Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:37, 11 December 2016

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Whitewashing in film

Article uses American tabloid/clickbait websites as "reliable sources" to call Cleopatra a non-white (an anachronistic tag anyway). This is against general academic consensus that Cleopatra was from a heavily inbred Greek family, and also plays into the fringe Afrocentric theories of Egypt and the Jews, per the sources.

The sources to include Cleopatra are not academic, they are four American tabloids making clickbait lists.

First: Huffington Post using evidence cited from the Daily Mail, a notorious British tabloid http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1095043/Sorry-Liz-THIS-real-face-Cleopatra.html

Second: Complex calls Cleopatra a "woman of color", a phrase which didn't exist 100 years ago never mind 2,000 years ago. Probable echoing of Afrocentric meme http://uk.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/04/25-minority-characters-that-hollywood-whitewashed/cleopatra

Third: US News: "The British-American actress (she had dual citizenship) doesn't look even remotely Egyptian or North African. " Not an argument, Cleopatra was Greek. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/12/white-actors-portraying-people-of-color-in-hollywood

Fourth: Madame Noire. An ethnocentric website claiming that both the Egyptians and Hebrews were black, both of which are discredited fringe theories. http://madamenoire.com/496138/cast-non-blacks-in-black-roles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.18.9.247

I think we have been through this before a few times - there are some conflicting issues.

• Cleopatra has been criticised/discussed often as an example of 'whitewashing' in film, due to the casting of Taylor (a white woman) in a role that many felt should have been a North African/Black role role.
• The basis for this criticism/discussion is completely wrong as any half-decent Eqyptian scholar (as well as the Egyptians themselves) know that Cleopatra was of significantly pure/inbred/limited Greek racial stock and in no way resembled the 'black' African race that the fringe want to claim Cleopatra should have been.
• There are few sources that address both issues due to scholars not wasting time refuting rubbish.

So we end up with 'yes there are sources that Cleopatra is an example of Whitewashing', 'yes there are sources that state unequivacably that Cleopatra not black/african' and nothing to link the two. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer

I'm not surprised to see this has arrived. It's extremely promotional, badly written, possibly needs stubbing and starting again. There's an archaeology Facebook page that has discussed his work quite a bit as well as other sites, etg - Andy White's probably the expert on the sword. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Article assessed and tagged. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

and stubbed. I don't see any way to salvage what was there. Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

and now deleted. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

and back at Oak Island

This has become something of a run-on and jumbled mess and needs to be made to look like it wasn't hacked at by several dozen random editors. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"Jumbled mess" strikes me as being waaay too kind of a description of this. If given a few days, I can try to find a good travel guide or other reference work to Nova Scotia which covers the topic, and maybe use that as an indicator of what our content should have and how much weight to give it. Or, alternately, if anyone else wanted to do that first, they are of course free to do so. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this is real WP:RANDY stuff. I removed it. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Linda and Terry Jamison

Linda and Terry Jamison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bloated and really awful. Much WP:OR used to support the twins predictions. And tons of puffery sourced to Youtube videos and fringe websites. Needs chopping. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The "Biography" section, which seems to me to be unduly late in the article, doesn't look too bad to me. Maybe move that up to the top, add a short section on some of their predictions, if there are sources for them, and short sections on books and/or media appearances thereafter? John Carter (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to remove some of the worst crap, some of which reeks of cut-and-paste from press releases or TV listings. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up, but so much of it was sourced to YouTube vids, their own book and other unreliabel sources, and so much of it was folksy "they moved to X without a penny to their name" guff that I concluded this is a WP:TNT job and sent it to WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That CSD was sorta overblown, deleting the pic as well. Point is, they actually work as psychics, so do not claim the job doesnt exist. The WP:category exists and is applicable ;) Someone may design as well horoscopes or do Tarot readings, and make a living out of it, even if you assume foretelling is not possible. I like John Carter's approach. Polentarion Talk 05:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I want their Book and Filmography section back. They have appeared on all the listed programs. I don't believe it's all crap either! They make a living out of acting, appearances and their predictions. I will take suggestions on how to add back. Maybe add the a section 'Appearances in the media'. If I don't hear anything it's going back the way it was. Thisandthem (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

