Talk:Fractal antenna/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WIKIPEDIA NOT THE PLACE FOR LIBEL AND PERSONAL ATTACKS

The below material is obviously not intended as discussion of a technical topic, but a thinly disguised attack on Nathan Cohen. It is not , per se, about fractal antennas. Wikipedia is not here to be a means of cyberbullying and propaganda, which the below espouses.

Here are some quick facts that may be helpful vis a vis below:

1) FRACTALS is a peer-reviewed journal with many top scientists and Nobel Prize winners as reviewers. It as founded by Benoit Mandelbrot. Obviously the anonymous writer is trying to convince you that the journal, article, and author have no scientific 'cred'.

2) Cohen is a scientist who is a succcessful inventor, with 37 US patents, and over 100 publications, in many of the world's top journals. He spent over thirty years in academia as a researcher, student and professor, at Harvard, MIT, Cornell, Brandeis, University of Iowa, Bentley University, Boston University and other institutions. He retired in 2002 as a professor at Boston University. His work has not been discredited on any of the many subjects he has researched.

3) Fractal antennas have in no way been discredited. The anonymous author asserts that "Steven Best" discredited fractal antennas. In fact, Best claims no such thing. And, the fact is easily shown, through Google Scholar, that since Best's publications circa 2003, hundreds of articles have been published by others demonstrating, to the contrary, that fractal antennas have keen advantages over conventional antennas.

4) The anonymous author asserts that Best is a researcher and so on, while Cohen is a business man. In fact, Best is a businessman, who was replaced as CEO of Cushcraft antennas circa 2002.

5) The article on frequency invariance is cut and closed. It is a close-form analytical derivation. Unless our understanding of math and physics is totally wrong, there is no room in nature for 'interpretation', let alone propaganda about it "making no sense electromagnetically speaking".. The paper is not only valid, but in 18 years has never been shown to be wrong. It never will be. Why? Because it is an exact and unique mathematical solution--and shows fractals are required.

6) An obvious explanation for this targeted attack is that the antenna field is undergoing a paradigm shift and there is an obvious problem--if fractals work better than everything else is worse. Now, imagine if you don't have access to fractal antennas because you don't want to do the right thing and license the invention--where does that leave you if you make your life in the antenna field? Hmm?

7) Science is a self correcting enterprise. That means that if the Cohen reference are wrongs, then give us the publications that then showed they are wrong. You can't just assert it . Show it. If Cohen's articles are invalid, then give us the references that demosntrate that. Or go publish some peer reviewed papers that (allegedly) show that. Good luck!

8) Steven Best made a key error of fact when he stated, in his articles, 'geometry makes no difference in the characteristcs of antennas'. Of course it does! Even grad students in physics know that Babinet's Principle shows that self complemntarity--a geometric condition, for example, uniquely defines the impedance of an electromagnetic structure. Nature is not ecumenical nor pluralistic--it has defined rules. Geometry often constrains and defines such rules. The frquency invariance condition is yet one other of these unique and defining geometric conditions that define the characteristics of radiation of antennas.

8) PIERS is the top electromagnetic society in the world. It is amusing that the anonymous author seeks to discredit it.

9) The anonymous author draws a distinction between 'academic pursuits' and everything else. In fact, research gets done in businesses, universities, non profits, and so on. For eample, the discovery of the Cosmic Background radiation was done at the for-profit Bell Telephone Company. The anonymous author wants you to believe that research outside of academia is not worth considering and has some sort of biased 'agenda'. Just for full disclosure, it should be noted that Steven Best, so mentioned by the anonymous author, is an employee of MITRE, which is not an academic institution but an independent lab that is paid to make assessments. So Best is not an 'academic' as per his employment there.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.251.185 (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some additional perspective on this article

There is a problem with the "notes" listed here. References [1]-[3], [9]-[11] are non-technical references. They may discuss technical things, but there is no supporting mathematics nor peer review. A patent is not a peer reviewed scientific work. Also, references [1]-[3] suffer the same problem and [4] is a mere conference paper. Notice that Cohen has not presented any material in any recent relevant conferences.

In particular:

[1]-[3] are commercial-type works and not academic pursuits. One cannot use commercially-driven claims to support scientific work.

[4] They do not claim superiority in this paper. They simply show an example antenna (among many possible). The "layman" description is typical science journalism - sensationalism before facts.

[5] Does not make any claims about superiority. In fact, Cohen isn't even referenced once in the paper. Additionally, the work is from PIERS which is not a well-respected journal and not as strictly peer-reviewed as IEEE journals.

[9] This is NOT a journal on electromagnetics - Fractals barely qualifies as a scientific journal to begin with. The derivation by Cohen barely even qualifies as a real derivation. Speaking from someone who has worked with Maxwell's equations for many years, the paper makes absolutely no sense electromagnetically-speaking.

[10] Patent - moving on.

[11] Commercial work

[12] 2 pages from an obscure textbook? Seriously? I have not seen the book but I seriously doubt these authors would claim any sort of superiority of fractal based anything.

[13] The only claim being made in this paper (read the abstract for goodness sake!) is that the impedance performance of the fractal antenna improves with the number of iterations. Absolutely no claim is being made in regards to its superiority over other designs - it's just a self-comparison!

However, if one were to go on Google Scholar or IEEE Explore, there is a large body of work presented by Dr. Steven R. Best that discredit the claims made about fractal antennas. In no way does Best (or anyone) claim you cannot use fractal antennas. The point is simply that slapping a fractal pattern down as an antenna does not mean a good design will result. Some fractal antennas DO work quite well such as the log-periodic dipole array, but these have been known for decades. However, the new fractal designs have been shown to be poor designs when compared to more traditional designs. The article is very strongly biased and the references/notes suggest this as well. The major problem with the article is the suggestion that fractal antennas are somehow superior to traditional designs but this is simply not true. Note that [6] and [7] show the inferiority of fractal antennas and not in the specific sense, but general sense. Dr. Steven R. Best is also a very well respected and prolific author - not a business man like Nathan Cohen. Actually reading the articles supporting the case for fractal over traditional designs shows they look at very particular scenarios and/or the authors are not even claiming superiority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.130.144 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

RCOOLEY I SUPPORT YOU

Can you get semi-protection on here? (the one where you have to be registered)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.31.11 (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is clearly written by someone with vested interests in fractal antennas. It has been shown in the literature, quite strikingly, that fractal antennas DO NOT offer superior performance over traditional design approaches.

Firstly, the lowering of resonance is a complete sham, considering that space-filling DOES NOT ensure good electromagnetic performance. One cannot simply rely on the efficiency of packing a line into a small space and ignore electromagnetics. It has been shown that any fractal antenna can be out-performed (i.e. lower resonance) for a given surface area / volume by a traditional intelligent approach to design.

