Talk:Journal of Cosmology/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Lede

The lede currently does not summarise the article. from WP:LEAD the lede should "... explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." IRWolfie- (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You're exactly right. The lede should summerize the article. Why Headcomb is going around doing mass reverts of good changes is a mystery to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Working for NASA

Headbomb: Why did you remove the part that said that Hoover works for NASA?[1] The average person probably does not know who Hoover is (at least by name) or that he works for NASA. Earlier today, I added a sentence about NASA distancing itself from Hoover's paper.[2] Now, the sentence doesn't make much sense. Without mentioning Hoover's relationship to NASA, the reader is left to wonder why NASA would distance itself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of the word "widespread"

I disagree with the use of the word "widespread" to describe the level of criticism. The article currently quotes the NASA guy, PZ Myers, P Plait, and R Redfield as the scientific critics of the Hoover paper. That's 3 blogger scientists and a NASA bureaucrat (arguably with a scientific background). All of the news outlets seem to be quoting primarily this set of people. I dispute whether this represents a wide segment of the mainstream scientific establishment. If you read the 26 published commentaries at the JOC the are at least 5 or 6 times that number who are either openly supportive of the work that was done or at worst can be considered open minded and neutral. Given this "widespread" is needlessly POV and should be removed. --174.252.211.56 (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice Journal of Cosmology doesn't take kindly to criticism. Feedback published by Journal of Cosmology therefore cannot be taken as reliable and/or unbiased. This is corroborated by Ian Musgrave's analysis of the commentaries.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, so Musgrave counted 2 critical when there were 21. Now there are 26. Of the new ones only Redfield is critical. So 3 out of 26 commentaries published by JOC were critical. That would seem to support the summary of the JOC that:
"Members of the Scientific community were invited to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries or to speculate about the implications. With one exception as it was off topic, all commentaries received were published between March 7 through March 10, 2011. By far, most of the commentaries were positive and supportive of the evidence."
Correct? If we add the two new criticisms in the commentaries to the previous list we have 6 people critical and 23 people not critical. That's hardly "widespread" criticism. --174.252.193.151 (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and the fact that they don't take criticism well is irrelevant to this discussion. --174.252.193.151 (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The way that JOC responds to criticism is occasionally an indicator of whether it is a source of reliable scientific commentary or not. David Dobbs on a WIRED website quotes JOC claiming that nobody offered proof that Hoover's paper is false. This is the same citation as user:174.255.66.196 offered for this for the claim of prior peer review above. The shape of micrographic features is not a reliable guide to discriminating between fossils and plain abiogenic minerals.ASTROBIOLOGY MAGAZINE Simply offering images that look to the author similar to some living cell and then claiming that there is no proof that the interpretation is false is insufficient. It is like offering a picture of a roughly humanoid shadow in the woods and claiming that there is no proof that it is not the Abominable Snowman. This is not how science is done. We do not know if life originated in a primordial tidal pool, deep in a volcanically heated underground stream, or in biological material from outer space. Hoover's paper leaves us in the same state of ignorance as before because it does not offer good evidence that the micrograph features are not artifacts, are not contamination, and are not of purely mineral origin. The fact that JOC ignores this lack of evidence and claims the micrograph features are images of fossil life, insisting that they must be proved wrong before they drop the claim shows that JOC is not a reliable source for scientific information. A statement might be included in the article about JOC ignoring valid criticism of the science in Hoover's paper and stubbornly claiming that it represents proof of the panspermia hypothesis unless it can be proven wrong. I would do it myself but I am just too weary to get it all together with references at the moment.Fartherred (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to the inclusion of well sourced criticism of the journal. If there are sources making the observations you allude to then by all means include a suitable presentation thereof. But we need to provide a balanced view. There are obviously examples of the journal going on rants and lashing out at their critics. Fine, include discussion of those based on reliable sources. But there are also facts being asserted by the journal that are being suppressed in an attempt to paint the journal in the worst possible light. For example, the article currently only focuses on quotes which illustrate the rants but completely leaves out the raw facts pertinent to what transpired. This is a biased presentation.
The current article is written like it was created by PZ Myers himself. --174.255.65.20 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is a claim by JOC that there is no proof that Hoover is wrong. Fartherred (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

