![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page refers to geopolymers as being Al-Si based, yet Davidovits refers to a form of limestone concrete based geopolymers used in the construction of the Egyptian pyramids. Surely the definition needs broadening. Jerrydsj ( talk) 09:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree - Davidovits also claims clay minerals, diamond, silicone rubber and a variety of other materials as being "geopolymers" in his recent book - but this definition is not commonly used in the broader research community. The work of Michel Barsoum at Drexel University on the limestone/pyramids side of things has shown little or no geopolymer-like (alkali aluminosilicate gel) character in the pyramid stones.
Johnprovis (
talk)
04:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Prof. Joseph Davidovits ( talk) 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I was wrong about the diamond (and have edited the comment as such) - I evidently misremembered my reading of your book when I made that comment in 2010. Regarding
silicones - the categories currently listed at the bottom of that article are: Cosmetics chemicals, Silicones, Thermosetting plastics, Siloxanes, Adhesives. This (correctly in my opinion) omits their description as an inorganic polymer. The text of that article says that silicones are inorganic-organic polymers - which is far more precise.
Johnprovis (
talk)
14:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi - Davidovit's theory is that the geopolymers are used as a cementing phase to hold natural limestone together. The limestone actually has no chemical role in such cements. Ars27 ( talk) 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
[ removed insulting comments by 184.45.20.31 dated 11:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)] ··· Vanischenu 「m/ Talk」 15:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Ignore the above comment. If you read any of the material on the subject or look at any of the patents for current work you will find Davidovitz continually cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.68.245 ( talk) 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Question: would anyone else agree with me in suggesting that the section "Ionic coordination or covalent bonding ?" is unnecessary here, and is a diversion/confusion from the focus on geopolymers? I propose that this should be removed, anyone agree/disagree? Johnprovis ( talk) 22:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC) --> ok, in the absence of any objections during the past 4 weeks, I will do this. Johnprovis ( talk) 13:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
See User talk:Vanischenu ( for future reference), the scientist, Sir Davidovits, himself has questioned the article content's accuracy. Here is the video on the same. Thank you!··· Vanischenu 「m/ Talk」 16:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been mandated by the "Geopolymer scientists community" to write a totally new article on "Geopolymers" that must replace the existing one, which is considered as being inaccurate. See the discussion at the last conference "Geopolymer Camp 2012" , second video at http://www.geopolymer.org/camp/gp-camp-2012 .
Review of User:JDavidovits/sandbox
Prof. Joseph Davidovits ( talk) 07:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Prof. Joseph Davidovits ( talk) 16:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The MacKenzie 1985 paper ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1985.tb15228.x), which is used here to highlight the importance of 5-coordinated Al in metakaolin, actually states exactly the opposite (quotes from the full text of that paper): - in the Abstract: A new model for metakaolinite is proposed, consisting of anhydrous regions of distorted Al-0 tetrahedra containing randomly distributed isolated residual hydroxyls associated with Al-0 configurations of regular octahedral and tetrahedpal symmetry. - p295-296 (journal page numbering): On mechanistic grounds the sites in metakaolinite ... must be 4-coordinated rather than 5-coordinated as in pyrophyllite (emphasis added)
The discussion of pentahedral aluminium in metakaolin came along later. Johnprovis ( talk) 19:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
References
I have shifted the redundant geopolymer cement article into the corresponding section here, and had a shot at some tidying throughout the article. I still feel that the whole thing is of marginal quality and represents a single point of view among the very diverse community working in this area, with an excessive number of links to publications and presentations of the Geopolymer Institute. I have left these more or less as-is for the time being, but the article as it stands does not reflect the advances in technical and scientific understanding which have been made in the past decade or so, and relies more than would be desirable on un-refereed publications. I have also tagged up various statements which need to be verified. Further input from anyone interested (and with the time to do this) would be highly desirable at this point, I think. Johnprovis ( talk) 09:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Several Geopolymer Institute members discovered only recently the vandalistic action carried out by User Johnprovis since June 09, 2015 on the Geopolymer article. Consequently, we reverted the current issue to the last revision by Leyo dated of January 29, 2015.