Secondly, the well known causes of low radiation efficiency (sharp corners, increased perimeter, etc..) are very prevalent in fractal antennas. Hence, many authors are dishonest and do not quote radiation efficiency when they must. That being said, honest authors have shown the radiation efficiency of fractal antennas are typically quite low.

Thirdly, the most important antenna quantity when dealing with electrically small antennas is Q. It considers ALL electromagnetic effects and allows one to compare ANY two antennas in an unbiased fashion. Unfortunately, authors publishing work on fractal antennas do not quote the Q values for their antennas, and hence unbiased comparisons CANNOT be made.

I will post the relevant references to the above claims and hope to edit this article and correct the outright lies therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.56.99 (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Stellar follow-through there, hon. 76.99.199.53 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well Shuchs, 'hon', considering your contributions to Wikipedia focus on 'eye shadow', 'Eureka episodes', and other non-technical subjects,you have chosen to use this forum in a way it is not designed for. That is, to pat someone on the back rather than contribute to the discussion. If Wikipedia becomes a popularity contest rather than a fact-based resource, we are all wasting our time here. Have a nice day Hon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.188 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, evidence indicates it was Dr. Nathan Cohen, founder and CEO of Fractal Antenna Systems who personally twisted this article to his POV, circa May 2007. There could hardly be a more flagrant conflict of interest! I have added just a bit more balance, and most importantly a jumping-off point, should someone be interested in improving this article. Wikiwatcher serves to confirm my conclusion [1] Rcooley (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow!

You manage to classify contributors--or you claim a sole CONTRIBUTOR--as: 1) dishonest; 3)non-intelligent; 4)self serving; 5) twisting (twisted?). Furthermore you treat the FACTS presented in the article as CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN ART--despite the fact that they ARE the known art; and are well-cited as references in this article. Finally you cited two old articles that may have limited interest to a few scholars but not to those who use Wiki--and you explicitly quote from one such article (linking, without any evidence that you have the copyright holder's permission for such wide and non-fair use distribution) a dramatic and sweeping statement that in no way is supported by the very limited data presented. By analogy, that's like saying the Earth is made of diamonds just because you walked into a jewelry store and saw a handful...

Mate, you certainly have a point of view! So much of accusing those of whom you speak....

Such a collection of assertions--with no evidence given! If you feel the references given in the article are NOT described correctly, then go ahead and edit, and give the evidence in the discussion. Also, if you want to introduce new subject matter, as you do in the discussion, be sure it has relevancy to the article at hand as written.

You assert that there is a narrow point of view in the article, but rather than give evidence that disputes the FACTS presented in the article, you merely present your own 'NPOV' without any evidence that is cogent to showing that FACTS in the article are incorrect.

When, and if, in the discussion, you can present evidence which CONTRADICTS the facts in the article, it may be relevant to consider this further. I will get back in a while and show the weakness of your assertions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.188 (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV REMOVED

As promised, note an intelligent response to  assertions:

<<This article is clearly written by someone with vested interests in fractal antennas. It has been shown in the literature, quite strikingly, that fractal antennas DO NOT offer superior performance over traditional design approaches.>>

A: And yet the Wiki article has been initiated, and dramatically modified (that is not written by "someone") over the course of the multi-year entry, by at least a DOZEN-PLUS authors. "Many" is not "one". Ergo, YOUR ASSERTION IS FALSE.

Also, you give no evidence that fractal antennas do no offer superior perfromance over traditional designs, but rather, in one mod of the Wiki article, (are) cite(d) two articles--old ones that are vastly outdated-- that compare fractals to fractals or fractals to self-similar NON-traditional designs with a very limited data set, whereby that author makes sweeping conclusions that are just wrong: witness the contradiction posed by the TWO articles --recent ones--cited in the IEEE citations given (see NOTES (4) and (5)). They totally contradict the sweeping assertion about fractals having no advantage over other designs. Now, there is a good point in saying that one fractal antenna is better than another...I guess that may be of interest to antenna designers, but that doesn't support the (silliness that fractals have no advantage. It seems more of a political statement rather than a scientific one.

When someone makes a sweeping generalization, to show it is fatuous, all you need is one counterexample to break the dyke. The dyke, mate, is broken. Or I suppose research people should make a cottage industry showing thousands of counterexamples? That's not how I want my tax money spent... wrong is wrong.

And now, we presume, you expand on your explanation by enumerating....

<<Firstly, the lowering of resonance is a complete sham, considering that space-filling DOES NOT ensure good electromagnetic performance.>>

A: This article is about FRACTAL ANTENNAS. Fractal Antennas are one of many types of space filling antennas. Performance is defined by a number of factors often written or expressed as an 'objective function', weighting factors THAT YOU CAN MEASURE, such as: gain; front to back; size; volume; bandwidth; multibandedness; and many more. Typically, as stated, these are things you MEASURE as opposed to INFER. That's because real world devices have real world metrics to be met.

Read your statement: you are saying that fractal antennas do not lower resonances AND do not have performance. Really? Show us! To expand-- fractal 'loading' being a "sham" (definition: "cheap falseness"--Mirriam-Webster) leads the reader to assume that there is no lowering of resonances, and then you cite a statement that has nothing to do with the assertion. Show us a reference which shows that fractal antennas DO NOT lower resonances. This WIKI ARTICLE cites articles that clearly show that they do and gives several peer-reviewed articles that demonstrate the advantageous performance.

<<One cannot simply rely on the efficiency of packing a line into a small space and ignore electromagnetics.>>

A: Yes, so what? How is this non sequitar relevant to this article?

<<It has been shown that any fractal antenna can be out-performed (i.e. lower resonance) for a given surface area / volume by a traditional intelligent approach to design.>>

A: That's amazing! Do you have a reference that SHOWS this? Or is it (again) just a silly statement without support from the data? Can you show us how the data supports that statement? To wit:IF it were true, then how do you account for the hundreds of fractal antenna articles, most published in the last few years (long after that 2003 article cited), done by research groups WORLDWIDE? Europe. Asia. Australia. North America. South America. Only Antarctica seems to have missed the boat...How do you account for the IEEE papers--long after 2003-- cited in the Wiki article? They compared to non-fractals there, mate. Is it all a mass delusion, or --hey--it's a CONSPIRACY! Correction: a conspiracy by "non intelligent" researchers! I mean, if they were INTELLIGENT, then by your assertion, they wouldn't be using fractals! You made a personal attack there, mate! You called researchers who make fractal antennas NON-INTELLIGENT.

Here's a good one for you: Can you please show an example of a fractal invariant array , for example a log periodic, which is out-performed by an antenna that is invariant and not fractal (that is not self-similar?)? As your assertion is that it 'has been shown', then it should be trivial for you to refer us to the example. That would be a dandy starter, because it would contradict the close-form analytical solution for frequency invariance in Maxwell's Equations and thus bring the house of cards called electromagnetics down. Oops!