DRN thread

For those that are not yet aware, there is a thread concerning this article over at the dispute resolution noticeboard, where I am assisting. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Journal of Cosmology. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Challenge to Science and Nature

As much as it might provide insight into the comically delusional mindset of the 'Journal', I don't see how an unduly self-serving self-published open letter not given any coverage in reliable secondary sources belongs in the article. It would seem WP:SPS comes into play: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." (its repetition verbatim on a blog without further comment doesn't count) It is also a problem that the citation dates the letter to a year before the journal started and three years before the events it purports to respond to. Agricolae (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The journal's response to the controversy is appropriate for the article, since this is an article about the journal itself and the controversy it spanned. The dates have been fixed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks every bit like WP:OR to me. It also gives the false impression that this is how scientific conflict is adjudicated (that Science and Nature ever form a panel to evaluate papers in other journals), as opposed to it being a cynical ploy to attract attention (it worked, I guess, since here it is on the Wikipedia page). Agricolae (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
How is giving the journal's response WP:OR? And I don't know of anyone who would interpret this as an example anything other than the usual kook rant about persecution. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
It is OR when you take it directly from the primary source. We need to find an RS which reports on this letter. Otherwise we might as well start quoting Tweets that say 'I'll show them' just for the sake of letting people have their response. As to perception, their challenge has a patina of reasonableness. Anyone familiar with how science really works and aware of the vast difference in status between the 'Journal' and the journals would see this for what it is, but that is not our audience here. Agricolae (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you know what original research is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, good for you. And I don't know how "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" can in any reasonable way be twisted to justify including such a self-published item, even if it is a 'kook rant' (especially if it is a 'kook rant'). Agricolae (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass revert of improvements

Headbomb: Why did you revert all my changes?[3] Your edit summary "revert bunch of completely innappropriate changes" doesn't provide an adequate explanation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I also restored a bunch of them. If you're talking about the Penrose thing, see WP:JWG#What to include and WP:JWG#What not to include. If you're talking about something else, then could you explain exactly what you object to? Because in that case, I'm not sure I'd be following you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
{EC} No, I'm talking about everything you reverted. Can you please give me specific reasons why you did the revert, not some vague reference to a style guide? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Badly formatted references, irrelevant trivia, etc... It's easier to build up from a good version than adapt a bad version. Again, is there anything in specific you object to? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
{EC}Cite templates can be filled out later. That's no reason to remove content. Nor is it a reason to re-introduce grammar mistakes. As for "irrelevant trivia", can you explain how the content we added is "irrelevant trivia"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Well then, tell me what grammar mistakes there still are. Reference templates were filled in. And so on. So again, for the third time, what exactly is it that you're objecting to? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Your revert re-added a run-on sentence. This was explained in the edit summary. The fact that you're even asking indicates you did not carefully examine the edits you reverted. In fact, all the edits you reverted had edit summaries explaining each change. I already told you. I'm objecting to all the reverts - re-adding the run-on sentence, removing context to the Reliability section, duplicate WikiLinks, the lede not summarising the article. Now are you going to explain why you reverted these changes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
And that run on sentence was fixed. The reliability section is presented in context, the wikilinks belong, and the lede does summarize articles. It's as if it's you who did not read the current version of the article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • [4] The second sentence is still a run-on. This has now been fixed.
  • [5] Penrose is still missing. This sets up the rest of the sentence.
  • [6] The body of the article still contains two WikiLinks to panspermia. Actually, now that I look at it, there are actually 3 WikiLinks to panspermia.
  • [7] The lede doesn't mention the JoC's problems with reliability. In fact, most of the article is about reliability yet it's not even mentioned in the lede.
Note: In the time I took to write this, I see that Headbomb finally fixed the run-on sentence issue which I already fixed hours ago.
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 1) The sentence is not run-on.
  • 2) Penrose should not be mentioned, since he is not the Editor-in-Chief (see WP:JWG#What to include). He was guest editor for one issue, which is nothing more than a factoid.
  • 3) There's no reason why there can't be multiple wikilinks to panspermia. Two are sections apart, and one is to clarify a quote. This certainly isn't a case of overlinking.
  • 4) I missed that. That could probably be re-added

