I’d just like to say “Thank you” for all your nice words about MFE and for your efforts to get the reference restored.
John Red
7 Likes
It is unfortunate that the controversy caused you to change colour !
Regards.
7 Likes
Was the book removed again? I don’t see it listed
It simply has not been re-added after the editors with computational expertise confirmed its standing. The editor who removed it was asked if he objects to re-adding it and has not replied in over a week.
What are his actual qualifications for credibility. Does he even hold a doctorates degree
The editor who initiated the discussion over the merits of MFE on the talk page (Schazjmd) has reinstated the reference to it on the main page, let’s hope it sticks around this time.
7 Likes
Looks like it hasn’t been reverted…
For clarity: I did initiate the discussion about this edition war on the talk page, as a non-registered user.
2 Likes
I thought so. Thank you @PierU.
Apart from the Wikipedia page, how about listing representative books for learning Fortran in some part of the top / pinned thread in this Fortran discourse (so that people new to Fortran can find relevant resources very easily)…? It might be useful to create such a pinned thread and just let it “open”, such that anybody can add books, learning materials, links to slides for HPC etc anytime).
Although Wikipedia pages have been a great resource to learn various things, I personally tend to ask LLMs more recently for searching such materials (rather than looking at various sites). As far as I experienced, recent students also seem to use LLMs very frequently for such purposes. For example, if I ask this question as a prompt to ChatGPT:
Could you tell me some representative books for learning Fortran?
it gives the following response (but please note that the response reflects my past questions about numerical calculations, so it is likely that the reply would be slightly different if you ask the same question).
(Response of ChatGPT)
Certainly. Below are widely regarded, representative Fortran textbooks , grouped by purpose and Fortran standard. These are commonly used in scientific computing and HPC , which seems relevant given your previous questions about MPI/OpenMP and numerical software.
Classic & Still Very Useful
J. J. Dongarra et al. – Fortran 90/95 Explained
- Best for: Understanding modern Fortran design philosophy
- Level: Intermediate
- Why it’s good:
Written by members of the Fortran standards committee. Very precise and authoritative. - Covers: Fortran 90/95 features (modules, array syntax, derived types, procedures)
- Comment: More explanatory than tutorial; excellent as a reference.
Michael Metcalf, John Reid, Malcolm Cohen – Modern Fortran Explained
- Best for: Comprehensive understanding of modern standards
- Level: Intermediate → Advanced
- Standards: Fortran 2003/2008/2018 (depending on edition)
- Why it’s good:
Considered the definitive reference for modern Fortran. - Comment: Not beginner-friendly, but invaluable once you know basics.
Beginner-Friendly Introductions
Stephen J. Chapman – Fortran 95/2003 for Scientists and Engineers
- Best for: Learning Fortran from scratch
- Level: Beginner → Intermediate
- Why it’s good:
Clear explanations, many examples, minimal legacy Fortran. - Comment: One of the most popular introductory textbooks.
Ian Chivers & Jane Sleightholme – Introduction to Programming with Fortran
- Best for: Absolute beginners
- Level: Beginner
- Standards: Fortran 95/2003
- Why it’s good:
Step-by-step pedagogy, exercises, good for self-study.
Scientific Computing / Numerical Focus
Chapman – Fortran for Scientists and Engineers
- Best for: Applied numerical computing
- Level: Beginner → Intermediate
- Why it’s good:
Emphasizes arrays, numerical methods, and performance-aware coding.
Blevins – Introduction to Fortran 90 for Scientists and Engineers
- Best for: Compact introduction
- Level: Beginner
- Comment: Short and practical, good if you already program in another language.
Modern Fortran & Best Practices
Curcic – Modern Fortran: Building Efficient Parallel Applications
- Best for: HPC-oriented Fortran
- Level: Intermediate → Advanced
- Topics:
- Fortran 2008/2018
- Coarrays, OpenMP, MPI interoperability
- Why it’s good:
Modern coding style, performance, and parallelism. - Highly recommended if you plan to write production scientific code.
Legacy Fortran (Only If Needed)
Ellis, Cowell, & Jasak – Fortran 77 Programming
- Best for: Reading old codes
- Level: Beginner
- Comment: Only useful if you must maintain legacy Fortran 77 code.
Suggested Learning Path (Efficient)
Since you already seem comfortable with numerical methods and HPC, I would suggest:
- Chapman (for syntax & basics)
- Dongarra et al. – Fortran 90/95 Explained (for language understanding)
- Curcic (for modern, parallel, production-quality Fortran)
- Keep Modern Fortran Explained as a reference
In short, it says “MFE is the definitive reference for modern Fortran”, which seems to encourage LLM users to consider it as a primary learning material, although an additional listing in the Wikipedia page would also be very nice.
I have read this thread with interest and incredulity. I find it extraordinary that the Wikipedia authorities let an obvious BOT continually remove justified references to such an important reference work as MFE. I have in the past contributed one or two edits to Wikipedia articles on technical subjects that I knew about but I’m mostly just an naive user. This dispute has largely destroyed my faith in Wikipedia, sadly.
3 Likes
I noticed that the top response from your ChatGPT query, Fortran 90/95 Explained, is attributed to the wrong authors, J. J. Dongarra et al.
Remember that however annoying this case was, 1) every project has its problems that does not discredit the whole thing (just look at the Linux kernel drama at times), 2) it ended well with the book being re-added after a number reasonable editors jumped in (following the efforts of members of this community to get an objective decision).
There have been several comments in this thread about exactly that point, but regarding other controversial fields such as climate change, that have been censored by the discourse editors. If those comments, some of them early in this thread, had been allowed, then you certainly would not be surprised either that it has occurred in the past (over about a 20 year period with climate change), or more recently regarding other controversial topics or other topics of commercial and economic importance. As far as I know, there is no ultimate solution to this problem, it is just the nature of human interactions and of human society in general. I expect this post to also be censored, and I don’t fully understand why it would be, but even that is a central part of the underlying problem, namely that different people simply have different opinions.
I fully understand that controversial topics in politics, religion, or even (in some quarters) climate change might cause fights to break out on Wikipedia: here we do indeed have to cope with vagaries of human nature and wildly differing opinions. But I have always found Wikipedia to be a remarkably useful resource for non-controversial technical topics. I am simply astonished, and dismayed, that the citing of a well-known reference work written by widely-respected experts such as Metcalf, Reid, and Cohen should have been in the slightest degree controversial. My opinion of Wikipedia has dropped, permanently, by the fact of this dispute, whether or not it gets resolved sensibly in time.
That was me, I had to hide/edit a few posts unfortunately in this thread, because people have complained about them and we do have a Code of Conduct which says not to discuss politics. I am not happy about it, and not everybody is happy about the result, but at least we can continue having a civil discussion and not be upset at each other. The alternative is that I don’t do anything, and the result would have been much worse, because once insults start coming, you cannot take them back and everybody loses.
2 Likes
I also found the reaction too strong, but the reference was removed because of a violation of wikipedias rules.
I also understand the frustration that the behavior of MrOllie causes (btw, I think he’s a person or a group of persons with a lot of technical help, not a bot). However, being so strict might have helped wikipedia to survive as a non-profit community project for a long time.
My experience with contributing to wikipedia was very positive so far and I find it amazing that the whole project works so well. I think it is legitimate to say that most of the LLMs got a good share of their knowlege from wikipedia.
3 Likes
best thing to do then is rebrand Fortran as ft-lang and leave Wikipedia back in ancient history