<<Secondly, the well known causes of low radiation efficiency (sharp corners, increased perimeter, etc..) are very prevalent in fractal antennas. Hence, many authors are dishonest and do not quote radiation efficiency when they must.>>

A: Well, once again you have packed a lot of nonsense--in my own opinion-- into a mere two sentences! Radiative efficiency is the ratio of radiation resistance to the total resistance (which includes, for example, ohmic losses caused by increased length). If you use a fractal to get TWO (as an example--it is not the only one) spaced current maxima on an antennas length--when normally it has one-- then you have increased the radiation resistance. Of course, you have also increased the GAIN AND DIRECTIVITY. So you may have increased the ohmic loss but you managed to increase the radiation resistance also, so the efficiency may actually go up! And what if,just to rub in the fallaciousness of your point, you superconduct the fractal? Obviously when antennas are made very electrically small,it doesn't matter how many current maxima you have. The point is that what really matter is the objective function, and that seldom includes efficiency. It's usually GAIN or DIRECTIVITY (which includes efficiency BTW)rather than efficiency.

Also, give an example where a research author was DISHONEST and did not quote efficiency when they had to. You said it. Show it. Where is it? I am sure we are all for academic/research honesty.

<<That being said, honest authors have shown the radiation efficiency of fractal antennas are typically quite low.>>

A: Therefore, anyone who does not meet certain (anonymous signer) criteria is DISHONEST? Never mind 'why', just state it as fact, right? Do the readers really deserve your defamatory input here? What right do you have to assert to the world that ANY author is dishonest, without proof of such? What is your motivation for such personal attacks? And, again, where is the proof? How does that have anything to do with fractal antennas?

BTW, what size were these alleged inefficient fractal antennas? Inefficient antennas have a name you know: they are called "loads", in this case ones made with fractals. Capacitors and inductors added into antenna are also very inefficient radiators by themselves--but they change the reactance and thus load it. What sort of so-called antenna savvy person confuses a LOAD with an ANTENNA? What sort of so-called antenna savvy person whould place a cap and an inductor in a teeny space and call it an ANTENNA? Again, don't confuse LOADS with ANTENNAS.

Very electrically small antennas are very inefficient. If you can cite an article--and quote-- whereby anyone expert in fractal antennas claims an efficient VERY SMALL antenna electrically, then do so.

Can you make a list of the honest research authors vs. the DISHONEST ones? After all, by posing it in this fashion, you assert that it is important for Wikipedia users to know this.

<<Thirdly, the most important antenna quantity when dealing with electrically small antennas is Q. It considers ALL electromagnetic effects and allows one to compare ANY two antennas in an unbiased fashion. Unfortunately, authors publishing work on fractal antennas do not quote the Q values for their antennas, and hence unbiased comparisons CANNOT be made.>>

A: All the antenna articles I have seen on fractal antennas, and I have seen and read many dozens, quote bandwidths. Bandwidth is Q. Don't get cute. Also, unless you are living in the past, everything these days is MULTIBAND or WIDEBAND. There may be a lowest resonance with a hi Q--but what about the OTHER 2, or 5 or 100 frequency bands or channels going up the dial? Essentially no one gives a darn about one frequency band anymore. Join the 21st century. Fractal antennas obviously have.

<<In fact, evidence indicates it was Dr. Nathan Cohen, founder and CEO of Fractal Antenna Systems who personally twisted this article to his POV, circa May 2007. There could hardly be a more flagrant conflict of interest! I have added just a bit more balance, and most importantly a jumping-off point, should someone be interested in improving this article. Wikiwatcher serves to confirm my conclusion [1] Rcooley (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC) >>

A: Considering Cohen is the world's expert, it makes sense for him to be involved in the entry. And who knows if he was? Did you ask him? And since there are well over a dozen authors of the Wiki article, it hardly is "twisted" along some personal lines of one person.

Again, with feeling: DID YOU ASK NATHAN COHEN if he "personally twisted this article"?

Also, if you paint the speculation that this entire Wiki article is written by one author (facts show otherwise), it is inescapable that your personal attacks--involving allegations of dishonesty, 'twisted'ness, self-servitude; and non-intelligence--can only be construed as focusing on this person. In that case, why are you using Wikipedia as a public and global forum for apparent defamation?

Finally, if we shun experts from contributing to Wikipedia, then we have nothing but a soup of fantasy with an occasional chunk of fact.

And let's not forget...

<< I will post the relevant references to the above claims and hope to edit this article and correct the outright lies therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.56.99 (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC) >>

Well, we waited a year and a half so far and noticed you didn't come back to do it. THERE's cred for ya...

But wait! Now we have a Wiki article allegedly written by ONE person; who is: 1) dishonest; 2)twisting(ed?); 3)non-intelligent;4)self-serving;and and added new bonus... 5)a liar!

Ahh! A defamation fun-fest! Get real guys. It's a well-documented technology with hundreds of researchers, and rather than acknowledge the primary-source origins, you just want to taint the founder's reputation.

NPOV removed for lack of factual proof. QED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.188 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no relation to the other (anonymous) commentors here, so don't attribute their claims to me. -- Your rant is just that. It grants no credibility to your claims, just a lot of noise, and evidence you have deep vested interests in the contents of this article, which doesn't bode well for your credibility. Citations speak for themselves. The cited information you removed has been restored. Removing cited material is directly in conflict with WP policy, irrelevant of your opinion of it. Continue to do so and you can expect to be banned from editing. -- The most clearly biased information comes from Cohen's company, as my link shows. He's clearly behind it, whether he did so directly, or by proxy (see: meat puppet), is irrelevant. The fact that those bits were not removed by a dozen subsequent simple edits does NOT grant them any special credibility. The statements were not cited, they should not have been added in the first place. I realize you are completely unconvinced by my statement and will now rant for several more pages about how I'm wrong about the simplest facts, but I'm not going to argue with you further, but will keep a closer eye on this article to ensure your vandalism does not continue. What an AMAZING COINCIDENCE that you have a deep and vested interest in fractal antennas, an extremely high opinion of Dr. Cohen, and that YOUR IP ADDRESS maps to Belmont, MA, less than 4 MILES away from the headquarters of Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc., where Cohen is founder and CEO. Will wonders never cease? Rcooley (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone else removed it. Good thing. It was wrong when I took it down a while back and wrong now. Why? Because it generalized to ALL fractal antennas. And the citations given in the Wiki article shows that is wrong. Hence you are digging out something which science has shown to be wrong and posting it to the disadvantage of others seeking knowledge. Wrong equals gone. And don't be a silly person, I didn't attribute the above comments to you. Your defamatory comment was addressed separately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.188 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The explanation for the removal is founded on the notion that keeping it is factually inaccurate. That is because (the inserted statement and reference)promulgates a false and generalized statement, outdated now by several years of published research, including articles referenced in the Wikipedia article. To keep them does not serve the purpose of factual dissemination of information espoused in Wikipedia. Based upon RCooley's focus on an individual rather than the facts, the objective appears contrary to such factual dissemination. He has not addressed the corrections--only repeated the factual errors. They have again been deleted.