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually, WP:REPEATLINK clearly specifies that you shouldn't linking it twice like this in such a short article as this one is. The repeat linking is only allowed for articles that are rather long, such as featured ones, where the first is near the beginning and the second is near the end. This is not one of those cases. SilverserenC 23:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
@Headbomb
  • Yes, thanks for fixing it.
  • OK, I didn't realize that he was just a guest editor for one issue. We can leave him out. But it would be nice to save this content somehow. I think it provides a nice introduction to the rest of the section. Is there another editor we can use instead?
  • Yes, but these are extremely small sections. There are 3 links to pansperia within only 5 sentences of each other. Also, the second one is in the middle of a quote which we're supposed to avoid generally speaking.
  • IRWolfie started a section on the talk page just above this one. I think it should be re-added.
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"Is there another editor we can use instead?" -- What for? "I think it should be re-added." Then re-add it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Like I said, I like how it sets up the rest of the sentence. It also provides context over the controversy of its peer-review process.
  • I try to follow WP:BRD. Another editor added it, you reverted so I'm trying to make sure that you're OK with it being re-added back into the article. It seems that you are so I'll just restore it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Since submissions are usually sent out of house for peer review, the composition of the editorial board is irrelevant. It also appears to be an appeal to authority to give an air of legitimacy to the journal. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: First, I am not very familiar with this topic. I'm only here because references to this article (such as the one at the dispute resolution noticeboard) kept showing up on my watchlist and I decided to check it out. My only prior involvement with this topic was way back in March 2011 when this journal's reliability came up at the reliable sources noticeboard. I said that this doesn't appear to be a reliable journal:

IIRC, I have never edited this article until this weekend.

Second, at the same time I added (what could be considered) positive information about this topic,[8] I also added (what could be considered) negative information about this topic.

If my goal were to lend legitimacy to this journal, I am doing a very poor job of it. Most of the edits I made this weekend have since been restored. I'd like to get this back into the article in some form. Like I said, I like how it sets up the rest of the section:

I think that it provides context over the controversy of its peer-review process. Do you have any suggestions on how this edit can reworded for inclusion in the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added at all. The paragraph is well written as it is. The key idea is front and center in the first sentence, right where it belongs. I can't imagine what kind of "context" you think an off-topic remark about the editorial board would add. The editorial board does not preform peer review; that's done by out of house experts in the relevant field. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much what Dominus Vobisdu said. Editorial boards (or specific editors) don't need to be mentioned in articles. It's been brought up several times at WP:JOURNALS and discussions always resulted in a non-listings because there's no real criteria to be on some journal's editorial board, and usually a journal will get a bunch of well-known names on their side just to have "prestige by association", and impress the easily-impressible. But it's hardly relevant to the journal's day-to-day operations, and that information can be found on the journal website for those who really care. This is the reason why you don't see editorial boards on say our Nature/Nature/Physical Review Letters article (per WP:JWG#What to not include), although a history of Editor-in-Chiefs is more than fine (per WP:JWG#What to include). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
You're comparing apples with oranges. I don't believe that there's an equivalent debate to whether Nature is a reputable journal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Good apples and bad apples. We don't list them for any journal, even the silly ones like Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice and no argument's been made to make an exception here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
We do cover it if it's part of the controversy. Look, I am not familiar with Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice but it's a stub-class article. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF for why this isn't a good comparison. If you can find a featured article about an equivelent topic, then that's a completely different thing. Otherwise, there isn't an equivelent debate as to whether Nature is on the same level as Journal of Cosmology. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Take any journal, and they all lack listing of editorial boards (feel free to browse Category:B-Class Academic Journal articles, which contain the highest-quality journal articles, and witness for yourself how none of them lists the editorial board). I cannot think of any reason to do any different here, nor did you propose any except WP:ILIKEIT. Until a good reason is given to deviate from standard practice, we should stick to it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There are ample examples which show that editorial boards are not listed in academic journal articles. The composition of the editorial board for any journal is irrelevant. Also, Headbomb has given a relevant explanation pertaining to the editorial board of any journal. The only editor or editors added to the journal articles are editor in chiefs. This is standard operating procedure for the WP:Academic journals project. And it would probably be WP:UNDUE ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's proposed adding a list of this publication's editorial board to the article, so I'm not sure how this is an objection when it doesn't seem to apply. The issue of explaining why this journal's peer review is controversial seems to be being conflated with some style guide about what content from an info box should be included in the body of the article. What does the info box have to do with anything we're discussing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
@Quest: You have not answered the question on what the composition of the editorial board has to do with the quality of peer review. Three different editors have told you now that the editorial board does not carry out peer review itself, and that the actual editing work of a journal is carried out by the EIC and the AE's. Mentioning the editorial board either in whole or in part is off-topic in a paragraph about the controversy over peer review, unless there are reliable sources that specifically state that there is a connection between the editorial board or any of its members and the controversy at hand. There MAY be a whole other controversy pertaining to the composition of the editorial board, but without reliable sources, it would be OR and SYNTH to link that to the controversy over peer review. That would need to be treated in another section. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I did provide a reliable source which connnects the editorial board with its quality of peer review in relation to the Hoover paper.[9] How do you think I found it? Like I said, I am not familiar with this topic. I've never heard of Penrose until now. I did a Google search of reliable sources to find out what they said about this topic. I am simply reporting what they reported. The same source also reports what PZ Myers said, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
And that source is actually wrong to link Penrose to the Hoover paper, it was Chandra Wickramasinghe that called the shot on this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That article doesn't even mention peer review at all, even obliquely. Besides, the idea behind the Penrose comment is "inspite of", not "because of". The latter would be a good reason to include it in the article somewhere. The former isn't, really. There is no indication at all that Penrose himself is directly responsible for the sorry reputation of the journal. I disagree that mentioning Penrose or any member of the editorial board would add any important "context" to the section. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "That article doesn't even mention peer review at all, even obliquely. Besides, the idea behind the Penrose comment is "inspite of", not "because of". Well, "reputation" is a better phrasing than "peer-review". My point still stands even if it could have been expressed better.
  • "Besides, the idea behind the Penrose comment is "inspite of", not "because of"." That's what the word "although" means. I think I've captured the source accurately.
  • "I disagree that mentioning Penrose or any member of the editorial board would add any important "context" to the section." It does provide context because it helps explain why some people take it seriously. At least enough to report about it. Do you not see the difference between this publication and, for example, Journal of 9/11 Studies which advocates that the 9/11 terrorist attacks was a conspiracy by the US government? When the Journal of 9/11 Studies publishes a paper that claims that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition, virtually no one takes it seriously. OTOH, when the Journal of Cosmology publishes a paper advocating a one way trip to Mars, people do take it seriously.[10] The fact that Journal of Cosmology has prestigious editors is why some people take it seriously. Do you not see the difference? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The Mars paper was "taken seriously" (I use the words lightly, the press reported on it, but it made little impact in the science community, mostly because it's mostly a "what if" article) because it was Paul Davies and Dirk Schulze-Makuch that wrote it, and both are well-known popularizers of science. And then, as is the case with the press, when one outlet reports it, others report it was well, to not "miss out" on a potentially juicy story. It's got nothing to do with the editorial board. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say in your first point. If you are saying that because the paper had little impact in the science community that it doesn't warrant coverage in this article, Wikipedia is not a science encyclopedia. Instead, it's a general purpose encyclopedia. As a layman myself whose knowledge of the exploration of Mars is limited mostly by what I see on the Science Channel or in the news, I would have liked to see this covered in the article. In fact, I had no idea that this was the same group that proposed a one-way trip to Mars until I read about it WP:DRN. I shouldn't have to find out about this at WP:DRN. I should have found out about it here. The article doesn't even come close to exceeding Wikipedia:Article size so I don't understand this resistance to adding this. If you're trying to say something else, then I apologize for not understanding your point.
  • Regarding your last point, I think it does have to do with this publication's reputation. As I pointed out before (and you did not address), when the Journal of 9/11 Studies publishes a paper that claims that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition, virtually no one takes it seriously. Do you not see the difference between a publication that the some in the press takes seriously and a publication that virtually no one takes seriously?
  • There's been an awful lot of discussion to get relatively few changes in the article, even a change to fix a run-on sentence has been rejected and required multiple posts on this talk page to get into the article. I only came here after seeing this article appear on my watchlist. There are several accusations of WP:OWN by several editors on WP:DRN. I've only been here a few days, but I am reaching a similar conclusion. We all have to work together. The sky is not going to fall if we add a paragraph about Mars or add a phrase about Penrose/Wickramasinghe or whoever to the article. I suggest you relax the reigns a bit and allow other editors to work on the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of blogs?

