Talk:Jim Bell

Continuing edits

I just made some more edits, which I believe can be fully justified. I am starting this topic here to ask that they not be reverted without prior discussion. I believe I have defended my previous batch of edits successfully, as I have not received a reply after one week. Additionally, I think the list of POV statements I posted on 28 February 2010 speaks for itself.

As as an example, I removed the references to methamphetamine - the article previously stated that he was charged with the manufacture of it. But the source only said that police said they had found a "methamphetamine lab" - this was clearly incorrect. Furthermore, I removed a reference to Bell's mother, as it unnecessarily mentions her, but she is not a public figure and her privacy should be respected. Keystroke (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Note I've removed this as it seems to have happened before he became notable and doesn't seem to relate to his notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Great! Keystroke (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Acolytes"

I have some serious doubts about BLP policy and interpretation - nonetheless, the section "Acolytes" runs afoul of it as I see it.

First, there's no source that uses the term "acolyte". The sources barely associate Bell with another named individual (Bell calls him a distant acquaintance; prosecutors "tried to link" according to one news story).

Second, the individual is a BLP1E. If he had his own article it would get deleted under the policy as currently practiced.

Third, there is an attempt to then link an attack on a prosecutor to the trial of this then-imprisoned distant acquaintance, which is based only on mailing list commentary about a news story that doesn't mention it. And the mailing list commentary is more of the "ha-ha look what happened to him" variety than any serious attempt to claim that that particular case was really responsible for the attack, and again, that has little relationship to Bell.

So in the end I just threw it all out. Wnt (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Fantastic! Keystroke (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Writing press releases for a militia

Contrary to the edit summary, the claim does appear in the source:

The affidavit also said that officials tied Bell to a militia group through his computer documents.

"From April 1995 to November 1995, Bell had written press releases for the Northwest Independent Militia Training Association, which met in Vancouver," the affidavit said.

Is there any other reason to remove the material? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! I was looking at this link rather than this one. I think we should probably change the link order to be more clear. Currently it looks like the "'They're seeing demons in dark,' says Bell's mother" article is the one which is being cited with regards to the press releases. Keystroke (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved that ref to the end of the sentence (it was there anyways) so hopefully it's clearer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I did some further research and can't find anything about this organization on the net which shows it as being a militia, despite the word militia being in its name. This site says that it met once a month at a pizzeria. Is there anything else important about this group besides Bell's purported involvement? As there is no other evidence to associate Bell with a militia, perhaps we should still remove this line. Keystroke (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's bordering on original research as we should rely on secondary sources to describe the group. But you're right as this particular group seems very non-notable. So associating Bell with a militia group might be undue weight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Items found during searches

As Bell was not convicted of the following, would it be correct to remove these lines from the article? I think at least the "according to Bell's friends" should go because there does not seem to be evidence of it.

"Inside the car, investigators found bomb-making instructions, political literature and detailed information concerning cyanide and fertilizer.[7]

IRS officers raided Bell's home on April 1, 1997, and seized three semi-automatic rifles, a handgun, several computers containing indecipherable encrypted data, as well as dangerous chemicals including sodium cyanide and an alleged nerve-gas precursor[10] (according to Bell's friends, he had previously claimed to have produced sarin of the type used in the 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway).[7]"

Keystroke (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There are news reports claiming that Bell boasted of making sarin and had a precursor. There are some BLP issues to consider before believing them. The second source is rather vague about it, and I suspect it may simply be based on the first. The first (The Columbian) says that investigators said that two friends said that Bell said that he had made sarin. Now the precursor chemical named in the story, diisopropyl fluorophosphate, is not listed by Wikipedia in our sarin synthesis recipe...

The question we get into, in terms of WP:BLP, is whether "the allegations are presented as true". I would guess that in this case, perhaps not. Wnt (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For something like this which is potentially dynamite (well, ANFO, strictly, but you know what I mean) we should be extremely wary of using a single source. If the same thing is said in multiple sources then that would be an indicator that it has gone through more than one fact check and also that it is widely considered significant. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this gets more and more complicated the more I look into it. First, I was mistaken when I said "two friends" above - actually there was only one I could find. (It would be easier to do this if Wikipedia BLP guidelines would allow the person(s) to be named in the article, so editors be sure whether there is only one) Also, the Columbian cites the court record, so the newspaper may not be the weak link here. Then there's confirmation of a sort - a book says that the chemical found could be used to make a nerve gas "like" sarin, citing a now dead EPA hyperlink. (Alas, sometimes "like" could be used here to include sarin; but usually it would be interpreted to mean some other gas. For that matter, diisopropyl fluorophosphate itself could be called "a nerve gas like sarin"... just a very weak one). And to top it off the source links an IRS claim that they have an email where Bell claimed to make sarin, but they can't make it public because a plea bargain (non chemical warfare charges) prevents it.