They may have appeared on all the listed programs but WP is not a resume, nor a vehicle for promotion and puffery. And we cannot accept TV guide listings and WP:SENSATIONal tabloid coverage as citations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

In general, to include material about media appearances, some sort of source indpendent of the production itself and the individuals who appear in it discussing those appearances is generally wanted for their inclusion. And if the apparent threat made by @Thisandthem: is acted upon, and the removed material is restored without any consensus from others as per WP:CONSENSUS, that restoration would probably be counted as a violation of WP:TE or WP:DE and potentially make the individual restoring that material subject to sanctions. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I added some material to the lede regarding the accuracy of their predictions, which has since been removed from the lede. I note that the template I added regarding expanding the lede has also been removed, with the lede currently only two sentences long. I think both of those changes could be seen as problematic, but would prefer if someone else looked into it. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a short lead is a problem if the entire article itself is less than four paragraphs long. In the case of a big article, sure, you'd want the lead to cover the important points made in the body of the article. But given the shortness of this article, asking people to expand the lead so it summarizes the main points of the article would result in needless redundancy. As for mentioning the accuracy of their predictions in the lead, I see no problem with that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

RS/N discussion of interest

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#globalsecurity.org

Please do not confuse the site with globalresearch.ca That said, I still contend that the website has problems that people who monitor this board might be able to comment upon.

jps (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that this source is routinely used by the New York Times and other purveyors of "conspiracy theories". And note that non-neutral notifications may be violations of WP:CANVASS. Collect (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Collect, you're being rude. If you think that this is non-neutral, explain how. I was clear what was my opinion and as it involves issues related to conspiracy theories, there are people who watch this noticeboard who might have expertise in how to address this question. jps (talk)

Your language is right above my comment. It appears to maybe, possibly, imply that the website "has problems" and I humbly suggest that the CANVASS rules imply that you should in no way present your own opinions in any notifications. Your mileage appears to vary a great deal from mine. Collect (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The language in question doesn't imply anything; it clearly states that jps contends that it has problems. Also, nowhere in WP:CANVASS is it suggested that presenting one's own opinion when asking for outside opinions is to be avoided. Indeed, it's a pretty ridiculous suggestion, as anyone who is liable to be swayed can be just as easily swayed by the opinions at the original discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

OTRS again?

at Electromagnetic hypersensitivity Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, Jbhunley is re-inserting WP:PROFRINGE content and invoking an OTRS ticket as a basis for it. May need eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

All I said is that, based on discussions with the editor via OTRS, that I believe their post on the talk page is a good faith attempt to discuss material. It was initially removed as "obvious sock puppet" without any link to a master or SPI.

The editors there are free to engage with this editor or not. Open an SPI or not. My opinion begins and ends with the fact that I believe they made a good faith edit to the talk page. Jbh 18:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The concern is the invocation of OTRS. How is that meant to bear usefully on the discussion given then non-OTRS folk have no access to it? Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The "invocation of OTRS" as you put it is simply a link to the "why" I think it was a good faith edit and not a sock as mentioned in the removal of the talk page section. I am not allowed to say anything about my discussions with people at OTRS unless they give me permission.