Here is what RCooley states about himself and this Wiki. You will note that RCooley titles his contribution above "calling out the fraudster". Thus the emphasis of RCooley remains defamation of a person as opposed to presentation of fact. Readers are welcome to form their own assessments of RCooley's objective and whether they relate to dissemination of knowledge through a public encyclopedia:

To wit, RCooley says:

"I QUIT "It's clear Wikipedia will eventually devolve into a lot of bias and misinformation. The policies are idiotic, and I've needlessly wasted ridiculous amounts of time. And even tring to come back in a small way (the Shadow Wiki remains...), I kept hitting unnecessary and nonsensical bureaucratic roadblocks." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.181.212 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RCooley continues to post an incorrect insertion. That insertion--and assertion-- has been re-written to correct for errors and make it relevant to the Wikipedia article. Note that IEEE copyright articles cannot be accessed by a public link. That is not "fair use" any more than (trying to)access a copyright photograph on Wikipedia is "fair use" (it isn't). You need the copyright holder's permission. Suggest RCooley re-list them as references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.188 (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Contributors MUST adhere to copyright law and Wiki policy with respect to copyright material. YOU CANNOT link full articles that are copyright without permission to do so. The articles linked by RCooley are RESTRICTED TO Princeton university distribution (it says so on every page), NOT world wide global public access. It is fine to LIST the primary reference(s) and even link to the abstract page(s) on IEEEXplore. But providing the full article via Wikipedia is copyright infringement. LEARN the law--and the rules--before you POST. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.188 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The RCooley contribution is now factually accurate (on 1 Feb 2010) and has the references cited. I agree that you can't use Wikipedia to copyright infringe and defame. RCooley has done both (between) previous page versions, and linking copyright material clearly labeled as restricted.74.94.181.212 (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

VANDALISM ALERT

Wiki readers and contributors need to be aware of deliberate vandalism to this article by RCooley. Note that on 31 January, 2010, RCooley did an intentional reversion, verbatum to an (his) entry that:

1) presented certain assertions as fact when the edits showed otherwise including

 * ONE researcher rather than his claimed "researchers"(note plural, used to push an 
     obvious POV of acceptance of that POV);
 * assertions that deterministic shapes were "random". In fact none of them are random;
 * a statement about fractal antennas from that one researcher, that was clearly
    shown to be incorrect by the latest studies so referenced (see 4 and 5) in the article;
 * a "suggest"(ion) posed solely by RCooley that has no support from any reference,
    that is (his)opinion rather than citation-supported fact

2)In addition he removed a factual statement on how fractals (self-similiarity) uniquely determine the electromagnetic properties of frequency independent antennas, as shown in the peer-reviewed referenced article (reference provided in the article) from a close-form analytical solution of Maxwell's Equations ( close-form means there are no alternative or un-found solutions). No explanation for removal given by RCooley and no presentation of fact which contradicts it.

3) Used Wikipedia as an illegal distribution forum of copyright material (the materials are clearly marked on each page as restricted to Princeton University ONLY), taking TWO IEEE copyright article download links, intended for a handful of university students, and infringing upon the copyright holder, by making it illegally available to the entire public-world,thereby posing Wikipedia as a vehicle for copyright infringement, identical in approach to how the old Napster allowed copyright infringement by illegal 'file sharing'. Note that the proper and present Wiki article version CITES these articles as opposed to enabling the illegal distribution of them.

As RCooley was alerted to these issues in this forum and on the history page, his reversion must be adduced to be intentional and malicious, not in good faith, a violation of Wiki policy, and not in the spirit of dissemination of knowledge espoused by Wiki. It is thus vandalism.

It is also salient to note that clear disdain RCooley has for Wikipedia (have a look on his page) where his says:

"I QUIT It's clear Wikipedia will eventually devolve into a lot of bias and misinformation. The policies are idiotic, and I've needlessly wasted ridiculous amounts of time. And even tring to come back in a small way (the Shadow Wiki remains...), I kept hitting unnecessary and nonsensical bureaucratic roadblocks."

Also, note the defamation that RCooley has enabled within Wiki against one of the researchers who does fractal antenna work.

173.48.216.188 (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to be dragged into an endless and worthless debate as you feign ignorance, use multiple IPs/meat puppets (all IPs map to nearby cities in Massachusetts), etc. I will say: 1) Intermingle potentially legitimate edits with POV pushing is a good way to get it all reverted. And since it's quite clear you work for Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc., you have an overwhelming conflict of interest, which you clearly can't manage, and should not be making edits to this article at all. I've already suggested appropriate actions be taken. 2) Yes, I dislike Wikipedia, mainly because of it's extended tolerance of individuals like yourself... 3) A URL can't be copyrighted, linking somewhere can't be copyright infringement. The text of a document isn't legally binding, may be outdated, etc. If you or Princeton University wants to sue someone, try Google, as a quick search turns up links to the cited document you complain about citing. Trying to mask your POV-pushing under feigned ignorance fools no-one, you might as well stop wasting your time. I certainly won't be wasting more of mine... Rcooley (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

RCooley continues his vandalism of this article. He is reminded that he is welcome to correct any statement--as anyone with good faith in Wiki editing--that is factually in error. That means not asserting through reversion, statements that are self-evident in their errors and have been shown here to be in error. Also, the copyright issue remains. Do not use Wikipedia as a distribution channel for illegal forwarding of restricted copyright material.173.48.216.188 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Obvious bias in article

As has been noted prior, there is obvious bias in the article. I'll list relevant indicators:

1. As noted, most edits come from different IPs that map to the Mass area. Many of these edits revert aspects of the article not favorable to N. Cohen or his company, Fractal Antenna Systems (FAS). Additionally, you can spot the same phrases (To wit) used all over the article and talk, clearly indicating a single author.

2. A reference to Fractus, another large company in this field, was added and then removed. Only links to FAS remain.

3. The references are terrible. In the talk it is stated: "To wit:IF it were true, then how do you account for the hundreds of fractal antenna articles, most published in the last few years (long after that 2003 article cited), done by research groups WORLDWIDE?" Yet 6/14 references are Cohen/FAS related (3 of these link to FAS or FAS controlled websites), 4 (two are basically the same, author and content wise) are part of the "hundreds of fractical antenna articles", and the two references from Best that are included are given an extremely biased treatment in the text.

4. The tone of the article betrays obvious bias. It's a mixture of a corporate sales pitch and the combative tone of an academic paper. That in itself indicates an author, as the same tone can be found on the FAS website as well.