Now the way I would prefer to have BLPs edited, which I shall dub the Goose Protocol, is that we'd chew up whatever sources we can get and deposit them into the article without much thought at all. But as you know I've encountered very different BLP practices in which we're supposed to weigh sources against one another and decide for ourselves what we believe. The problem is, I don't see a way to do this without imposing my personal bias.

To me, it seems entirely plausible, even likely, that IRS agents found this somewhat toxic chemical, found one vaguely worded e-mail that they interpreted in the most criminal way possible, got a water department employee fired over a careless conversation about potential tampering and then browbeat him with legal threats until he confirmed Bell was making sarin, and then used this cobbled-together raft of charges as a bargaining chip to get him to plead guilty to another debatable charge. I don't personally believe he made sarin, because if he did, why isn't he dead? Where's the glove box, the fume hood, the protective suit ... all the things a person needs to make a drop of something when a drop can kill him and his neighbors too?

Yet I would imagine that someone from the IRS would have a whole different take on how these documents come together - in particular, on the reliability of an IRS allegation for a BLP.

Now I can take this material out altogether, but it seems mostly like an arbitrary act of censorship based on personal opinion rather than a responsible editorial decision. And I'm afraid that's how I feel that many BLPs are now being edited. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for summing up my thoughts and taking them further! Perhaps I should be more verbose here as I was also wondering, "why isn't he dead!" - while I don't know how difficult it is to make sarin, I imagine it is far more difficult to make sarin.. and live to brag about it! I mainly want to remove this because it colors the whole article in a way that, if it isn't true, paints Bell in a very different light than the established facts. Also it reminds me of the "methamphetamine manufacturing charge" which I removed before - there was info in the article which said he was charged with making methamphetamine, but IIRC, it was only the police who said they found a methamphetamine lab after the raid. Once the chemicals were tested it was shown they were unrelated to methamphetamine... Keystroke (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What remains relevant however is the fact that all of those allegations were publicly made at one time or another by government officials and show the color of their interactions with him. It appears the most offensive thing (to them) was his essay on "Assassination Politics", however convictions related to his stalking of the agent(s) were in his view apparently related to an incident or series of incidents where he believed that a BATF agent had arranged for mistreatment while in prison, specifically a "hit" carried out by another inmate who was alleged to have been paid in the form of leniency and preferential treatment in his own sentencing situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Bell's Patent Application on Isotope-modified optical fiber

Discussion started by banned editor User:James dalton bell

In July 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office published a patent application by James Dalton Bell, see http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2013101261A1.html . The invention consists of an isotope-modified optical fiber with some advantages, such as higher 'velocity factor', lower optical loss, lower dispersion, and wider optical bandwidth. 24.21.41.211 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

-"Ravensfire" reverted this posting without explaining why a 'secondary source' is necessary to establish the significance of this patent application. At the very least, it is rude for someone to simply revert a (non-malicious) edit without initiating a discussion and including a credible argument as to why the revert is appropriate. The fact of the patent application is verifiable through the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office), and in fact there is no better source for such information. Jim Bell has already been identified as an inventor, with a college degree, and thus his activities along these lines are proper subjects for this article. Another reason militating against such abrupt reverts is that there are clearly many people (many who work for the government)who are very hostile to Jim Bell's AP (Assassination Politics) idea, and would want to discredit anything that he has done. "Ravensfire" has the burden of showing that his revert was appropriate. "Ravensfire" did not even bother to leave a comment in the "Talk" section, here, to clarify the what and why of his actions. 24.21.41.211 (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ravensfire is correct. Verifiability is the first step, notability as established by secondary sources is the second. There were over 200,000 patents granted by the USPTO in 2012 alone. Most of them are not notable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It would have been more accurate if you'd said, "Ravensfire is not yet fully demonstrably incorrect". Apparently verifiability isn't challenged, but you didn't state your definition of 'notability'. A plumber who invented a water faucet that lasted 10x longer than the previous best might not be 'notable' to the general population, but his invention would be 'notable' in the limited context of plumbers. Further, even if a patent is not 'notable' to the general population, it may very well be notable in an article about a specific person. For a different example, 1940's actress Hedy Lamarr was the co-inventor of 'spread-spectrum' radio transmission, and if you look at Wikipedia's article on 'Hedy Lamarr' you see a large section in it devoted to this invention. Is that invention 'notable'? Not in most contexts (particularly because it's 70+ years old!), but it IS notable in an article about Hedy Lamarr! I notice that neither Ravensfire nor you attempted to comment on the contents of the patent application in question. I also notice that Ravensfire never before did an edit to the 'Jim Bell' article: I wonder how he just happened across this edit, and 'knew' to revert it? Was he told to do it? Chances are good he won't have a (credible) explanation. Perhaps recognizing such an embarrassing slip-up, you came in (with a much more significant history here, I see)to clean up. Given the explanation of the benefits of the invention in the patent application (read it!) anybody with detailed knowledge of the fiber-optic field would see that it is 'notable'. And anybody who doesn't have such detailed knowledge, has no business expressing an opinion of its 'notability'. Perhaps your lack of comment on that patent's notability constitutes an implicit admission of your lack of fiber-optic expertise; If that's the case, and if you still question whether the patent application is 'notable', you should enlist some expertise, perhaps those paying close attention to the Wikipedia "Optical Fiber" article. No doubt hundreds, or even thousands, of fiber optics experts regularly read that article. 24.21.41.211 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