We have purposefully decided to refrain from acting sooner in order to observe John Provis’ behavior until he has completely disclosed his hidden motive. Why ? I explain it now:
The renown institution, Engineering Conferences International ECI had organized a conference named GEOPOLYMERS, May 24-29, 2015, at Schloss Herrnstein, Herrnstein, Austria. ( http://www.engconf.org/past-conferences/2015-conferences/geopolymers/ ). I had been asked by the conference chair and the co-chairs to present the Opening Plenary Speech, titled: The development of geopolymer science and technologies, scheduled for May 24 evening. There were 75 attendees including John Provis. Complying with the rules of this type of conferences, my presentation was not recorded and there is no transcript. I essentially directed my talk towards those scientists who are deliberately interchanging the notion of geopolymer into the one of alkali-activated materials AAM, claiming geopolymer being a subset of a low-tech construction material. I totally disagree and presented in my talk my concerns towards the evolution taken by John Provis in his duty as President of the RILEM Committee, Alkali-Activated-Materials, and his effort to denigrate the geopolymer concept, science and technology. The Introduction of the State of the Art Report, RILEM TC 224-AAM, STAR 224-AAM Alkali Activated Materials (2014) written by John Provis contains following sentences in the Section: 1.4 Notes on terminology (page 7), I quote: "....it should be noted that the Technical Committee is not necessarily in complete agreement regarding all the points raised here...." In other words, contrary to his pedantic claim, he only represents a single point of view. I continue my quotation from RILEM Report: "... In the context of this Report, the terms 'alkali-activated materials (AAM)' and 'geopolymer' are at least worthy of some comment... It is also noted that the term 'geopolymer' is also used by some workers, both academic and commercial, in a much broader sense than this [than just construction material, cement, concrete]; this is often done for marketing (rather than scientific) purposes..."
In other words, according to John Provis, the concept of geopolymer is a marketing tool, nothing else.
At this point, it is time to present some numbers. Provis states that J. Davidovits' work is "of marginal quality and represents a single point of view among the very diverse community working in this area". In the listing provided by Google Scholar on the date of February 8, 2016, the reference article by J. Davidovits "Geopolymer" is cited 1515 times by other scientists. As a comparison, the best article where John Provis is the sole author or first author, gets only 248 citations. Who is representing a single view?
Since 2014, in two public keynotes, I have pointed out this disarray by explaining to the scientific community why alkali-activated materials are not to be mistaken with geopolymer cement; these two concepts are not synonyms. See videos at the Geopolymer Institute website http://www.geopolymer.org/faq/alkali-activated-materials-geopolymers/ and on Youtube. More evidently, alkali-activated-materials cannot be confused with high-tech geopolymer/carbon fiber composites, heat and fire resistant resins, paints, coatings, high-temperature ceramics, and many more manufactured technologies thanks to geopolymer chemistry. Consequently, stopping what John Provis is willing to promote with the help of a few of his colleagues remains our prime concern.
Two weeks after his return from the Geopolymers conference in Austria, John Provis started his misleading conduct by editing the article on June 09, 2015 (see the listing in History). From June 09, 2015 on, till January 17, 2016, he has edited the text 25 times, taking out anything related to the polymeric notion of geopolymer and the various applications, with the target to transform it into a simple cement, or better in his mind into simple alkali-activated materials. He has done it step by step, and since we where not reacting, he continued his destruction work. His first revision from June 09 was reverted by RR420 so that on June 10 he mentioned in his second revision: " Clean up - don't revert this time please, it's not vandalism!). In fact, after 25 revisions, he had changed the essence of the article, merged the separate article "Geopolymer Cement" and triumphant stated on January 17: "Geopolymer cements: replaced section with text of 'Geopolymer cements' article and redirected that page to here, to remove wholesale duplication of content. Still needs a lot of tidying, though." [meaning removing all non-cement and polymer science references and shifting the whole into an alkali-activated article].