I'm not interested in discussing whether fractal antennas suck or not. I came to this article expecting a quality Wikipedia article. Electrical articles on Wikipedia are well known for their quality. Yet this article reeks of POV bias and the talk merely confirms it. Again, whether this POV is right or wrong doesn't matter: it does not meet Wikipedia quality standards. This article clearly needs to have protection put on it to prevent the biased author(s) from reasserting control.

In addition, the article itself has a number of structural issues. Notes and references are really the same thing. Many references are not hyperlinked correctly.

It's late, but I will try to rework the article to remove POV bias, keep core information intact and fix structural issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry507 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jerry507. In 14 months Jerry507 did nothing to the article, despite your assertions. Your assertion that the "references are terrible" is just a competitor's diss of a company that is not even mentioned in the article, but that you bring to the forefront. I don't see anything in the article that contains the text "hundreds of references". However I just did a check on google with 'fractal antenna' as the keyword on 'scholar', and sure enough there are more than 1500 references. Only a handful are not illustrative of the benefits of the technology. In fact, almost all of thse have Steven Best as (co-) author. What's your agenda Jerry? Also, scholarly work uses SOURCE references. Are you saying that Nathan Cohen is to be vilified for doing the fundamental work? Would you accuse Einstein of having a point of view because his 1905 paper is cited as the source? If there is INCORRECT info, then go ahead and correct it. Also Jerry507, I have looked at ALL THE EDITS SINCE March 2012 and can find NO REFERENCE to the company you refer to in the article. The only company reference is one that links Nathan Cohen's biography. Otherwise it is clear that you are using Wikipedia to defame Nathan Cohen and that company, Fractal Antenna Systems. The latter may also be 'interference of business'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.171.111 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

New note: agree wholeheartedly with the apparent bias and misinformation that saturates this article. The simple fact that so many references are to Fractal Antenna System's website is insultingly blatant bias at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.83.31.3 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Note again: I can't find these multitudinous references, All I see is an article with cited, published facts, occasionally disconbobulated by those with an agenda.I see no bias let alone an insultingly blatant one. And who, exactly, do you think is 'insulted'? .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.171.111 (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any of these company references. Looks pretty reasonable and factual to me. Can someone explain why this is NOT just some competitor trying to put down the pioneering effort? In my opinion, what a dysfunctional bunch of people. Getta life!

Biased and false information about Fractal antennas

ELECTRICALLY SMALL ANTENNAS

The alleged disadvantages of fractal antennas in very electrically small antennas, are listed by R. C. Hansen in his book, 'Electrically Small, Superdirective, and Superconducting Antennas', pp. 75-81, 2006.

"A careful review of the many papers on fractal antennas shows that they offer no advantages over fat dipoles, loaded dipoles and simple loops with or without magnetic core."

Of course, all very electrically small antennas work poorly beyond narrow bandwidths, and fractal antennas have never made the claim for superior performance on inky-dinky electrical sizes. Nor do such claims bear the scrutiny of a scholarly review. In fact, there is no such claim about fractal making superior inky dinky antennas. Hence there exists no reference claiming such.

Get it? It is a bogus claim about a bogus claim.

In 1997 Nathan Cohen published in the ACES Newsletter(N. Cohen, 'Exploring a Fractal Dipole', Applied Computational Electromagnetics Society Newsletter, 13 (2), (1998) 23-27) pointing out exactly the fallacy of electrically small antennas--all poor performers beyond narrow bandwidths-- and removed fractals as candidates from the unfortunate 'Holy Grail' race of finding the perfect electrically small antenna, which does not exist in any form. To wit: inky dinky antennas, of all geometries, give inky dinky performance. The fact that limited distribution books do not list source references either indicates an absence of knowledge on that aspect of the subject, or an intentional attempt to ignore, both not desired attributes in credible opinion by experts.

Delete?

I don't see anything in here that meets the guidelines of WP:NOTABILITY. In particular, the relevant references are all primary (see WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS). I'd guess that the article was created to promote some silly patents. Is there something I should know about this topic before I put the article up for deletion? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am all for deleting the entry on fractal antennas in Wikipedia! No reason for this to be a primary source (there are much better sources that can easily fill in any 'vacuum') for info, and the article has been widely abused by competitors who do not want the technology to exist. Go for it:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.171.111 (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

-EDIT- Didn't see where someone already mentioned Hansen.

-NOTE- Go look at the previous version before editing. See 'history'. It's there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.148.39 (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

European inventor missing

Carles Puente in Barcelona invented fractal antenna at about the same time (1995) als Cohen (although Cohen claims to have made the first steps 1988), holds crucial patents in this technology and is founder of the company Fractus] in Barcelona. He was 2014 finalist in a competition (European Inventor Award) of the European Patent Office (Businesswire).--Claude J (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Puente is, by the definition of 'inventor' second-ran. Cohen submitted his article for publication in April, 1995, and it pre-dates Puente's publication by 5 months. Puente submitted his patent in May 1995. Puente filed patent under 'first to file' in Spain. Cohen filed under 'first to invent' in US in AUgust 1995, just before the first fractal antenna article published. Cohen's priority date for invention, whether by 'first to invent' or 'first to submit for publication', or 'first to publish' definition, clearly pre-dates Puente.

Puente himself only states that 'the first patent for fractal antennas was filed in May 1995'. That is correct, but irrelevant. So what? (see above) 'first to file' is irrelevant given the priority dates of Cohen on 'first to invent', 'first to submit for publication', and 'first to publish'. If Puente had been 'prior art' then Cohen's patent 6452553 would have never issued. But it did, because Puente's patent application WAS NOT PRIOR ART. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.72.151 (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Puente has a different view on who submitted first for publication, see here (Publication in Spanish with english abstract in Conference Proceedings Las Palmas Sept. 1994, submission of an article in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation in May 94, published May 96). I have no intention to go into a discussion of the details and technicalities of patent applications in the US and Europe, but fact is that Puente and his group is not mentioned at all in the wikipedia article although he seems to be an independent inventor (and the one who demonstrated the use as small multiband antennas). By the way, the group of Puente (Fractus) won 1998 the European Information Technology Prize (cordis.europa.eu/pub/ist98/docs/4en.rtf), worth 200.000 Euro, for fractal antennas (on the other hand I' m not aware of any comparable awards for Nathan Cohen ...). Cohen is not even mentioned in the overview article of Douglas Werner etal. Fractal antenna engineering, IEEE Antennas and propagation magazine, vol. 41, October 1999, 37 (contrary to Puente Baliarda/Pues 1996)--Claude J (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The first link in note 19 is broken