R. Redfield is fine for RRResearch, he's famous enough that his article is fine, as is PZ Myers. But what makes this or this reliable? I mean, a Blogspot blog, really? SilverserenC 16:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

David Dobbs, well known science journalist of Wired, Scientific American, and several more... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
And the other? Or are they both him? And I suppose I should also be asking, aren't these statements from JoC's website copyrighted? Is he allowed to just copy them wholesale? If it's a copyvio, we can't use it. SilverserenC 16:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Ian Musgrave, well-known astronomy/evolution enthusiast, wrote for several outlets on related topics (e.g. [11] [12]), formal background in medical sciences and toxicology, Senior Lecturer at the University of Adelaide, making him well-qualified to comment on questions of biology such as this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question about David Dobbs and copyright. SilverserenC 17:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There's no rule which says we can't use copied material as a source, assuming it's otherwise reliable. The rule is that we should not link to copyvios. But linking isn't necessary for citing.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
But copyright violations are not reliable sources, I thought. We have no proof that the copied material is accurate anyways or whether any of the info in the alleged statement was changed. If the Journal took the statement down from their website and it can't be accessed through some sort of Web Archive, I really don't think using a supposed copy from someone's (no matter who they are) blog is going to cut it. SilverserenC 02:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a statement/press release reproduced with full citation information, not original material with commercial value, and both we and Dobbs make it clear where this was originally located. Even if this someone was a "copyright issue" (and it isn't), the source is not made any less reliable because of it. The material is accurate (I read the original statement, which is also reproduced elsewhere on the internet [13]) and Dobbs has no reason to falsify or modify the statement, nor any history of doing so in his entire journalistic career), and any claims to the contrary is simply being idiotic about the subject. You're grasping at straws and keep moving the goalposts. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
@Silver seren - If a newspaper article, for example, is reliable then it doesn't become unreliable simply because someone copies it onto their website (unless there's a concern about them altering the text). Reliability and copyrights are two separate issues.   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
True, but I think the concern is more whether the statement hosted on Dobbs' website is copyrighted to JoC. If it is and he is actually violating their copyright by having that there, I do believe policy says we cannot use it as a reference. I think the rules would be the same for newspaper articles, if someone is copying the text into another place. If it was a screen-capture or otherwise some sort of faithful representation of the statement, that might be different, but copying the text itself is something else, I believe. SilverserenC 03:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Which section of which policy are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  03:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:ELNEVER. While referring to External link sections, I believe this section also applies to references that have links externally. Linking to a website page that has copyright violations has the possibility of being considered contributory copyright infringement in a court of law, which is why we don't do it. SilverserenC 03:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I should have just followed the link in there, WP:LINKVIO is what I was looking for. SilverserenC 03:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Right. As I wrote above, we don't link to copyvios but citations don't require links.   Will Beback  talk  03:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
But if you're going to do that, wouldn't it be better to just make a reference describing the (now nonexistent) JoC page that was on it? SilverserenC 03:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
If you looked at the original page then you can cite it. But if you saw the copy then you should cite that.   Will Beback  talk  04:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Reproducing a statement or press release is fair use, not copyright infringement. It's perfectly acceptable to link to such reproductions when the original is unavailable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Headbomb. Fair use applies, and there is no copyright infringement. The statement is the equivalent of a press release, and can be posted by anyone in accordance with fair use, as long as it is properly attributed, as it is in this case. Whether Dobbs faithfully reproduces the original is a seperate matter. There is certainly no reason to believe that the text he presents is anything but a faithful copy of the original. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Earlier, I asked about the copyvio status here. Moonriddengirl replied that it would be better if we used a source that reproduced the statement along with critical commentary, such as this, rather than just a copy of the statement by itself. So, if you switch the Dobbs source out with that, it should be good. SilverserenC 18:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
That is not a faithful reproduction of the original. Several sections were omitted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Then any other source that would be considered reliable, has the full statement, and has critical commentary would be better. You stated above and provided a link that shows that there are a fair number of source options to choose from to use instead of the Dobbs one. Just replace it will one of those. SilverserenC 04:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
As has been explained to you several times now, the citation is completely appropriate, hosted on a website who's integrity is not in question, vetted by a well-known journalist, nor does it constitute an illegal hosting of copyrighted material content, so there is zero need to waste our time to replace it with anything else. Go wikilawyer elsewhere please. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl and Yoenit both stated that it would be better to have a source that is using the statement with added critical reception. I don't see the issue here. Just replace it with one of the other available sources that includes critical reception, rather than just a plain copy of the statement as the Dobbs source is. SilverserenC 05:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Fabrication is not verifiable.