To all future editors: bear in mind that this is not an ordinary intellectual disagreement. It is an attempt to reduce a well-known and recognized relatively young polymer science branch, now taught at universities and used by various industries, into an alternative word to promote its limited low-tech cement alternative (also known as Alkali-Activated Materials or AAM).
Considering his ambiguous behavior by editing 25 times within 6 months and announcing on January 17, 2016 "... still need a lot of tidying ...", he diverted the content of the original "Geopolymer" article into "Geopolymer cement", to serve his own scheme: absorbing and high jacking the geopolymer technology as a subset of his alkali-activated-materials, according to the RILEM Report. You will agree this is pure vandalism and a shocking anti-scientific conduct from a Professor of Cement Materials Science and Engineering at the University of Sheffield, UK.
For several years, we thought that this disarray in the community by which geopolymer at large was a synonym for alkali-activated materials was a matter of misunderstandings, or an over simplification of a polymer chemistry by some civil engineers. In fact, we were surprised to discover that it was a deliberate attempt done by a small and yet defined group of people to use the word "geopolymer" as a cool marketing wording without any consideration for the real chemistry behind it. With all the evidences gathered now, some members of the Geopolymer Institute are thoroughly thinking of any legal complaint and will definitely inform their peers about this situation.
The original text represents our knowledge dating back to 2012. We shall update the new current article with any new scientific data acquired since that date. Please, be patient. Prof. Joseph Davidovits ( talk) 10:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Joseph - I have undone your wholesale reversion of an entire year's editing of this article by a number of people (including, but by no means limited to, myself), which also involved the cleanup of a lot of grammatical errors and mistakes in citation. If you want to disagree with the edits of anyone else, that is your prerogative, but please do it selectively rather than taking the nuclear option, and first familiarise yourself with the principles of Wikipedia, including the following: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule
We have had this debate in public and in person regarding your opinions of the term 'geopolymer' and its disconnect from any areas of modern cement science, and I don't wish to retread that history in writing here, other than to note that after the talk you gave in Austria on this topic, which included repeated personal attacks on myself and other prominent researchers which were completely inappropriate for a scientific conference (and are equally inappropriate here), several prominent colleagues who had heard your presentation sought me out afterwards to apologise on behalf of the community for your shameful and disgraceful behaviour (their words not mine).
Let me reiterate my position - not a single cent/penny/other unit of currency of my income relies on the use, or otherwise, of the term 'geopolymer'. As I pointed out in my own presentation in the conference in Austria, the reaction between alkalis and aluminosilicates existed long before you invented this word, and will continue to exist long afterwards. You cannot just rename and reshape an entire field of science and engineering because you don't like the descriptive terms others use. I am not trying to denigrate the concept, the existence or the value of geopolymers - I have built my career working in this research field - but rather am trying to describe this class of materials in a way which is logical and clear to the general scientific and technical community.
Regarding academic credentials - my activity in the area is shown in my Google Scholar page at https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=FnKgVdUAAAAJ&hl=en and we can let colleagues decide regarding whether I can be considered an active researcher and/or a reliable source.
I am not committing vandalism on the article at all, and would appreciate it if you were to edit with care and following the correct protocols. You will note that in my editing, I did not actually wholesale delete your content (regardless of whether I agree with many parts of it), and I would very much appreciate it if you were to respect the contributions of others as we do with your contributions. However, it is obvious that the two of us are not going to agree on this, so I am lodging a request for a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to adjudicate on this. Johnprovis ( talk) 09:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
A request was made for the dispute resolution noticeboard for moderated dispute resolution. I have declined the request for various reasons and am cautioning both of the parties. First, there was inadequate discussion at this talk page. Each editor had made one recent post, both of which were too long, didn't read. However, there has been considerable incivility. One of the editors has accused the other editor of vandalism, and should know that their edits do not constitute vandalism, but that they are merely yelling "Vandalism!" to "win" a content dispute. If they don't know that the edits are not vandalism, they should know it, and that the false claim of vandalism is a personal attack, and a serious personal attack. Both of you!! Discuss a few more days on this talk page. If that fails, you may try formal mediation, where the mediator has more knowledge of how to deal with editors who yell "Vandalism!". If you really think that there is vandalism, report it at WP:AIV and get told that it isn't vandalism. If all else fails, and there continue to be personal attacks, you can try WP:ANI, but no one wins at WP:ANI. Try discussion, and do not yell vandalism when there is no vandalism. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Geopolymer. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Geopolymer. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I came here wanting to learn more because a "geopolymer" has won an award at COP 26. I've ended up not understanding a darned thing. My first question is why this is not merged with geopolymer cements? My second is this: from the definition set out in the intro, the term seems to me to apply to "normal" concrete too. So what is it that sets this apart from "normal concrete" when water and wotnot is added to cause the reaction to start?