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fractal antenna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100719185220/http://ceta.mit.edu/pierb/pier.php?paper=09030802 to http://ceta.mit.edu/pierb/pier.php?paper=09030802
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/best_ieeeawpl_2_197_03.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/best_ieeeawpl_1_74_02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fractal antenna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070320175808/http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/Panorama/ManuFractals/FractalAntennas/FracTenna4.gif to http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/Panorama/ManuFractals/FractalAntennas/FracTenna4.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Minkowski island/Vicsek fractal

(for context)

Image of antenna used in this article

Image from Vicsek fractal

Why can't the caption for the image File:6452553 Vicsek Fractal Antenna.png link to or mention the Vicsek fractal? Should the file be renamed? Hyacinth (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

My apologies Hyacinth, until right now, I had not realised that that was what the file name is. I now understand how you made the connection. It does seem strange to name the file Vicsek fractal when the source of the image names it Minkowski island. The latter is certainly the common name in an antenna context, see this book for instance. My previous revert of your link was mostly because you had piped to Koch snowflake, which is incorrect, but I think Vicsek is probably ok (this patent mentions them together implying they are the same). I think the thing to do is retarget Minkowski island to Vicsek fractal and link from here to Minkowski island. There is no need to mention Vicsek on this page, better to say they are synonyms on the Vicsek fractal page. SpinningSpark 00:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I usually don't try the same thing over and over again despite objections. My first edit did not pipe "Vicsek fractal" to "Koch snowflake": [2].

Is an implication that "Vicsek fractal" and "Minkowski island" are synonyms or one is a variant of the other enough for us to declare them as synonyms or variants? We wouldn't want to, in the words of an idiot I know only too well, "magically create a synonym". Hyacinth (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hyacinth, you piped "Minkowski island" to "Koch snowflake" in the edit you linked [3], just like I said you did. That is entirely confusing to the reader, who will not find Minkowski island on that page. SpinningSpark 08:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Spinningspark, I apologize, but what you said was, "you had piped to Koch snowflake". You didn't specify, "you had piped Minkowski island to Koch snowflake". But I get what you meant now. Hyacinth (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The "source" of the image is [4] (see: File:6452553_Vicsek_Fractal_Antenna.png), while the "reference" cited in the image caption on this article is [5]. Hyacinth (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Why won't a reference to a site be removed if the link is dead?

Ref [11] in this page is a dead link. If this were a paper, fine, the paper could be looked up, but since it is referring to a webpage, one that no longer exists, this seems like it should be deleted from this page or a new link provided. Linking to a website that doesn't exist is not useful for the reader.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a000:1418:806a:5890:f63d:3e72:f3e2 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC) (UTC)

No, we don't do that. The dead page remains the source of the information in the article, and it is possible that someone else may be able to find a copy in an archive or elsewhere. See WP:KDL for the guideline on this. If the citation is removed, it is no longer possible for editors to try to track it down. SpinningSpark 19:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no archived copy of this page available, and it was on a commercial company's website in support its own product. The use of the word "dozens" is also imprecise and not exactly neutral. Are there really "dozens"? That sounds like a lot. How many dozen are we talking about? Two, three, ten? It would appear the writer of this statement didn't wish to give an actual figure. But the paragraph has no difficulty emphasising the exact number of studies that disagreed. The use of "last few years" is equally imprecise. When is this? Time relative statements should always be avoided.

Personally, I find the article's reliance on this dead cite worrying. Are there none of these "dozens" of studies that could be referenced elsewhere? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The link works, you just have to pay money to access it. Same with most NATURE links, too. What's the 'worrying' aspect? There is a real, valid, factual link cited. Period. If you identify yourself I can request that one of the authors send you a reprint. And what's this nonsense about a commercial sight? If a commercial company has permission to digitally re-print a scholarly paper, what's the problem? Are you anti-business? What is yout motivation? Also, what sight was it on? Show us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.111.21 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The link being discussed was This one here. It is a dead link on a commercial website and there is no record of what it said. I don't know what else you are referring. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There is certainly no shortage of papers investigating fractal antennae and claiming their advantages, but a long list of blue links to make that point would be WP:SYNTH. Sources making such a survey are what is needed. Having looked for a replacement source, I'm starting to doubt whether the claim is even accurate. This book says A careful review of the many papers on fractal antennas shows that they offer no advantages.... This book says As is the case with many papers describing new antenna designs, when the performance properties of fractal antennas is described, there is often little or no performance comparisons with other antennas... It seems the only thing they really have going for them is their ability to implement multiband designs [6]. SpinningSpark 20:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The article needn't have a long list of cites. What's needed is someone to pick the "best" source(s) that balance what is said previously. I'm way out of my depth in the technical aspects, so in no way fit to pick or evaluate any. Or to make any judgement on the scientific consensus as to its effectiveness. Happy for you to have a go.. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I might do that, but in the meantime, the text should reflect what the source is supposed to have said and the source left in place. Not edited to what someone thinks it should have said. Either that or remove it altogether. SpinningSpark 14:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've reverted twice changes added by an IP editor. Just to outline why I've done this;

Don't add content simply designed to discredit the sources used. Focus on what the sources say, and if there is anything that cast doubt on it, show sources that do this.
Do not add unsourced content that basically says; "but the prior sourced content is wrong". If anyone has questioned it, say so, what makes their questions notable, and source it.
Take care with alternatives to the word "say", as it can suggest an opinion about what they are saying.
Do not state that one source makes the other "moot". Unless the second source specifically says this, this is original synthesis. And even where it does, this may only be the opinion of the second source.
Please source the additional, new, claims added.
Please don't edit war. If you believe the changes are merited, please explain more fully here.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

ADD FACTS ONLY PLEASE

If Spinnerspark wishes to add --factual-- comments, that certainly works. However, the assertions made are not supported by the references cited. Feel free to quote the references DIRECTLY here, so that can be considered for inclusion. And keep non sequitars off the wikipedia passage. For example it is irrelevant that Collins died a few months before a reference was published. It is irrelevant if (and you need to quote this to show this) Balanis makes a comment about not comparing other antennas in some fractal antenna references (and there are over 3000 of them published, over 25 years!) -- the point is, did THOSE papers try to make a case for 'superiority of performance'? Again, quote reference (in this case, Balanis) specifically, if it exists.. Frankly, I don't believe you actually HAVE the book at all: I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.111.21 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

A CAREFUL review of the Balanis reference given by 'Spinnerspark' reveals that the comments placed earlier by him in the article are NOT FACTUAL. Nowhere does Balanis discuss, nor discredit, the notion of 'superior' performance, or lack of it, in his book, on fractal antennas. NOWHERE. It is now the onus of 'spinnerspark' to represent accurate factual information from his alleged citation 'interpretations'.

Buy the books and read them. Quote the facts. Don't SPIN them to your liking. DON'T DO US A DISSERVICE IN THE WIKI COMMUNITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.111.21 (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't shout. It does nothing to make your point clearer. Why did you remove an entire paragraph, if your issue is only about one newly added part of it?

