others) to be due the way the noise level was reset annually. Is this controversial ? I'll look for the sources. - Rod57 (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's a preprint that raises the issue Annual modulations from secular variations: relaxing DAMA? - cited by Forbes [1] - Rod57 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Article did mention it - so appended to intro/lead too. - Rod57 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)