Talk:Marcelo Samuel Berman

The Article is not orphan

Again and again there are some false but recurrent accusations against this article. One recurrent false accusation is that it is an orphan article, meaning that it would have no links to other articles. This is completely false, as it does have many links to other articles. Unless, of course, one irrational vandal decides to remove the links, which would be typpical.--Waren Beat (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is an orphan as no other wikipedia articles link to it?Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There are other articles linking to it.--Waren Beat (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is ONE article linking to it now, albeit a poor quality one and it was NOT a false accusation, as no other articles linked into this one, they linked out but not in. The orphan tag is not a badge of shame, it is intended to encourage others to link other articles to this one.Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I restored the tag. - DVdm (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did you restore the tag if it is not true that the article is orphan?--Waren Beat (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If you read the edit summary it explains "a single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the tag, three or more is ideal" your removal appears disruptive and unhelpful and you seem to have ownership issues with the article.Theroadislong (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your tag seems disruptive, since it is clearly a provocation. There is another article that links to this article, and your insistence in saying something false is the disruptive behavior and clearly seems that you have some problem with the cosmologist, who happens to be a Jew and a South American. Is it a problem for you that some South Americans have merit in science? Please, stop your disruptive behavior and stop accusing others of what you do.--Waren Beat (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I have restored the tag. There is no consensus to have it removed. - DVdm (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the consensus has to exist, since the fact is evident: there is another article linking to this. To deny it is a disruptive behavior, unfair, impolite, irrational and stuborn. It seems that you have restored the tag acting in provocation or prejudice against a South American scientist. Please, respect the subject of the article!--Waren Beat (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, building an encyclopedia is a collaborative effort and attacking other editors will only end with you being blocked.Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have not attacked anyone, only stated necessary facts. But, suppose I did: then it is only the others who may attack me? Why can't I block others for vandalism?--Waren Beat (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is indeed an orphan. Mr. "Waren Beat" went around Wikipedia adding links to the Berman article. A former professor's page, a list of jews in Brazil, etc. This type os manipulation should not be allowed. RodrigoalvesnetII (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

On March 5th "Waren" added the first link to the article, and then added the comment in this section that indeed there was a link. Indeed. He added a few more since then, for good measure. RodrigoalvesnetII (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No Self-publication

The papers by Berman referred in this article are/ have been published by others, namely journals editors who have selected them. The accusation of self-publication is another false but recurrent accusation of those who want to vandalize this article.--Waren Beat (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The article needs sources which are NOT written by Berman, it needs reliable third party references. Has anyone apart from Berman discussed his work?Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The answer to the question 'has anyone discussed Berman's work' is yeas. Below in this talk page we see the several references to scientific papers quoting him. Besides, self-publication is when the author is his the publisher of his own papers, which is not Berman's case. Again, you are using recurrent false accusations.--Waren Beat (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Case for deletion?

Given the problems of the article I think it is a case for deletion and I will put it for deletion if concerns are not addressed. Albertlberman (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been already settled, and there is no more deletion process of this article. The content above should not be part of the talk page anymore.--Waren Beat (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this should be considered settled. It's still an autobiographical article and according to Wikipedia guidelines should be deleted. Leaving this page here is only encouraging further autobiographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.68.177.235 (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The article has a number of general references to to shopping websites and the article looks like a CV. The source Ministry of Justice (www.mj.gov.br) Political Amnesty Comission (Process 2004.01.41822) does not meet any wiki standards. The CV used as a source is written by the author. Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Albertlberman (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Some sources and quotation

Marcelo Berman's papers have been selected and accepted for publication in scientific papers, as it is the case for any author who submits a paper for any scientific journal. One example is his paper co-authored by Fernando de Mello Gomide 'Relativistic Cosmology and the Pioneers Anomaly' which appears in Volume 03, Number 09A of the Journal of Modern Physics, which is a peer-reviewed journal. A 'peer-reviewed journal' in this case means that other physicists have debated on key issue, which also means that they have assessed each other's works somehow. On the same edition of the journal, there is another paper co-authored by Berman and the mathematician and philosopher Newton da Costa, an important thinker of the 20th and 21st centuries, already internationally acknowledged for his great contributions for mathematical thinking. For those who do not know who he is, there is an article on Newton da Costa in the Wikipedia. Thus, Berman does not write papers alone, he works with other persons and is acknowledged by others, both his co-authors and referees of scientific journals and publishing houses.--Waren Beat (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: In case of persistent doubts, check the list of 112 papers that have been examined and approved for publication in scientific journals. It is there. Anyone who doubts it, even though the evidences are herein presented, is either acting on bad faith, or is too mediocre to insist in an error or has not read the article completely.--Waren Beat (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