IP, thanks so much for your kind words. Hint - search for "watchlist". Now that we've dealt with the conspiracy theory aspects of your comments, on to the relevant aspects. NeilN made basically the same point I would make. Patents, in and of them selves, are essentially dime-a-dozen. At a MINIMUM, there needs to be solid secondary sourcing of the patent. Take your example of Hedy Lamarr which is an excellent on. The article doesn't just say "Lamarr was granted patent 12345" but gets into why a reader should care about this patent. It gets into why this invention was important, why it was developed, how it was used and the impact the invention had. There is none of that in your edit. The secondary source we're talking about isn't something to say the patent exists - that's not in question, but why is it important, how does it affect things, who uses this. Ravensfire (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. There are secondary sources in Lamarr's article which we use to discuss the patent and its impact. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ravensfire: Your having merely used the word, "watchlist", refers only to the generic existence of that feature...NOT why YOU used it, having never edited on this article before. Are you alleging you actually set up a watchlist, with this article included in it? When did you do that? Why? You see, your mere assertion that you did that, and responded to that alert, is just that: an ASSERTION. There are other possibilities. Further, I note that you already misbehaved: You didn't follow WP's BRD ("Bold, Revert, Discuss") policy. The policy you apparently followed was your own: "Be Rude, Revert TWICE, and Don't Bother To Discuss...until later, when you are called out". Further, the ostensible inadequacies you mention are, naturally, those that a few days or weeks of edits would naturally provide. There are probably millions of paragraphs in the millions of WP articles which, at some time in the past, started out small and should have been added-to. And, most of them were so improved. What's wrong with that? You, instead, decided to smother the new-born infant in the crib because he wasn't 5-6 feet tall, walking, talking, and working at a useful job. I wonder why! Also, you either didn't read the patent application, or you don't have enough background in fiber-optics technology to understand its significance. So, you don't have any sort of special expertise or authority to comment here. The people who DO have such expertise should be brought in, and I will do so. But I think you need to cease meddling with material you demonstrably don't understand. Answer my questions about why you bothered to show up, because otherwise you'll establish more 'troll-credentials' than you've already done. Check with the Talk Page for the "Optical fiber" WP article. 24.21.41.211 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoa - forget the tin foil there? Why do you really care why or why not someone has an article on their watchlist? If you really, really must know ... beats the heck outta me. Been on there for a while. Probably from some serial vandalism that was reported that I decided to watch if it happened again. And it's nice to see you commenting on policies, but you should really look at that BRD thing again, especially the last part. Discuss. You didn't until essentially forced into it. I'm glad you did though. As for the snark, I respond in kind to others. You've kept the snark level high which obviously indicates how you want others to communicate towards you. Simply put, be nice and I'll be right there with you.