I have removed the recently added content that you dispute and invite @Spinningspark: to discuss. If you believe the article gives undue emphasis to counter arguments, it would help if you could indicate some of the 3000 papers you claim. (Just a few good ones would suffice).

Also, please do not update or edit others' comments on this talk page. What was said was said, regardless of whether it was accurate then or now. The place for updates is the article.

Lastly, if you are the same editor as 141.154.68.80 and 71.174.251.185, it would be helpful for everyone if you would consider creating a user account and it would be clearer to everyone who is doing what.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean: " same editor". I am not in the US and Columbia at the same time. That's a false and foolish statement. How do you make such a connection in your mind?!

Thank you for the invitation to "create a user account". I respectfully decline. You have presented no reason to do so. Although I appreciate your cordial tone, I am not of the opinion you have adequate knowledge on this article's subject. Because of the biased contributions and falty presentation of facts--and non-facts--it will be revised considerably over the next few weeks and months with more fact-based information (and plenty of references, indeed!), rather than acting as a platform, by some, to deep-six both an insight into nature and a successful innovation. So stick with the facts, please, and don't go after the messenger. M-E-S-S-E-N-G-E-R. Hope that gives a good SINR for you. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.68.80 (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I ask if you are the same IP editor because recent edits from IP editors have been on the same content, to the same aim, from the same place (Massachusetts), with the same style, and have are editing comments that belong to other IPs as if they belonged to you.

Reasons for creating a user account;

it makes discussion easier because others know when they are talking to one person, or a number of people.
when changing IP, your identity doesn't change
it protects your anonymity, because your IP is not revealed.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This reply is a bit late, but responding to some of the criticisms against me. First of all, please assume good faith and don't accuse me of not reading the sources. I have no position I want to spin and have no conflict of interest in this subject, commercial or otherwise. I menitioned Collins' death, not to generate sympathy for him, but because I thought it would look a bit odd to the reader writing that he said something a year after he died. My understanding of Balanis was that he was critical of papers that claimed great performance for fractal antennas without comparing them to other designs. It might not be possible to say from that that there is always an alternative to fractal antennae with similar performance, but Balanis certainly says this for specific examples e.g. "Examining the multiband and resonant VSWR properties of these antennas, it is evident that there is no performance advantage to using the fractal tree geometry, as the antennas behave in a manner consistent with other top-loaded antennas." SpinningSpark 21:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

FACTS Only as we revise this article on FRACTAL ANTENNAS

This section is the initiation of a discussion for the improvement of the FRACTAL ANTENNA entry (SHOUTING, in a friendly fshion, appropriately at times, for clarity and specification). I am of the informed opinion that the article is flawed in serious fashion, that biases the reader negatively by providing incorrect and or unrelated information, rendering the reality of the benefits of fractal antennas as essentially non-existent. If TRUE (which is not the case of course) then we have no basis at all for a wikipedia article on fractal antennas. Of course, reality reveals that there are over 3000 publications on fractal antennas, that fractal antennas are used widely, and so on. If they were merely, say, ‘another option’ then we have a different problem—explaining why they are so clearly used when then apparently don’t work, or, don’t work as well, and so on. That is not our job as ‘editors’. Let’s review what our job is as ‘editors’.

It is the onus of this ‘editor’ and  all OTHERS to provide the facts for this  article’s improvement—to justify any and all entries. It is indeed the burden of ALL (appropriately ‘shouted😉) of our fellow ‘editors’ to show the factual content of their entries.

I remind my fellow ‘editors’ that new entries require published references. It is not enough that these references exist—the ‘editor’ must have them at hand as a good faith display of bona fide knowledge to justify the entry. If you are not in possession of the entries then you should not be an ‘editor’ on this subject: you have no first hand basis for do so. Each ‘editor’ should have a defensible reference in their possession for discussion in this forum. I remind my fellow ‘editors’ that you may not act “Mark Twainian’ by biasing the entry to support a premise, as opposed to a fact creating that premise, to wit: “Get your facts first and then you can distort them as you please.” No, you can’t do that. Sorry.

I remind my fellow ‘editors’ that if you feel that a reference should be discounted, then it is the burden to show, through another reference, that the results, or conclusions, or quoted comments of that reference are at odds with the facts as presented in other reference(s).

I remind my fellow ‘editors’ not to assert a “conflict of interest” in the context of a FACT.

A fact is a fact. Our jobs as ‘editors’ is to present the facts and assemble them in a pithy , coherent, and informative fashion.

I welcome my fellow ‘editors’ as we proceed in this careful, considerable, and long-term correction and addition to this wiki article, and I wish you the best as we move forward. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.68.80 (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't shout, even if you are passionate about a subject. It comes across as aggressive. Secondly, your contributions to the article seem to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, which states that "...All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Your additions to the article thus far seem to push a point of view painting fractal antennas in a more favorable light by removing or rewording sections about criticism of them. You are welcome to contribute to the article, but please do so in a neutral way supported by reliable sources. Thanks. --LiamUJ (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It is important that you READ entries of fellow 'editors'. You must remain neutral by keeping opinions of other editors and their entries--off-- wikipedia. We are only interested in a cordial presentation/discussion of the facts here, from a 'NPOV'. Do not bias that discussion by invoking opinions of a personal nature. I look forward to working with you as a fellow 'editor'.

First: I have read the edits and I'm familiar with the discussion. In regards to me invoking opinions of a personal nature, I was simply letting you know that your shouting doesn't seem appropriate in this case. --LiamUJ (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Section on 'Dispute' removed for revision

As noted in the edit comment on the article, this paragraph has been removed for revision. As such, it is important for any and all 'editors' be able to defend the factual basis for entries into this revision by having the references and any new references, on-hand. 'Escape' must be able to explain why the entry has valid information , based on having the references in-hand, and be prepared to discuss them. 'Kangaroo'--please discuss the proposed section here instead of reinstating. Why do this? Because it is not helpful to readers of the article to have biased or factually inaccurate information, particularly with respect to cited references. Have the references handy, let's discuss and work together to present the facts.Looking forward to assisting as a fellow 'editor'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.68.80 (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I have added a notice to your talk page regarding your edit warning. I invite you to restore the paragraph before progressing any further. If you want a long-standing paragraph, that is well sourced, removed it is your responsibility to explain why. You do not get to remove sourced content, then demand it is justified by others before you'll allow its return. To date, your sole argument for its removal is that you don't agree with it and you think it is biased. Your opinion on its validity is not notable. You are just an IP number on the internet.