PS2: And for those who ask who else quotes Berman's papers, I give another example: his paper "Cosmological Models with Constant Deceleration Parameter" is cited by physicists who investigate cosmology. Here are some (but not all) links where one can find works by other scientists that cite Berman's aforementioned paper listed in the bibliographical references.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.0915v3.pdf

http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/v68/p707/fulltext.pdf

http://www.nipne.ro/rjp/2011_56_3-4/0616_0626.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02813228

http://www.ijsr.in/upload/244727373Chapter_18.pdf

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-97332006000700020

http://www.sbfisica.org.br/bjp/files/v36_1227.pdf

http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/issues/fiz-12-36-1/fiz-36-1-15-1102-4.pdf

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/25462570/cosmological-model-negative-constant-deceleration-parameter-brans-dicke-theory

http://m-hikari.com/astp/astp2012/astp1-4-2012/ramASTP1-4-2012.pdf

http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-006-9210-0

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02813228

http://fizika.hfd.hr/fizika_b/bv09/b18p009.pdf

http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-006-9282-x

http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/v72/p429/fulltext.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-008-9844-1

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-008-9820-0

http://www.ijsr.in/upload/1916737645Chapter_15.pdf

http://www.rrp.infim.ro/2011_63_2/24-Singh-Yadav-rps3.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-011-0941-5

Twenty papers citing his works! Notice that through the last link, which directs to the paper by Özgür Akarsu and Tekin Dereli, they mention Berman’s law, because that is the way his idea on the deceleration parameter is known currently in the scientific community. In fact, even some works that do not cite Berman's paper directly, also attribute to him the discovery of such law as in the following passage: "We solve the above set of highly non-linear equations with the help of special law of variation of Hubble’s parameter, proposed by Bermann that yields constant deceleration parameter models of the universe." (S.D. Katore, Bianchi Type-III Inflationary Universe with Constant Deceleration Parameter in General Relativity) Link: http://www.bjp-bg.com/papers/bjp2011_2_139-144.pdf --Waren Beat (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As an academic he is expected to publish papers - this does not mean that the papers are widely accepted - and 20 cites is not a large number. The excessive weight being given to these papers and the tone used to describe them over emphasizes there importance. noq (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Noq's comment above makes no sense at all. If just one of Berman's contributions is already known in the literature as Berman's law and many high level papers on the subject are published every year, then Berman is already influential and his works have repercussion.--Waren Beat (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that is nonsense. You have not shown anything out of the ordinary that could not also be shown about hundreds of academics. A small number of cites for some papers dose not indicate significance, and claims made in this article in the past also seem to exaggerate his influence - and the claims of proving Hawkins theory does not seem to have gathered any significant amount of publicity which is strange in itself. The original claims of Hawkins acknowledging this have not been backed up and the huge additions about Bermans papers without independent WP:reliable sources - and not just directory listings but significant coverage is required - is undue weight. There is nothing here to show significant influence. noq (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the nonsense is entirely yours. The number of citations is not small. And there are not hundreds of scholars who can achieve the same feats. There are not even 50 scholars experts in these fields who could write papers with the same impact. Very few physicists in the world have laws named after them. And, please, improve your English, if you want to edit anything in the English Wikipedia: your vocabulary and syntax are truncated. --Waren Beat (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide some references to articles by other people that recognise Berman as such a great scientist? So far you have just presented a list of things written by him and a few references that cite him. WP:reliable sources, and WP:ACADEMICS are probably a good place to start reading about the sort of thing that is required. So far the article is lacking anything on those lines. noq (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

First and foremost, I have presented many references that cite just one of his 112 papers. There are more references to the same paper. And each of his 112 papers has many references. If you insist in saying that the number of references is small, you insist in a mediocre lie. You have first to stop repeating the same lies so that others can argue with you seriously. Secondly, it is clear that you cannot understand the papers that cite him, you have no idea of what the issues mean, otherwise you would not make such request as a paper declaring someone a great scientist. In science, the merit of the scholars is acknowledged by acceptance of their works for publication and by serious discussion of what they propose. The cult of personality is not the way to show that you hold a scientist in high regard. --Waren Beat (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Poor quality references