For the last part, nope, I don't know the significance and I don't need to know. No, seriously, I don't. What does need to know, however, are the secondary sources that can demonstrate that. It's not up to Bell or you to claim it's significant or why, it's up to secondary sources to say that. That's core to how Wikipedia works. Primary sources are great for some things but inherently biased for others, and this is one of those areas. What NeilN and I have both asked you for, and that you've ignored the request for, are secondary sources about the patent. For some reason you keep focusing on me which is diverting you away from what I've been telling you will help get this added to the article. If you honestly want to help, find those secondary sources that show why this is so cool. Ravensfire (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So a 5 second google search turned up something that might help. There's an article from 2012 from Lightwave Online that I'm 99% sure is about this and gives a lot of the background that NeilN and I have been asking for. The article is here. It looks like a trade magazine and while it doesn't have a WP article a search here showed that it has been used in other articles. I've got to head off for a bit but I'll try to throw a para together this evening with material from here. IP, if you can find other secondary sources that mention this, it would be helpful to note there here. Ravensfire (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason I want to know why you reverted that edit is that I question your vague and non-specific reason. So, yes, I REALLY REALLY must know. This vague reference to 'serial vandalism' needs to be explained: What 'serial vandalism'? When? By whom? Document your assertion. Do you really mean 'serial vandalism', or perhaps what you are talking about is 'edit warring' that doesn't rise the the level of 'vandalism'? Is it possible that what happened was a egregious violation of WP:BLP, and the violators prevailed by obstructing their opponents in some way?

Also, you claimed, "Discuss. You didn't until essentially forced into it." Actually, you're trying to turn the criticism around. It was _me_ who (first) made the comment on the Talk page, and then made that edit on the article. It was YOU who reverted, with no comment at all on the Talk page, which meant YOU violated the "Discuss" requirement. I was the one who forced YOU to begin to discuss the issue, as you have now finally begun to do.

Further, while I agree that an article from "Lightwave Online" could and should be cited, that does not mean that there is a need for further 'secondary sources' to describe the patent. The patent application was first published by the USPTO in mid-July 2013 (before that it was secret, by law), which means that now 'nobody' (except some corporations' lawyers and engineers, who read it after it was published mid-July 2013) are going to have seen it. Fortunately, the patent application itself describes in great detail what advantages accrue from the invention. Those advantages may well be "Greek" to the average non-technical person, but anybody who has even moderate expertise in the fiber optic field would be able to read it, and realize the implications. Obviously, however, comments about such material must be greatly trimmed-down, presumably to fit in 1-2 paragraphs in the article. I posted the very short reference, along with the URL to the www.freepatentsonline.com, to start the process going. (Precisely as I understood, and still understand, should happen.) And now, I've put a paragraph at the end of the "Talk" page of the "Optical Fiber" WP article, inviting an expert in that field to read the patent application, come to a conclusion as to the notability of the invention and patent, and write the relevant text. Which was my plan all along, had I not been...delayed. 24.21.41.211 (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I should add that I see the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office) as being a 'secondary source': It doesn't originate things; generally speaking, it cites (publishes) material provided it by the primary sources, those patent applicants. Magazine articles that quote material published by the USPTO are, arguably, tertiary sources. 24.21.41.211 (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The USPTO publishes primary documents. It publishes no analysis and doesn't exercise editorial judgement. Therefore it is a primary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop playing games, NeilN! You are not, and never have been, an unbiased editor! WP:Secondary Sources, says: " A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, [the latter] which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.". The document written by the patent applicant (or his attorney) can be considered the 'primary source'. However, the USPTO has absolutely NO direct knowledge of the source of the information contained within a patent application, and so the document published by the USPTO cannot possibly be considered from a 'primary source'. I do not see any indication from WP: Secondary Source that a 'secondary source' MUST 'publish an analysis' or 'exercise editorial judgment', as you claimed. In any case, the USPTO DOES 'publish an analysis', internally, and it 'exercises editorial judgment', in that it may (and frequently does) order the patent applicant to modify the patent application to correct errors: Eventually, the cumulative result of those edits becomes published by the USPTO as a granted patent. Notice that WP:Primary Source states: "Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, [the latter] which cite, comment on, OR build upon primary sources." [emphasis of 'or' by capitalization mine]. Pay particular attention to the word "OR". The USPTO clearly cites material from the application, as it does from all such applications, and in fact did so heavily, even though it did not comment on the patent application. The USPTO did, somewhat, 'build upon' the patent application, as it does with all (as published by the USPTO) patent applications: It puts them into a standardized format, for example adding dates and application numbers, prior-art references, etc. In short, it is obvious that the output of the USPTO cannot possibly be labelled as a 'primary source'. 24.21.41.211 (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, you're wrong. The text and images of the patent was submitted by Bell, untouched by the patent office. Formatting is irrelevant. Courts publish documents submitted by lawyers. These are still treated as primary documents. You can write all the text you want, every experienced Wikipedian is going to tell you the same thing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As is made abundantly clear by WP:No Orginal Research, as well as other articles, the question of whether a source is 'primary', 'secondary', or 'tertiary' isn't always obvious. There is ambiguity. You keep making abrupt, seemingly-definitive statements which are obviously intended to obstruct editing this article. At the same time, I've shown that the USPTO has no original, independent knowledge of the material in the patent application, and thus cannot possibly be a 'primary source'. Ergo, it must be either a 'secondary source' or a 'tertiary source', or perhaps something else. Resist this all you want, but you're continuing to display the troll-characteristics you've repeatedly displayed while editing this article since Feb 9, 2010.