Beyond these two concerns, also I came across this paper ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328462723_Alkali_activated_materials_review_of_current_problems_and_possible_solutions) and yet no mention is being made of peer review of the downsides of "geopolymers" when it seems EXTREMELY strong NaOH is needed. What are the energy requirements? This is important because yes, I understand that no CO2 is released during manufacture, but by the same token if we hare having to deploy a lot of (say) electrical energy to synthesize the raw materials, then of course if the electricity is "dirty" then we're at a situation whereby CO2 is released during manufacture.
And again I find myself utter confused as to why this is characterised as (say) "Alkali activated material" (with reference to the title of the pdf linked above) when "normal" cement is also "activated", this time by CaOH, which is also alkali.
This entire subject is a mess and it seems to me anything which has a caustic agent thrown at it and then gets some sense of hardening effect gets to qualify. That means "normal" cement too, i.e that makes "normal" concrete?
(I'm posting this on the geopolymer cement page too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.0.41 ( talk) 16:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I tagged the article for factual accuracy based on the above (old) talk page discussions and this current ongoing discussion over at WP:FTN [1]. Hopefully, this can be straightened out over time. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page refers to geopolymers as being Al-Si based, yet Davidovits refers to a form of limestone concrete based geopolymers used in the construction of the Egyptian pyramids. Surely the definition needs broadening. Jerrydsj ( talk) 09:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree - Davidovits also claims clay minerals, diamond, silicone rubber and a variety of other materials as being "geopolymers" in his recent book - but this definition is not commonly used in the broader research community. The work of Michel Barsoum at Drexel University on the limestone/pyramids side of things has shown little or no geopolymer-like (alkali aluminosilicate gel) character in the pyramid stones.
Johnprovis (
talk)
04:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Prof. Joseph Davidovits ( talk) 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I was wrong about the diamond (and have edited the comment as such) - I evidently misremembered my reading of your book when I made that comment in 2010. Regarding
silicones - the categories currently listed at the bottom of that article are: Cosmetics chemicals, Silicones, Thermosetting plastics, Siloxanes, Adhesives. This (correctly in my opinion) omits their description as an inorganic polymer. The text of that article says that silicones are inorganic-organic polymers - which is far more precise.
Johnprovis (
talk)
14:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi - Davidovit's theory is that the geopolymers are used as a cementing phase to hold natural limestone together. The limestone actually has no chemical role in such cements. Ars27 ( talk) 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
[ removed insulting comments by 184.45.20.31 dated 11:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)] ··· Vanischenu 「m/ Talk」 15:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Ignore the above comment. If you read any of the material on the subject or look at any of the patents for current work you will find Davidovitz continually cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.68.245 ( talk) 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Question: would anyone else agree with me in suggesting that the section "Ionic coordination or covalent bonding ?" is unnecessary here, and is a diversion/confusion from the focus on geopolymers? I propose that this should be removed, anyone agree/disagree? Johnprovis ( talk) 22:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC) --> ok, in the absence of any objections during the past 4 weeks, I will do this. Johnprovis ( talk) 13:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
See User talk:Vanischenu ( for future reference), the scientist, Sir Davidovits, himself has questioned the article content's accuracy. Here is the video on the same. Thank you!··· Vanischenu 「m/ Talk」 16:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been mandated by the "Geopolymer scientists community" to write a totally new article on "Geopolymers" that must replace the existing one, which is considered as being inaccurate. See the discussion at the last conference "Geopolymer Camp 2012" , second video at http://www.geopolymer.org/camp/gp-camp-2012 .