Regarding the following statement:

In early March 2011, the journal drew widespread criticism for the publication of a paper by Richard B. Hoover (a NASA engineer) which proposes that life on Earth began on another planet, which then collided with another astronomical body, and the resulting debris carried life from the original planet to Earth.

the highlighted portion of this sentence is a complete fabrication, apparantly by Headbomb.

If you actually read the paper, which appears below the commentaries on the journal's website, you will find that it:

  1. Does not claim to be evidence of panspermia
  2. Does not propose that life on Earth began on another planet
  3. Does not assert that said planet collidied with another astronomical body
  4. Does not assert that the resulting debris carried life from the original planet to Earth

This needs to be corrected, obviously.

I propose that we simply use a description of the content of the paper from the abstract of the paper itself which changes the above fabrication to the following true and verifiable statement:

In early March 2011, the journal drew widespread criticism for the publication of a paper by Richard B. Hoover (a NASA engineer) which discusses "the implications of the detection of fossils of cyanobacteria in the CI1 meteorites to the possibility of life on comets, Europa and Enceladus."

--AgentNinetyNine (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nov 16, 2018 - the site "Journal of Cosmology" has been down for several days.

As of Nov 16, 2018 - the website for the "Journal of Cosmology" has been down for several days. (my personal experience) It could be temporary as the notice says, or the site could be shut down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.212.210 (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC) - As of Dec 5th 2018 - The website seems to be working again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.212.210 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Respected journal