The article does not have a single reliable third party reference. 10 of the references are to his CV!! Others are his own publications.Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

By no means the references are of poor quality. The physicist Marcelo Berman has been publishing articles in high quality and highly specialized scientific journals.--Waren Beat (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: Nowadays, we have the means to track the number of citations of one single author's papers. Here is the link for the statistics of citations of Berman and Gomide's paper, 'Cosmological models with constant deceleration parameter', which shows that the paper became more and more debated through the years:

http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/18705581/cosmological-models-with-constant-deceleration-parameter

The same is attested for a more recent paper, 'The Pioneer anomaly and a Machian universe':

http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/12818619/the-pioneer-anomaly-and-a-machian-universe

Another paper by Berman, 'Cosmological models with variable gravitational and cosmological “constants”', has also gained more and more citations through the years:

http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/18705908/cosmological-models-with-variable-gravitational-and-cosmological-constants

That his papers are receiving more and more attention recently is also the case of 'A special law of variation for Hubble’s parameter':

http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/48764993/a-special-law-of-variation-for-hubble-s-parameter

In sum, Berman's contributions to Physics since the early 1980's are of increasing acceptance in the academic and scientific community, as it is proven by quantified statistics, which definitely proves beyond reasonable doubt that he has an outstanding impact in his field of research.--Waren Beat (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

But can you find somewhere a reference that says that otherwise it is synthesis. And as explained before, an academic publishing papers is expected and other academics will cite them - either to back up their own arguments, to show they have actually researched the existing literature or even if they are dismissing them. This is business as usual in academia and does not in itself mean that the individuals involved have an "outstanding impact". We need references about Berman, not links to his papers. And, each of the papers above have a few cites but none of them has a lot. noq (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Noq, first and foremost, there is no such a thing as "as you have explained". You haven't explained anything, because you don't know what you are talking about. Once you said something like "an academic publishing papers is expected", that is not true. It is neither easy nor usual for scientists to publish papers, because the papers they submit must undergo a selection. It is expected that scientists write papers on the issues they investigate, but not every written paper is accepted for publication. And not every paper is cited. Getting citations is already not ordinary for most of the publications around the world. If you had any knowledge of the subject, you would know this: that most scientific books and scientific papers around the world are rarely cited if they are cited at all. Learn something about an issue before you write wrong things about it.--Waren Beat (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for writing about yourself

Apparently the author has had a problem with the article before. Please refer to Wikipedia is not about YOU, MarceloBerman talk and Msberman talk . Albertlberman (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by the author

I politely advise the author to read Personal attacks and Avoid Personal Remarks. My comments relate to the quality of the article and other editors have expressed similar remarks. See the article's revision history.Albertlberman (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The attack has been repeated outside of Wikipedia, on the authors [|blog] with specific remarks on attempting alter his Wikipedia page. I referred the page to WP:DRN Albertlberman (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There were other comments on personal attacks on this page, arguing that the converse is true: that it is the Albert Berman user that has personal reasons to attack Marcelo Berman. Curiously, such posts have been deleted on the allegation that they were not relevant for the talk page. But then why would these accusations against Marcelo Berman be relevant? Why were they not deleted as well? It is clear that there is at least one person with highly biased attitudes towards Marcelo Berman who is doing these things on bad faith.--Waren Beat (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism and disruptive behavior of the anti-Berman puppets

If anyone checks the history of the talk page, he or she will see that there were several editions of the talk page which cannot be accessed anymore, for they have been completely erased. Some of these versions, for instance, mentioned the fact that there is a member of Berman's family who by personal reasons have decided to attack the article. These comments showing the personal bias of Berman's opponent have been deleted and cannot be put back into this talk page.

Curiously now, there is another individual (or the same under another alias) accusing me of disruptive behavior. The disruptive behavior is the behavior of my accuser and of the anti-Berman activist. Contents of the previous discussions being erased is the actual disruptive behavior and the false accusations against me. These puppets accuse others of sock puppetry and of disruptive behavior, but it seems that those are precisely the things they do.