Review of User:JDavidovits/sandbox
Prof. Joseph Davidovits ( talk) 07:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Prof. Joseph Davidovits ( talk) 16:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The MacKenzie 1985 paper ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1985.tb15228.x), which is used here to highlight the importance of 5-coordinated Al in metakaolin, actually states exactly the opposite (quotes from the full text of that paper): - in the Abstract: A new model for metakaolinite is proposed, consisting of anhydrous regions of distorted Al-0 tetrahedra containing randomly distributed isolated residual hydroxyls associated with Al-0 configurations of regular octahedral and tetrahedpal symmetry. - p295-296 (journal page numbering): On mechanistic grounds the sites in metakaolinite ... must be 4-coordinated rather than 5-coordinated as in pyrophyllite (emphasis added)
The discussion of pentahedral aluminium in metakaolin came along later. Johnprovis ( talk) 19:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
References
I have shifted the redundant geopolymer cement article into the corresponding section here, and had a shot at some tidying throughout the article. I still feel that the whole thing is of marginal quality and represents a single point of view among the very diverse community working in this area, with an excessive number of links to publications and presentations of the Geopolymer Institute. I have left these more or less as-is for the time being, but the article as it stands does not reflect the advances in technical and scientific understanding which have been made in the past decade or so, and relies more than would be desirable on un-refereed publications. I have also tagged up various statements which need to be verified. Further input from anyone interested (and with the time to do this) would be highly desirable at this point, I think. Johnprovis ( talk) 09:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Several Geopolymer Institute members discovered only recently the vandalistic action carried out by User Johnprovis since June 09, 2015 on the Geopolymer article. Consequently, we reverted the current issue to the last revision by Leyo dated of January 29, 2015.
We have purposefully decided to refrain from acting sooner in order to observe John Provis’ behavior until he has completely disclosed his hidden motive. Why ? I explain it now:
The renown institution, Engineering Conferences International ECI had organized a conference named GEOPOLYMERS, May 24-29, 2015, at Schloss Herrnstein, Herrnstein, Austria. ( http://www.engconf.org/past-conferences/2015-conferences/geopolymers/ ). I had been asked by the conference chair and the co-chairs to present the Opening Plenary Speech, titled: The development of geopolymer science and technologies, scheduled for May 24 evening. There were 75 attendees including John Provis. Complying with the rules of this type of conferences, my presentation was not recorded and there is no transcript. I essentially directed my talk towards those scientists who are deliberately interchanging the notion of geopolymer into the one of alkali-activated materials AAM, claiming geopolymer being a subset of a low-tech construction material. I totally disagree and presented in my talk my concerns towards the evolution taken by John Provis in his duty as President of the RILEM Committee, Alkali-Activated-Materials, and his effort to denigrate the geopolymer concept, science and technology. The Introduction of the State of the Art Report, RILEM TC 224-AAM, STAR 224-AAM Alkali Activated Materials (2014) written by John Provis contains following sentences in the Section: 1.4 Notes on terminology (page 7), I quote: "....it should be noted that the Technical Committee is not necessarily in complete agreement regarding all the points raised here...." In other words, contrary to his pedantic claim, he only represents a single point of view. I continue my quotation from RILEM Report: "... In the context of this Report, the terms 'alkali-activated materials (AAM)' and 'geopolymer' are at least worthy of some comment... It is also noted that the term 'geopolymer' is also used by some workers, both academic and commercial, in a much broader sense than this [than just construction material, cement, concrete]; this is often done for marketing (rather than scientific) purposes..."
In other words, according to John Provis, the concept of geopolymer is a marketing tool, nothing else.
