This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Same remark that I had already done on the French Wikipedia: the section public controversy is 3 times longer than the section on Damour's career. That controversy is about the model Janus, developed by two researchers only, Jean-Pierre Petit and d'Agostini, with a very low citation record. It cannot deserve so much space. As a side effect, all the citations in this article are to papers by Petit et al and none to Damour. This is preposterous and laughable. This controversy section shall be reduced to one phrase, as it has been done on the French Wikipedia. Oh, and neutrality conflict! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luc-j-bourhis (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend to remove the controversy section entirely. Damour is a respected mathematician. The supposed controversy is about a crackpot theory, that no other independent scientists take seriously. The current wording implies a real controversy, but it is only controversial for two extremely low-quality, low-citation, scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoretical1A9 (talk • contribs)
.jpg){kind=small}