I should also add that WP:NOR states, in relevant part: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.". In other words, I CAN use a 'primary source' from SOME purposes. And, it turns out that so far, I don't see any reason to do any more than quote various portions of the USPTO-published document. This means that EVEN IF that document could be considered a 'primary source', I can still employ it under WP rules. The short paragraph reverted (rudely, and twice) by Ravensfire did not identify any improper use of the (alleged implicitly by Ravensfire) primary source document published by the USPTO. Ravensfire arguably would have been correct if the mere citation of any primary-source document was, per se, a violation of WP rules. But that is not the case, as I have clearly shown. NeilN's attempts to back Ravensfire up by supporting his claim that the USPTO is a 'primary source', fail. First, because the USPTO is clearly a secondary source, and second, because even if it were (for some purposes) a 'primary source', it would still be citable under WP rules. 24.21.41.211 (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As a primary source it can be used the describe what Bell claims. It cannot be used to show notability or if the claims are valid. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN, for admitting that Ravensfire severely jumped the gun by reverting the original paragraph's edit before finding a GENUINE, specific fault with it. As for notability, you ought to also agree that in the context of an edit in the article "Jim Bell", this patent application is indeed 'notable'. Further, the appearance of the reference to this invention in that article in Lightwave Online now clearly establishes the notability of the patent application in the overall context of fiber optic technology. I'm still waiting for Ravensfire to explain and justify his recent arrival and involvement with the article, beyond the implication of a "watchlist" that he, or maybe somebody else, set up. 24.21.41.211 (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You can twist my words to suit yourself but anyone with adequate reading comprehension skills will see I did no such thing. Ravensfire's removal was fine as the editor who originally added the paragraph gave no sources to indicate why it was notable. Instead of cooking up laughable conspiracy theories, you should be thanking him for doing what you failed to do - find a source that could show notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

After more searching, that's the only secondary source I could find - a small, relatively unknown trade magazine that is, however, used as a source in other articles. IP, I've asked several times for you to help find secondary sources for this. Have you found anything yet, or have you even tried searching? Ravensfire (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"Twisting words" = "Defeating you in a debate". Since the original edited paragraph was, indeed, a work-in-progress, it was still improper for Ravensfire to revert it prior to a reasonable attempt to get it 'fixed' with the addition of 'notability' references. (In other words, don't revert: Complain here, on the Talk page, and wait a reasonable amount of time for a response. A week wouldn't have been excessive.) I still assert that within the context of the article 'Jim Bell', reference to the USPTO-published patent application is virtually automatically considered 'notable'. And, the original edit had included number of references to benefits that would have been obvious to any person with more than passing interest in fiber-optics As for your silly claim that Lightwave Online is a "relatively unknown" source: The fiber-optics field itself is inherently "relatively unknown", at least in regards to the technical details! The relevant question is, "Within the fiber optics field itself, is the online magazine 'Lightwave Online' "relatively unknown"? A google-search for 'fiber optic magazine' shows that Lightwave Online is one of the majors in the industry. 24.21.41.211 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ravensfire, if you agree that Lightwave Online's article, http://www.lightwaveonline.com/articles/2012/05/for-license-process-for-102-index-of-refraction-fiber.html is sufficient for 'notability' in the optical fiber industry, and if you have no objection to this also supplying 'notability' in the article 'Jim Bell' (an even easier call), then I (or somebody else) should be able to proceed and write a paragraph or two for the article. But, given that you have TWICE reverted the original paragraph with only minimal subsequent direction, I think you ought to explicitly buy into this, and agree not to 'ambush' the person who tries, for yet a third time, to post an edit. Let's not allow the goalposts to be moved, okay? 24.21.41.211 (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

NeilN, section looks solid. That's about all I would have pulled from a single source. Wish there was something more out there but there isn't. I almost put something in about Bell's startup but given it's also really only mentioned in that one article I've just created some redirects for the company to Jim Bell. Ravensfire (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As Bell's obviously not notable for the patent yet and none of the claims have been tested and there's a degree of skepticism about the claims significantly adding to the content would be WP:UNDUE in that no other reliable sources have been presented that discuss the patent. This article isn't the place for Bell to discuss or promote what may be a fringe theory, especially one that's gotten little attention. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)