At this point, it is time to present some numbers. Provis states that J. Davidovits' work is "of marginal quality and represents a single point of view among the very diverse community working in this area". In the listing provided by Google Scholar on the date of February 8, 2016, the reference article by J. Davidovits "Geopolymer" is cited 1515 times by other scientists. As a comparison, the best article where John Provis is the sole author or first author, gets only 248 citations. Who is representing a single view?
Since 2014, in two public keynotes, I have pointed out this disarray by explaining to the scientific community why alkali-activated materials are not to be mistaken with geopolymer cement; these two concepts are not synonyms. See videos at the Geopolymer Institute website http://www.geopolymer.org/faq/alkali-activated-materials-geopolymers/ and on Youtube. More evidently, alkali-activated-materials cannot be confused with high-tech geopolymer/carbon fiber composites, heat and fire resistant resins, paints, coatings, high-temperature ceramics, and many more manufactured technologies thanks to geopolymer chemistry. Consequently, stopping what John Provis is willing to promote with the help of a few of his colleagues remains our prime concern.
Two weeks after his return from the Geopolymers conference in Austria, John Provis started his misleading conduct by editing the article on June 09, 2015 (see the listing in History). From June 09, 2015 on, till January 17, 2016, he has edited the text 25 times, taking out anything related to the polymeric notion of geopolymer and the various applications, with the target to transform it into a simple cement, or better in his mind into simple alkali-activated materials. He has done it step by step, and since we where not reacting, he continued his destruction work. His first revision from June 09 was reverted by RR420 so that on June 10 he mentioned in his second revision: " Clean up - don't revert this time please, it's not vandalism!). In fact, after 25 revisions, he had changed the essence of the article, merged the separate article "Geopolymer Cement" and triumphant stated on January 17: "Geopolymer cements: replaced section with text of 'Geopolymer cements' article and redirected that page to here, to remove wholesale duplication of content. Still needs a lot of tidying, though." [meaning removing all non-cement and polymer science references and shifting the whole into an alkali-activated article].
To all future editors: bear in mind that this is not an ordinary intellectual disagreement. It is an attempt to reduce a well-known and recognized relatively young polymer science branch, now taught at universities and used by various industries, into an alternative word to promote its limited low-tech cement alternative (also known as Alkali-Activated Materials or AAM).
Considering his ambiguous behavior by editing 25 times within 6 months and announcing on January 17, 2016 "... still need a lot of tidying ...", he diverted the content of the original "Geopolymer" article into "Geopolymer cement", to serve his own scheme: absorbing and high jacking the geopolymer technology as a subset of his alkali-activated-materials, according to the RILEM Report. You will agree this is pure vandalism and a shocking anti-scientific conduct from a Professor of Cement Materials Science and Engineering at the University of Sheffield, UK.
For several years, we thought that this disarray in the community by which geopolymer at large was a synonym for alkali-activated materials was a matter of misunderstandings, or an over simplification of a polymer chemistry by some civil engineers. In fact, we were surprised to discover that it was a deliberate attempt done by a small and yet defined group of people to use the word "geopolymer" as a cool marketing wording without any consideration for the real chemistry behind it. With all the evidences gathered now, some members of the Geopolymer Institute are thoroughly thinking of any legal complaint and will definitely inform their peers about this situation.
The original text represents our knowledge dating back to 2012. We shall update the new current article with any new scientific data acquired since that date. Please, be patient. Prof. Joseph Davidovits ( talk) 10:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Joseph - I have undone your wholesale reversion of an entire year's editing of this article by a number of people (including, but by no means limited to, myself), which also involved the cleanup of a lot of grammatical errors and mistakes in citation. If you want to disagree with the edits of anyone else, that is your prerogative, but please do it selectively rather than taking the nuclear option, and first familiarise yourself with the principles of Wikipedia, including the following: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule
We have had this debate in public and in person regarding your opinions of the term 'geopolymer' and its disconnect from any areas of modern cement science, and I don't wish to retread that history in writing here, other than to note that after the talk you gave in Austria on this topic, which included repeated personal attacks on myself and other prominent researchers which were completely inappropriate for a scientific conference (and are equally inappropriate here), several prominent colleagues who had heard your presentation sought me out afterwards to apologise on behalf of the community for your shameful and disgraceful behaviour (their words not mine).