As I see it we can't imply this journal has any kind of academic credibility. Saying "Discipline Cosmology" implies it has. I can see the objection to using an info box that is used for respectable academic journals. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable take. In general, I'm not entirely unopposed to using templates like this a bit loosely, but the problem I see here is that there are three different websites that are included in this mess. jps (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
That is a red herring. It's not "infobox respected journal" it's "infobox journal". The journal deals with cosmology, so we say it deals with cosmology. This is basic information, independent of the quality of the journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
What's wrong with infobox website? jps (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
It omits most things that are relevant to journals, like standard abbreviations, including advanced verification tools for editors (see Template:Infobox journal#Search links). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
What "advanced verification tools"? This isn't a journal, so the things relevant only to journals ought to be omitted. jps (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I found this confusing. Magazines and web sites use an infobox format with no discipline listed. When looking at the article it seemed to me that the infobox was suggesting this was a scholarly journal with peer review and that the body of the article was explicitly criticizing the publication for not being that.
I didn't see there was already a discussion here before making my recent edit. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with that broadly. In the situation where we have an actual journal, identification of the discipline makes sense. In a pseudojournal? They're liable to (and do) publish anything they feel like they ought to publish. jps (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why the infobox would be removed regardless of it being a pseudoscience nonsense journal. SilverserenC 18:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Which website should the infobox document? Why? jps (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Any websites that are relevant. Because that is how articles are written on Wikipedia. SilverserenC 19:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Cool, so do you think we should use Template:Infobox website instead? After all, cosmology.com is not a journal even by its own accounting. jps (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I really don't think we need a third infobox for a website that's basically a unmaintained mirror of the primary website. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Why should we have any infoboxes at all? jps (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
To present standard information in a standard way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's already presenting a lot of misleading claims as though it is a legitimate journal. Is that a good goal for infoboxes to have? jps (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No one reading this article will walk away thinking this is a "legitimate" journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: just remove the "discipline" entry from the infobox. The name of the journal already makes "cosmology" self-evident, and repeating the word is kind of redundant. That way, there is no longer any issue of stating a "respected" discipline in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I still think it makes sense to remove "discipline" from the box. Headbomb, I have just switched to the alternative "Subject" (which still links to the same page), and borrowed the language from the peer-reviewed parameter.[14] Ping me if you object and I'll self-revert pending discussion here. I don't want it to seem like I'm baiting you into going over the revert limit. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I have low enthusiasm for presenting it as "subject: various; see text". For one thing, it doesn't look good to have two "see text" lines in succession: that makes it a stronger case for just removing the infoboxes entirely. But more importantly, it's not accurate to say that the journal is about "various" subjects. The discussion between editors here is really one of saying "cosmology" versus "pseudoscience" – but that's not a matter of it being a journal about multiple subjects. Instead of changing it from "discipline" to "subject", I really think it would be better to omit the line entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
It is also a matter of having various subjects. A quick glance at the website shows that they also write about quantum consciousness, climate change, aviation safety, and UFOs. It's just not true that it's about "cosmology", even if we were to believe its scientific. I think it would be the best to leave the "discipline" or "subject" lines out entirely. But this is just a particular case of {{infobox journal}} being inappropriate. Tercer (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
We agree that it's best to completely omit discipline/subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Disagree. If you feel it needs other disciplines (e.g. "Cosmology, Astrobiology, ...") those can be added, but "see text" is not needed here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
It does not seem to have one subject. Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

In defense of WP:PARITY

This website is essentially the blog of Joseph. We cite it. And yet, in defiance of WP:PARITY, blogs by acknowledged subject-matter experts have now been removed: [15] You tell me: is this an improvement by the WP:NJOURNAL crowd? jps (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

See also User_talk:David_Eppstein#Batisson_and_Redfield. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
It is a misuse of WP:PARITY to suggest that we must refbomb fringe articles with additional low-quality non-fringe sources, even for content that is already supported by high-quality non-fringe sources, merely for the purpose of having more non-fringe footnotes than fringe footnotes. As I stated in that discussion. Parity should be about quality of sources, not about counting footnotes. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

As of October 2021, the original domain was labeled as an "astrology & spirituality website" based in the Netherlands.[9] A mirror remains online, though it only has Joseph's original 14 volumes in common with the current Journal of Cosmology.[10] On 1 November 2021, the original Journal of Cosmology was fully restored at the new domain address "thejournalofcosmology.com" and is fully active again.[11]

[9] is a primary source; how is this, erm, relevant? Ditto for [10] and [11]. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That it's based on primary sources is irrelevant, these are clearly related to the JOC and should be mentioned. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah if secondary sources aren't reporting on this brief domain change then there's no reason to mention it in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree. Not for us, editors, to don the investigator's hat and document all these trivia unless secondary sources (for whatever reason) accord some importance to it. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Journal_of_Cosmology/Archive_2&oldid=1188715046"