I do not see why this is even a question for FTN - there were no edits to the article. I explained to the editor that did the initial removal,Steelpillow why I rv'd and, by looking at the ticket and OTRS agent can review the ticket and judge if my opinion and action was reasonable or not. If you do not want to discuss the material with the editor then ignore it and let it archive off of the page. Jbh 18:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The invocation of OTRS equates to saying "I have a secret reason why this is okay" - which is distinctly unhelpful and smells of trying to pull rank. With the history of OTRS volunteer over-reach we have seen here, this is troubling. Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes. That is precicely what it is. I had confidential information, provided via email to OTRS, that gave me reasonable cause to believe that it was a good faith talk page edit. That is how the system works. I made no representation about the content nor anything about the editor beyond my belief that there were not a sock of an unnamed and unidentified master. You are more than welcome to ask someone with access to the OTRS queue to review 2016111510018082 or to go over to meta, ask for OTRS access, sign the confidentiality agreement and read it yourself. Jbh 19:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I tend to think that we should let things go on talkpages. If the concern is that someone is going to mistake the comment for consensus, just put in a note indicating that the discussion has been had and the conclusions that came from that discussion aren't changed by that comment. jps (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That said, the loooong comment was pretty disruptive and arguably a violation of something like WP:FAKEARTICLE. I collapsed it with a note. jps (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Jbh 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me for not knowing what OTRS means. After a long period of quiescence, a fringe editor pops up , they are rejected and two brand new SPIs suddenly take up the challenge . So we have apparent sockpuppetry by a fringe editor. Forgive me for describing this as the bleedin' obvious, but can we deal with the actual editing issue here? Alexbrn (talk · contribs) has it right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

OTRS is, essentially, Misplaced Pages's confidential public facing email based help system (it does other stuff too). People who handle OTRS tickets are Misplaced Pages editors and volunteers. Even when people give us permission to acknowledge on-wiki that they have opened a ticket we are not permitted to discuss anything further about that ticket without their express permission. We provide the ticket number so other OTRS volunteers, who also have signed the confidentiality agreement, can review the matter if needed ex. an admin with OTRS access at SPI. Jbh 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

>speechless< Have a nice day. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd have given him a polite dismissive reply. I know it's hard to get rid of cranks from OTRS tickets, but his attempt to change content is doomed and it's best to patiently explain that. I can't remember the canned reply, but I usually used to custom reply anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Questions regarding Deism

Anyone interested is more than welcome to take part in the discussion at Talk:Deism#Contemporary deism revisited regarding the amount of weight given to contemporary deism in our main deism article. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Barry Sears and the Zone diet

• Barry Sears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zone diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed there was some coatracking about the Zone diet (a.n.other fad diet) at Barry Sears, but wonder - if the unsourced and self-sourced content is stripped away - whether Sears in fact merits a standalone article? May need eyes in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Starts by saying it doesn't work, as it should. Overall I think having a separate article about the person behind this does more good than harm. I think it should stay. Roches (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett

More eyes on fringe physicist Jacob Barnett would be appreciated. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a confusion about the proper application of WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE/PS that could use some clarifying at the discussion page. Is claiming to have disproven relativity theory in a YouTube video (the primary reason the subject is notable) appropriately characterized as pseudoscience? Please opine at Talk:Jacob Barnet#Pseudoscience. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's borderline. I remember watching the kid and having a similar reaction that Scott had. Smart kid, should be encouraged. The over-the-top-i-tude is more-or-less the media's fault. I don't even really blame his mother as she, admittedly, was not able to evaluate what he was saying. jps (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

For reference, this version is the one that mentions the pseudoscientific view, and in this version, the views are just labelled as "false". Both were reverted by editor User:Viewfinder. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that we shouldn't go out of our way to label here as we are talking about a BLP. Much of Barnett's actual exposition is perfectly fine. Some of his speculations and calculations are incorrect, but that's hardly encyclopedic. Lots of people have ideas that don't turn out correct and it would be unfortunate to trumpet someone as a pseudoscientist on the basis of their fanciful exploration of mathematics at the young age of 12. jps (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Blacorum

The article, during the process for deletion, was edited and changed (but still not renamed to Bulaqs) topic from a refuted theory to extinct Turkic tribe Bulaqs. The information about the theory was reduced because it is not the main topic and had undue weight. In the current revision the section "Confusion with Vlachs" still uses the most text space. The theory, supported by few Hungarian scholars (6 of them, of which 5 died between 1915-2000), was never endorsed and accepted by the scholarship, not even in Hungary (according to editor Borsoka in the Korai magyar történeti lexicon (9-14. század) , ISBN 963-05-6722-9, 1994, is concluded that further evidence is needed to substantiate the theory). According to modern scholars and sources (2000-2009) by Alexandru Madgearu, István Vásáry and Victor Spinei, there's no etymological, historical or archaeological indication and evidence (even explanation for further issues it rise) by which is supported, every argument speaks againts it, being an "abortive attempt that cannot be proved". However, even after tiresome discussions in the talk page, some editors still can't accept and understand the reality of both WP:NPOV (and WP:WEIGHT) as well the theory. Thus it resulted with somekind of edit-war by which very related and important information is constantly removed, while added redundant information about the theory, or even etymology of the Vlachs name which is totally out of scope.

