Talk:CERN

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2025

On 21 June 2025, Slovenia became a Member State of CERN

Press release: https://home.cern/news/press-release/cern/cern-welcomes-slovenia-its-25th-member-state Alkemyst (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Referentis (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This has still to be added to the list in the infobox as well as to the map of member states.

Partly done: @User:Alkemyst if you happen to have an updated map please feel free to upload or link. I've updated the infobox Dahawk04 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Outdated page

This page appears to be 6 years behind PearlJamminn (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2025

Warrior1789 (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

No request. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Chile is an associate member since 2025

Question: The section CERN#Enlargement (last bullet item) notes that Chile is eligible but must complete necessary accession and ratification processes before being designated as an Associate Member. Do you have any reliable sources indicating this has been done? LizardJr8 (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2025

In the first paragraph, currently states "Established in 1954, it is based in Meyrin, western suburb of Geneva, on the France–Switzerland border." Should be edited to "...*a* western suburb of Geneva..." 128.2.149.230 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Nubzor [T][C] 21:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

New Director-General

Mark Thomson is the current Director-General as of 1 January, 2026, but Fabiola Gianotti is still listed in the infobox. ~2026-25197-2 (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Infobox updated; thank you for bringing this up! :) 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 17:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Not until we have a reliable source to cite... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, please see List of directors general of CERN.

For sources specifically on this, here's CERN's article (in Apr'2025 talking about planned 2026-2030 management): . 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 21:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, we can't use a self-published source, and you telling me that I need to go find the proof for your addition is a clear violation of WP:BURDEN. If you can't add a source with your edit, it will continue to be reverted. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I updated again, included coverage from Nature article Ajheindel (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

See? That wasn't so hard, was it? ;) - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

... it feels so trivial to fact check.

... i don't get it. why can't CERN self publish on CERN's management?

... even then, the linked wp article uses a Guardian's news article.

i know that i should have added all this to the article, but whatever.

i just think it's so sky-blue that a google search can reveal the same stuff i saw when i searched for it. but never mind. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 05:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I have already given you WP's own article in agreement to the change. Both in the edit summary and the talk page.

I don't get how much more burden there is.

Literally the first picture of the linked wikipedia article is the photo of M Thomson. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 05:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

On the question "why don't i add the source into the article": I'm on mobile phone. I really expected another Wikipedian, when interrogating an unsourced edit, check the sources given in summary or do a minimum amount of research before reverting for the second time.

...tldr - Why not you add the citation? The link's right there. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 06:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

"I expected someone else to do my work for me" is exactly why WP:BURDEN exists, are you really that lazy?

"It feels so trivial to fact-check", so, you just automatically believe everything you're told? How sad...

"I know I should have done this, but whatever" is an absolutely terrible attitude to have when writing an encyclopedia.

If your information was incorrect, how many people would have seen that incorrect content before it was fixed? What's to stop anyone from putting their own name there without a source? For the same reason, self-published sources (or other Wikipedia articles) can't be used because anyone can create a website and write whatever they want on there, we need the content to be verifiably correct. These are the rules here, if you don't like them, there are plenty of other websites where you can write whatever you want without the need for accuracy and reliable sources. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey,

I think it's really egregious for you to say I'm not doing the WP:RS thing,

'when Wikipedia has an article specifically about CERN's management, and it supports the edit', and I pointed it out to you.

Can you get the point? You've already been here for 20 years! 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 16:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Yup, been here almost 20 years, so I clearly know the rules better than you... Wikipedia can not be used to cite Wikipedia... can you get the point? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm just slowing the machine down, then.

Thanks for the WP:SELFSOURCE link, I didn't know about it before.

My rationale is that keeping Wikipedia up-to-date can take precedent to keeping its references, I see it's wrong now.

I've been used to the habit of seldom reverting others edit and almost always try to find references for them as a way to improve WP, not realizing that I'm expecting the same from other editors. That's on me.

Anyways, I should unwatch this page and leave it be. Bye. It's deeply upsetting discussing this, although I accept that I'm being a really rough and unreasonable person to deal with, too. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 16:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why me asking you to simply follow the rules around here is "deeply upsetting", but you can do as you please in-regards-to watching or unwatching any pages. Up to date is always a good thing, but it needs to be sourced, and you telling others to find a source for your edit was against the rules. That's all, learn from your mistakes and carry on, no need to be upset. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

There are many ways to ask people to follow rules, some harsher-sounding than others. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 17:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "Not until we have a reliable source to cite... " is harsh-sounding... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I want to come back to the question about the self-published source in this case. I totally get why an article published by a *person* on the topic of that *person* cannot count as source and obviously why Wikipedia cannot be used as source on Wikipedia.

But in this specific case, when the question is about the fact "Who is DG of CERN?", I'm wondering who else would be the single source of truth for this fact other than CERN itself? How does the news source know about it? Well, they read a press release by CERN, and then asked people at CERN about it, so all the information about this fact are coming from CERN anyway - and this is not by accident but due to the very nature of this fact. There is no "independent research" anyone could conduct on this fact to find a different perspective or anything. Remember: we are merely speaking about the name of the DG here, not his agenda or whether it's a good or bad choice, on these topics I would agree CERN itself could be heavily biased, but as long as it's only about the name, this does not apply. Why would an "independent" source be more reliable then the Organization itself to verify this fact?

Don't get me wrong, it's good that Wikipedia has many rules. It can be nerve-wracking sometimes to adhere to all of them and especially for a newcomer (and I would consider myself as such), it poses a sometimes impossibly high burden, but I totally get why it is important to ensure the quality. However, rules are there for a reason. And if the reason is obvious, but the rule doesn't really help towards this reason, it's maybe possible to be flexible about the rule and use reasoning instead of a very rigid use of that rule.

Also, there are many places in this page where CERN itself has been used as a source, for example for new member states, or for the budget (especially that last fact, will certainly not be found anywhere else - and if it is, it would almost certainly link back to that same document published on the CERN Document Server). Alpaca95 (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

And on your citing of Wikipedia:BURDEN: Literally one paragraph below that you find Wikipedia:BURDENWAIT. I quote: "Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added."

So this could have also been an option instead of twice reverting an edit for a fact that was very obviously not wrong (Mark Thomson had been elected over a year ago so it was not a disputed fact or anything). Alpaca95 (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It's fine; we're fine now and I invited Adolphus for Mountain Dews. It's a minor to inconsequential issue that's fixed with a simple {{cite}}. Back then I was on my mood and got all this into this mess instead of just... like, citing it. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 08:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for pointing to that, that's actually a pretty wholesome conversation and I'm glad that dispute got resolved so peacefully in the end. Alpaca95 (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

On the second revert: it's normal for wikipedians to sometimes do things perceived to be a bit jealousy. It's part of the job - especially for ones doing tens and hundreds of edits a day.

Ultimately, it's a small issue. A simple "I get your point and I recognize my own issues" and moving on is the best way to keep everyone productive. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 08:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)