Talk:Jim Puplava

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

I could find no articles containing significant news coverage of this person, although there were a few articles in reliable sources that quoted him or his interviews. Without better sources than those related to the subject's site or industry, this article should really be nominated for deletion. Flowanda | Talk 01:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the fields of investment and peak oil, he is very well known. He's about as well known as Marc Faber. Unless you know something about these fields (oil, metals investing, hyperinflation threats), do not edit this article in any way please. ► RATEL ◄ 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the same sources you added, and they still don't meet the kind of significant coverage needed to establish Wikipedia's definition of notability. And I would appreciate you not questioning my ability to edit this article, especially when my comments here -- and on your talk page -- deal with Wikipedia policy, not subject matter. Flowanda | Talk 03:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see from your talk page that this sort of thing is your stock in trade. Puplava is absolutely notable, with over 27,000 hits for "Jim Puplava" on Google. ► RATEL ◄ 04:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages can be deceiving; edits and Wikipedia policy are not. 27,000 hits obviously means nothing, but as long as the argument focuses on my inability to edit or ask questions, this issue will not be addressed here. I'll ask other editors handle it instead. Flowanda | Talk 04:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be wise. ► RATEL ◄ 04:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One other note: 27K kits for a quoted phrase that consists of a quite rare name does not "mean nothing". It is a clear and undeniable indication of his notability. For instance, I also have a rare name, but when I search for it (in quotes) I get about 300 hits. So, tell me, where did you hear that notability excludes internet notability and search engine prominence? ► RATEL ◄ 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Search results aren't a good indication of notability as there are many factors that affect quantity: distribution of free articles, promotion efforts, blog/comment postings, etc. And Google says its estimates are not always accurate; flipping to the end of the Puplava Google web search indicates about 1,000 hits. It's true that there may be useful websites listed in whatever results are there, but my point is that the notability guidelines point to the quality, not quantity of links.
As for the results themselves, the Globe and Mail seems to be best candidate for establishing notability, but it's still just a paragraph in a larger article; the two Wall Street Journal articles are the same kind of mentions; the LA Times abstract indicates the article is 16 words long; and the Kimber source only mentions Puplava in passing. The CXO website doesn't appear to be notable per Wikipedia, but it looks like it could be per the coverage found in a news search: CXO was the subject of two columns in the SF Chronicle, plus a number of similar quotes like Puplava's. The global warming stuff is unsourced except to Puplava's website and an unrelated article in New Scientist and shouldn't even be in the article until reliable sources can be found. Most of the other results I found were references/links to his column that are posted on free sites and in numerous blogs, which is probably what the bulk of those Google results are.
And just to clarify, most of my talkpage comments you cite above and on your talk page are from SPA spammers or others who think they can bully other editors instead of focus on editing, but feel free to use those tactics as they do work. However, any future editor reading this page can check those criticism against my edits to see that most of what I deal with is checking sources and the article content against what the source states, and that what I delete is spam or information that blatantly doesn't meet or disregards Wikipedia policy. To check your edits against comments, editors will have to go to your talk page history, which is also fine.
And per your response on your talk page, this article has been up since March 2. I placed a note on your talk page on March 16. I placed a notability tag and started a discussion here on March 23. I never tried to delete it, but said it needed attention. Flowanda | Talk 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a lot of those hits are blogs, it still adds to notability. Puplava and his radio show are referenced all over the web, especially anywhere inflation, precious metal investing and alternate investing are discussed. Just because he has not become a regularly quoted person in mainstream newspapers is immaterial. I can find literally thousands of entries in wikipedia that are less notable. He has one of the only internet radio shows covering investing, and a sustantial audience, in the tens of thousands. I appreciate your attempts to keep WP free of non-notable stuff, but this does not fall under that rubric. ► RATEL ◄ 21:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the account of "Ratel" has been banned due to abuse. I suspect Ratel is working for Jim Puplava. I can't believe Wikipedia is promoting someone's business like this. More notable than Jim Puplava is his brother Dan, who is the subject of an interesting investigation at the San Diego Union-Tribune: "Benefits manager's work questioned; County education office employee also acted as a broker" by Jeff McDonald. Interestingly, the Union-Trib story was published on March 17, 2009. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/mar/17/1n17fringe00134-benefits-managers-work-questioned/Mauralarkins (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puplava's views about climate change[edit]

I changed a statement "Puplava believes the planet is cooling". I changed a statement about myths to indicate that the source of the word was the New Scientist, not climate scientists. I reverted a recent edit which talked about "conspiracy theories" but also removed mention of "skeptics". There's been discussion recently about whether "skeptic" is a good word. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jim Puplava. 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 to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Jim Puplava. 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: 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) 17:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Puplava&oldid=1200309375"