Let me reiterate my position - not a single cent/penny/other unit of currency of my income relies on the use, or otherwise, of the term 'geopolymer'. As I pointed out in my own presentation in the conference in Austria, the reaction between alkalis and aluminosilicates existed long before you invented this word, and will continue to exist long afterwards. You cannot just rename and reshape an entire field of science and engineering because you don't like the descriptive terms others use. I am not trying to denigrate the concept, the existence or the value of geopolymers - I have built my career working in this research field - but rather am trying to describe this class of materials in a way which is logical and clear to the general scientific and technical community.
Regarding academic credentials - my activity in the area is shown in my Google Scholar page at https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=FnKgVdUAAAAJ&hl=en and we can let colleagues decide regarding whether I can be considered an active researcher and/or a reliable source.
I am not committing vandalism on the article at all, and would appreciate it if you were to edit with care and following the correct protocols. You will note that in my editing, I did not actually wholesale delete your content (regardless of whether I agree with many parts of it), and I would very much appreciate it if you were to respect the contributions of others as we do with your contributions. However, it is obvious that the two of us are not going to agree on this, so I am lodging a request for a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to adjudicate on this. Johnprovis ( talk) 09:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
A request was made for the dispute resolution noticeboard for moderated dispute resolution. I have declined the request for various reasons and am cautioning both of the parties. First, there was inadequate discussion at this talk page. Each editor had made one recent post, both of which were too long, didn't read. However, there has been considerable incivility. One of the editors has accused the other editor of vandalism, and should know that their edits do not constitute vandalism, but that they are merely yelling "Vandalism!" to "win" a content dispute. If they don't know that the edits are not vandalism, they should know it, and that the false claim of vandalism is a personal attack, and a serious personal attack. Both of you!! Discuss a few more days on this talk page. If that fails, you may try formal mediation, where the mediator has more knowledge of how to deal with editors who yell "Vandalism!". If you really think that there is vandalism, report it at WP:AIV and get told that it isn't vandalism. If all else fails, and there continue to be personal attacks, you can try WP:ANI, but no one wins at WP:ANI. Try discussion, and do not yell vandalism when there is no vandalism. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Geopolymer. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Geopolymer. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I came here wanting to learn more because a "geopolymer" has won an award at COP 26. I've ended up not understanding a darned thing. My first question is why this is not merged with geopolymer cements? My second is this: from the definition set out in the intro, the term seems to me to apply to "normal" concrete too. So what is it that sets this apart from "normal concrete" when water and wotnot is added to cause the reaction to start?
Beyond these two concerns, also I came across this paper ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328462723_Alkali_activated_materials_review_of_current_problems_and_possible_solutions) and yet no mention is being made of peer review of the downsides of "geopolymers" when it seems EXTREMELY strong NaOH is needed. What are the energy requirements? This is important because yes, I understand that no CO2 is released during manufacture, but by the same token if we hare having to deploy a lot of (say) electrical energy to synthesize the raw materials, then of course if the electricity is "dirty" then we're at a situation whereby CO2 is released during manufacture.
And again I find myself utter confused as to why this is characterised as (say) "Alkali activated material" (with reference to the title of the pdf linked above) when "normal" cement is also "activated", this time by CaOH, which is also alkali.
This entire subject is a mess and it seems to me anything which has a caustic agent thrown at it and then gets some sense of hardening effect gets to qualify. That means "normal" cement too, i.e that makes "normal" concrete?
(I'm posting this on the geopolymer cement page too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.0.41 ( talk) 16:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I tagged the article for factual accuracy based on the above (old) talk page discussions and this current ongoing discussion over at WP:FTN [1]. Hopefully, this can be straightened out over time. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)