To you, member of the Berman family: you have written that the Wikipedia is not a place for lies or for personal problems. Well, it is not a place for you to lie, neither to accuse anyone of absurd things nor to beat your parents, siblings, etc, on any personal grounds you have. Stop using several names to accomplish your personal goals against others. If you dislike any of your relatives, just forget him or her and go on with your own life, without using the wikipedia or the internet to harm other's feeling. Respect the great scientist that shares your surname, respect science, please. --Waren Beat (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed looking at the talk page and article page will show a single purpose account pushing their opinion and being reverted by two editors with over 30,000 edits each - I think it unlikely that they are sockpuppets. The deleted edits were removed by an administrator - if you have a problem with the edits that have been removed then you will need to talk to the admin about that. noq (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Noq, please don't try to convince people of what is unconvincing. Indeed, looking back to the talk page you will the same guy of the Berman fighting the Berman of the article. And, I have edited this page, and I'm neither of the two editors you mentioned. Indeed, it is more likely that the same guy has tried to revert the other editions.--Waren Beat (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marcelo Samuel Berman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131017195840/http://marcelosberman.org/data.htm to http://www.marcelosberman.org/data.htm#1._GENERAL_DATA_

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Death of Marcelo Samuel Berman in 2019 and Assassination of Hugo Kremer in 1969.

Who was Hugo Kremer? And why his death caused immense damage to Physics in Brazil.

I am a young Brazilian who will start studying Physics at the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR) this year, I was very curious to discover that the Academic Center of Physics that would normally be named normal (CAFIS - Centro Acadêmico de Física) was in actually named as (CAHK - Centro Acadêmico Hugo Kremer) when I went to research but about who Hugo Kremer was I found out that he was one of the greatest theoretical physicists of his time and that he would become the Rector of the Coordination of the Physics Course at the university. He had a great project for the development of Physics in Brazil, having done a Ph.D. abroad and being well recognized in the Academy of Physics.

Kremer was so well regarded at the International Academy that he was even selected as an assistant to Professor Marie-Antoinette Tonnelat at the University of Paris. Through her relationship with Kremer, Marie-Antoinette and her other two assistants came to teach courses on relativity. (http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx?bib=830348&pesq=%22Hugo%20Kremer%22&hf=memoria.bn.br&pagfis=18805)

However, in what Marcelo Samuel Berman reported in the past through the history of the article here on Wikipedia, and a YouTube channel that reported on Berman's life, he said that Kremer was a "Nazi" who had prejudices against Berman because he was Jewish, but the argument is controversial since the person who called Berman to work at UFPR was Kremer. It was reported in the newspaper that Berman and Kremer argued and with that Kremer would have come to the conclusion that Berman was a "mental alien" unable to adapt to reality. (http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx?bib=800074&Pesq=%22Hugo%20Kremer%22&pagfis=119409)

Personally this leads me to believe that it was Berman who started the whole fight in his relations, as we can see his personality in the history of this article, since he edited the articles himself using various sock puppets, always trying to cover this facts and promote his own work.

But in conclusion, Kremer's death caused irreparable damage to National Physics, since Kremer, as one of the biggest names in Theoretical Physics in Brazil, had several contacts with promising physicists, both national and international, with his death several Physicists stopped teaching at UFPR and went to other universities over time where the damage was only recovered decades later. This SciELO article mentions the importance of Kremer and his very important contacts, which were lost with his death (https://www.scielo.br/j/man/a/95r8MfgYgmLWQkZLcfwHstB/?lang=en).

With such a remarkable event nationally and also in Berman's life, I can only believe that he should be mentioned on his Wikipedia page.

The death of Marcelo Samuel Berman.

Researching to see if Berman was still alive, I came across the following document from a court filing for Berman's "Wife" to receive Berman's death benefit. Since Brazil has a public pension known as INSS where if proven the wife of the deceased can receive the pension.

According to the document, Berman would have died on 04/05/2019 (Day/Month/Year) dying at the age of 74. (https://previdenciarista.com/trf4/pensao-por-morte-requisitos-comprovacao-de-uniao-estavel-2021-07-22-5077009-86-2019-4-04-7000-40002147779/)

In case the Administrators who see this message need more references such as newspapers to prove the facts, I will make them available in a next comment on the topic. EnryuuPendragon (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

In this Proceedings of the Judiciary Court of Santa Catarina (TJSC) cited that Berman would have bipolar affective disorder with psychotic symptoms, during the same time as the events here on Wikipedia that are recorded on Talk, in this process in question he would have made a slanderous denunciation that the Judge André Luiz Lopes de Souza would have murdered his own wife. Berman was found guilty but acquitted on grounds of mental insanity where he was placed in house arrest with medical supervision for over a year. (https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/tj-sc/944208492/inteiro-teor-944208563) EnryuuPendragon (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)