Is the current revision neutral enough? Should more information about the refuted and minor theory be re-added to the article? Whether more information should be summarized?--Crovata (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Lövheim cube of emotion

• Lövheim cube of emotion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This looks fringe-y to me, not least because most of the substantive content is source to papers authored by Lövheim. What do people think? Guy (Help!) 00:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm a bit out of my depth here and can't really help. However I have taken the liberty of dropping a note on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Science. Maybe someone who passes CIR can chime in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Can not talk about the article subject, but the editing pattern is somewhat suspicious, with a article about a proposed theory from 2012 created in 2012 by a editor that made few more edits. That looks like someone found a theory they liked (or created) and got to advertising it. On the other hand, there are later references from 2015 and 2016 (which I did NOT checked) of this being used. Still looks pretty thin to me. - Nabla (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC) PS: I passed on your request to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cognitive science.

According to Web of Science, the Lovheim 2012 article has been cited just 19 times. (For comparison, Plutchik 1980, which the WP article suggests is comparable, as been cited 163 times.) The journal Medical Hypotheses is reputable but not very influential; WoS puts its impact in the 4th quartile. I would conclude that this is not a crackpot theory, but neither is it influential or especially notable. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it is not fringe (or at least, not any more fringe than most of cognitive so-called "science", but that's a different kettle of fish). Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Erika_Schwartz_(2nd_nomination)

AfD on a doctor who specializes in Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy and seems to have enjoyed media coverage based on promotional activity associated with the release of her books, rather than coverage of her as a person. Further input required. Delta13C (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Biocentric universe

This has been discussed here twice before:

• Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Biocentric_universe_and_Robert_Lanza in Dec 2013
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Biocentric_nonsense just this August

Is almost entirely sourced to a book and articles by the originators and the reception is WP:GEVAL, citing praise from Chopra cited to a press release, etc. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This looks to me like one of the better instances we have out there of what might be called purely conjectural "theoretical physics." A similar case, I suppose, might be the subject of religious views of specific and general evolution. Basically, what do we call an idea which at this point has no evidence one way or another to support or oppose it, and how to we make that clear? Might there be some way to group together all these topics, which propose ideas which are not yet examinable, in some sort of specific grouping? At least some of them might, I suppose, maybe be found to have some sort of basis if and when we ever get to the point of developing ways to examine them, but, in a lot of cases, on many sides, I tend to think that a lot of these arguments are, basically, just examples of changing one discredited point with one which can't yet be examined, and thus basically keeping a possibly discredited idea alive by obfuscation. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Might this basically be considered something along the lines of a thought experiment, and, if so, might describing it as such be useful? John Carter (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's overhyped speculation, basically. I don't understand what it's doing in Misplaced Pages. It doesn't seem to have received independent evaluation notwithstanding the peculiar media attention it has garnered. I think the media's obsession with novelty often means they end up promoting WP:FRINGE way beyond their actual notability within the scholarly community that matters. This is such an example. jps (talk)

I think it's time we had this discussion in the context of our current hardline with regards to identifying notable ideas in articlespace: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Biocentric universe (2nd nomination). I expect a lively discussion. jps (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

the folks who love chopra love this stuff - the whole wooly headed What the Bleep Do We Know!? crowd that wants to gussy up their spirituality with scienciness. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This does seem to me to maybe be a case of "shifting goalposts" in a sense for some variation on the anthropic principle. As a matter of philosophy, maybe, that position might well merit more than one article, but I think it might be best to if possible have someone review the state of academic opinion on that topic area before spinning out too many articles on variations on that theme. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Universal intelligence