We understand that there is some disagreement on the matter, in which case it is Wikipedia's responsibility to reflect that disagreement, giving due weight to all opinions. If you believe the article is not doing this then you must please explain why, and produce sources to back up your argument. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Your comment defies causality: I have already revised the paragraph and your comment makes it look like I am re-acting to your statement. Not so. PLEASE read carefully and do not make personal comments. Stick to the facts. Discuss the changes. Edit for factual content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.68.80 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

What you have added is what we call Original Synthesis. That is; you cite one source, counter it with another source, then present your own conclusion. The conclusions need to be in a source. You don't get to make them yourself. If there is no source that critiques Best's paper, then you should leave it to the reader to reach their own conclusion.

If you don't want your edits to appear to be reactions to talk page comments I suggest you do what you have been asked to do repeatedly; stop editing. Present what you want the article to say here, on the talk page, where consensus can be reached on it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Orbit - Well, he kinda did edit the article twice.... I mean, let the IP present their revision of the section, and we'll se how it turns out. Oh, before I forget - @141.154.68.80, please sign your comments. It's just 4 tildes. It's starting to bother me, no offense. ☮Senny is a Hippie☮ 14:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph has been replaced with a revised with a factually accurate version. Please have references in-hand for any discussion of desired changes. It is NPOV. There is no critique of the Best paper. Why would it need to be critiqued? Please: no personal comments on this 'editor'. Keep it factual, NPOV, and friendly. Further edits will be done at a future time by this 'editor', and others, to improve the article.141.154.68.80 (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for signing your comments, I appreciate it. But your last edit was 30 MINUTES AGO, so NO, you have not revised your changes. We need to "critique" the edits so that they're NPOV and not biased. ((And honestly, the best thing to come from this discussion is you previously saying to Orbit "PLEASE read carefully and do not make personal comments", now 30 mins. later you're saying "Please: no personal comments on this 'editor'". Ironic.)) ☮Senny is a Hippie☮ 14:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the statement "This conclusion goes against established geometric criteria for the foundation of a variety of antenna types", if not a critique of Best's paper? You have cited this to an example in a book written in 1950. How can this source make any statement about a paper written 52 years later? I urge you to read what is meant by Original Synthesis. This is what you are doing. You are saying; "Statement A says (cited to Source A), but Statement B disagrees (cited to source B), therefore Statement C (cited to nothing)". You cannot do this. A source needs to make Statement C. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Revised material to include accurate and factual conclusion of Hansen and Collins. Taken straight and unmodified from that reference, at the end of Section 5.13 . 24.34.111.21 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

More On 'Dispute' Paragraph

'Orbit' , you have elected to reinstate this paragraph, and it is well on its way to the beginning of a viable section in this article. I, and other 'editors', assume that is also your objective. However, you need to fix, or more accurately, explain, why the Steve Best quote is referenced by --3-- references. Could you please assist in the factual clarification of this by either: 1) showing that the quote shows up on all --3-- references, or, 2) please remove or properly attribute the other two references, and properly show us the (presumably) one reference where the quote originates. Thank you kindly.141.154.68.80 (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

1) The quote does not need to show on all three references. One is enough.

2) The other cite supports the same content, being a source of the paper. It does no harm being there. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

'Orbit' all of us--including your fellow 'editors'-- need to meet the verifiability requirement of entries. We are failing the readership if we do note cite quotes properly.

This does not make sense: which reference is the quote from? How are wikipedia readers supposed to know what the citations refer to? As stated now in the article, the quote is in BOTH references. Did you place the citations in the correct location of the text? You seem to be repeating the ambiguity of your prior edits, and thus the reader sees the QUOTE as now appearing in --two-- references. Kindly provide us, here, the brief transcription/excerpt of the actual reference and where it can be found, and in which reference (citation).

Do you possess a copy of the references(citations) cited?

Proper attribution of quoted material is extremely important as we 'editors' deliver factual and referential content to fellow wiki-folks. It is improper to provide two citations (note you originally had 3) on a quote if the quoted statement does not appear in each, as opposed to uniquely in one citation.

The article is now (at present) modified to request a proper citation for the quote, pending verification of same. We 'editors' shall presumably endeavor to provide the proper citation.Thanking you in advance in resolving the provenance and accuracy of the references and context.141.154.68.80 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The quote is from the introduction of the paper cited. If you followed the link to the source cited you would see it is in the introduction of the paper cited. Please do not remove cites just because you cannot be bothered to verify them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

First, please read the edits of fellow 'editors' before you revert. I had done you the courtesy of fixing two solecistic errors, which you reinstated. One was in tense, the other in spelling. Why did you revert to those errors?

'Orbit', there are two papers cited in the article on that quote. Kindly tell us which one is it?

You have not verified the origin of the quote (there are TWO papers cited, not ONE, and there is no evidence that it appears in both citations), I will provide the readers the proper edit of the sentence, with the two citations provided. If you can--verify-- the origin (origin, not 'origins' as in two citations) of the quote, by providing an excerpt from the citation here, then you may wish to add the citation for the quote as well. For the moment, we shall keep the quote to give you the opportunity to present us the verifiability of the citation from which it is (presumably) derived. Thanks again for working to improve this wiki article.141.154.68.80 (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I have removed one of the sources, because evidently it was confusing you. The remaining source provided gives access to the same two urls as before.

Namely; Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 2, issue 13, pp. 197-200, A comparison of the resonant properties of small space-filling fractal antennas

You would know this if you had followed the sources provided.

If you wish, I can re-add the cite to Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 1, issue 1, pp 74-76, On the Resonant Properties of the Koch Fractal and Other Wire Monopole Antennas. I previously took it out because the later, 2003, article seemed to be an update on the 2002 one. Do you think it is needed? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

'Orbit', please listen carefully--this effort is about bootstrapping the article, so that it is factual, pithy, makes appropriate exposition, and the citations are verified and verifiable. Its not about me;my opinion; or my mental state (believe me, BTW, I am the antonym of 'confused' (which you asserted). Now that you have given the (presumed) citation for the quote, I can then go down to my storage vault (offsite), where my scholarly papers--many dozens of square footage-- are stored. I do not have 2002 or 2003 handy at all times, but can dig them out. What I don't want to do is have you waste MY time by giving an incorrect citation, and then having to shlep back down to the vault to dig out what MIGHT be the correct reference paper. SO just be as accurate as you can, and help the readers. Cheers.141.154.68.80 (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The citation has been there for some time. It is not mine. If you wish to challenge it, it is your responsibility to do the 'shlepping'. Any wasting of time is your choice. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I challenge nothing. I am reminding you of your responsibility to present VERIFIABLE content, every time you, or I, or anyone else, edits.That means if you choose to--reinstate-- any content, you are very much responsible for the verifiability of that content. Specifically, what that means is you are responsible for the accuracy of the citation provided OR reinstated, if you execute said edit.If you do not have the citation available, you should use 'talk' for clarity or confirmation from your fellow 'editors'. We are polite, welcoming and NPOV. Hussah!Cheers.141.154.68.80 (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)