Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

Third party sources?

Literally all references are primary. Is there any evidence of notability, such as third-party reliable source coverage? A quick look at Google News shows me press releases and reprints of press releases - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Nothing? - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are some third-party sources that substantially discuss the prize: [1] [2] [3] Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Those look like minor single papers (6 cites, 53 cites, 4 cites - is 53 good in the field?) ... is that all we have? Even in academic sourcing, primary research is not considered ideal. Has there been any coverage of the award as an award? - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the papers: the first is all about the prize, in a sociology journal; the second, which has lots of citations, literally just mentions the prize in passing (it does not "substantially discuss" it); the third also mentions it only in passing, as criteria for what meaningfully constitutes a nanotech computer (it does not "substantially discuss" the prize). So, only the first is actually about the prize, though really it's about the Foresight Institute's place in the world and uses the prize as a measure of what the nanotech world considers noteworthy. We seriously need more than one source - David Gerard (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The second source puts the establishment of the Feynman Prize as one of five important events in the history of nanotechnology as a coherent field; this mention is brief, but not "in passing". The third discusses the Feynman Grand Prize for nearly half a page as representative of one of the major schools of thought in nanotechnology. Altogether these sources support that the Feynman Prize is widely considered significant in the history of nanotechnology, to the point where people use it as a metric to evaluate other concepts in nanotechnology. Also, these are not primary sources; they are secondary because they are not written by people involved with the prize. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one that specifically discusses why the prize is notable: [4] Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Not really a suitable source but [5] indicates play money betting on date of prize award. Tends to suggest subject is notable even if not a useful source. crandles (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Summarised quote from book Antony linked above, included it as a ref and removed notability tag. Also added third ref above as supporting a reason for formation. Not sure if these two secondary refs added to article are sufficient to remove primary tag? crandles (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The sourcing is still largely primary. I've replaced the notability tag - there's still literally only a single checkable third-party source. The list of winners contains no evidence anyone else cares who won a Foresight Prize - do any of these have press coverage? - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I've purposefully tried to cite the official source in the table, since that's more reliable for strict factual information than second-hand coverage. A quick Google search would reveal that there are often press releases about the winners (examples: [6] [7] [8]) and there are some third-party sources as well ([9] [10] [11]). I'll add more independent sources to the article as soon as I find time to do so. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Press releases are still primary sources - they're not in any way independent - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Sorry for being remiss about actually fixing the text in the article. I've started a rewrite that is more based on secondary sources. Note that it is the practice on Wikipedia to not require secondary sources for direct quotations of prize rationales; see List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry as an example. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You are also removing primary source notes in the body text. Please stop doing this - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:SELFPUB. It is permissible to source these types of statements solely to primary sources, and there is no requirement that every statement have a secondary source. You have made a valid point that the article did not meet criterion 5 (the article is not based primarily on such sources), but as the article is rewritten this will no longer be an issue. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Can you give a specific example of puffery in the article? You requested that text be added to establishe notability, so of course that text is going to be positive, but I don't think any of it is overly promotional. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Strings of single studies of negligible impact factor. Literal press releases as cites. The many, many primary references, which are still primary references even if you keep removing the tags. This article looks spammy as hell both broadly and in specifics - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm confident that this is all largely within the confines of WP:SELFPUB and the consensus as reflected at stable articles like List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry. I didn't add the press releases and I'll remove them. I feel like we're not going to agree on this but I'm happy to bring more voices into the discussion. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Return the list to the article

I think the list should be returned to the article. Perhaps there is some compromise to make it acceptable to everyone. Instead of all the primary refs for each year, we put a primary ref at the beginning of the list which would have all the who, what, when, but not the why (just one more click away). That would make it look less like List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Chemistry#Citations and instead be more like List_of_Nobel_laureates#References. Is anyone really contesting the information in the list or is it just in principle wanting additional sources? I have added many independent sources that show the primary source is generally confirmed. Of course, cn's could be added if there is a particular case. I think @Antony-22: is actively adding bios so that is why he wants the redlinks to stay. If that is not the case, then they could be removed. StrayBolt (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of no policy reason that this article should not have a list, when others such as the Nobel Prize lists and others do. There's even a Featured List Tip O'Neill Award which has a table of all winners. @Jytdog: Please read WP:SELFPUB; having a few citations to the primary source is reasonable and within policy here, especially since all of them are also supported by secondary sources. It doesn't meet the description in WP:CITESPAM. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

While the AfD ended no consensus (and I can live with that), there was no strong agreement that the enormous self-sourced, promotional as hell, hijacking-of-Wikipedia-to-serve-as-a-proxy-for-Foresight's-website section was at all appropriate. This is not the Nobel prize. Obviously. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. This article was a peacock-term-riddled puff piece, and only survived the AFD because of a last-minute astroturfing for !votes. There is no reason to let it turn back into one. Antony-22 has himself admitted that "the type of nanotechnology advocated by Drexler and the Foresight Institute of mechanical nanorobots isn't considered feasible or scientifically valid by most scientists" - it's not Wikipedia's job to further a fringe science institution, and it should be obvious that comparisons to the Nobel are inappropriate. WP:FRINGE applies to this article in spades - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@David Gerard: First, are you now okay with Jytdog's version in terms of removing "puff"? Second, if all the links to Foresight.org are removed from the list, would that make it okay to you? Do you have problems with the "Rationale" like "(for having) pioneered the synthesis and assembly of unique active molecular machines for manufacturing into practical nanoscale devices" or would you prefer something shorter like "for the design and synthesis of molecular machines" or remove the column? And yes, once in a while, comparison to Nobel is appropriate; but I was using two examples (given at the beginning of this section) with different ways of using primary sources to ask whether the number of times primary sources show up in References matters. I skimmed many of the chemistry awards [12][13] and they mostly have just the year and name. They usually have redlinks and are sourced by the awarding institution. Some give these: location, institution, field, and/or rationale. I didn't see any photos, but maybe some have them (I think it can be helpful, but hovering can show them). I think the award is not fringe. Many (most?) of the awardees have won other notable awards for same/similar work. Please add to the article what is fringe about the prizes, the awardees, and the research. StrayBolt (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Look, there are a lot of FLs on awards where primary sources are used for lists of individual awardees, and many of these are nowhere near the prestige of the Nobel Prize (or Academy Awards). If you're pushing for more secondary sources in this type of article I support that, but if you're looking to remove lists of awardees from all these articles I really don't think you're going to get support from the community for that. If you really want, I can hail people from FL and WikiProject Awards to get more input.

@David Gerard: You took that quote out of context; my point was that the awardees perform legitimate science even if, as the source I cited says, "very few identify with the vision and priorities of the Drexlerian-sponsored Foresight Institute." Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't find that compelling; I think WP is full of listcruft. We are at loggerheads; this is classic RfC stuff. Shall we have one? Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Which numbers from this essay of listcruft criteria are an issue you have with this article or do you want to add a #13? StrayBolt (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I realise you intended it to mean you thought the prize was good; however, it was also an admission that the organisation is clearly somewhere between fringe and pseudoscience. WP:FRINGE clearly applies to this page as well, which is functionally promotion for the organisation. You need to review the warnings and links in Template:ArbCom Pseudoscience, which I've just added to this page and the parent page - David Gerard (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)