Universal intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I... don't know what to do with this article. It is a true mess of fringe nonsense.

jps (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This styles itself as a spinoff from the article on Chiropractic, which is is not particularly long. I'd suggest a merge across - and drastic trimming along the way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Universal intelligence. jps (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Eight-circuit model of consciousness

Eight-circuit model of consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I added a note that it was not advanced with scientific evidence, another editor keeps removing this and calling it a "hypothesis model". More eyes would probably be good - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Leary proposed this exactly because he thought it was digressive and humorous. The whole point was for it not to be a "hypothesis". jps (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If you can cite that, that would be excellent. I linked the archive.org copy of the book on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I tried to locate the talk where he made this point and failed. I'll keep trying though. jps (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

David Seaman (journalist)

IP editors have been adding or re-adding a substantial amount of unreliable or promotional commentatory, including fringe-promotional content, to this article (which is currently at AfD, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Seaman (journalist)). The article subject, an Internet blogger who apparently promotes various political conspiracy theories, apparently made a three-minute "call to arms" style about his article and its proposed deletion, broadcasting it to his followers.

The latest IP addition is text describing Seaman as "investigating" Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). IP editors also keep adding/re-adding unreliable sources ("Zero Hedge," "Morning News USA," an op-ed in a campus newspaper, etc.).

More eyeballs and hands are needed. Neutrality 01:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Geez this Pizzagate thing is a headache. Add this article and the Pizzagate article to your watchlist and grab some popcorn. Sigh. --Krelnik (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

An anonymous woo-monger and one proper editor want to change Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to describe it as a peer-reviewed medical journal. Given that one of the editors is Dean Radin, and the current issue pimps Chopralalia, Emotional Freedom Techniques and some utter wibble, I think this is a contentious description. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's peer-reviewed in the sense that Elsevier requires it to follow the peer-review process, but the issue is that the editorial board only contains believers in alternative medicine (I just went through the entire list), and so they are using editorial discretion as a means to bypass the typical process that would accompany a normal journal. Obscure trade journals such as this are a dime-a-dozen and I think that the sole mention by Gorski doesn't qualify this journal as being at all notable. Delete perhaps?

I also will be calling Elsevier about this on Monday. It's an interesting case, indeed. jps (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, let's have a more reasonable discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (2nd nomination). The last one had a lot of people claiming the journal passed WP:NJournal simply because it was indexed(!) and published by Elsevier(!). That's not what the criteria actually are for notable journals! jps (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

List of reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh

List of reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One of the worst of the "List of reportedly haunted locations in..." articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That is really bad. I was going to pull one example from it but the entire thing is written like a paranormal travel guide. —DIY Editor (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

NJournal

• WP:NJournal
• Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (academic journals)

I made a change to the descriptions of how to evaluate criteria for academic journal notability. Previously, the guideline stated that simply being indexed by certain selective indexing services as well as merely having an impact factor was enough to establish notability. Wow! That's simply ridiculous. However, I expect some pushback from those who would like to see their pet journals written about at Misplaced Pages. So if you have some ideas about this opinion of mine, please offer them.

Here is the diff.

jps (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Things are going poorly. I think that the essay is unsalvageable because the gatekeepers don't seem to understand why it's a problem to simply declare that the existence of an impact factor is what makes a journal notable. As such Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals). jps (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Things are going poorly indeed. There's a little bit more to this discussion than WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 indicates here (I mean, this post on my talk page, this AfD for an article that was kept just a month ago, and this attempt to modify NJournals to obtain their desired outcome in said AfD. As for the IF thing: about 10,000 journals have been selected for inclusion in the Journal Citation Reports, out of an estimated 80,000 to 200,000 existing academic journals. Seems rather selective to me. --Randykitty (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

what are the criteria for inclusion in JCR? Might the mere fact that Elsevier publish it have an influence on that inclusion? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is because it's published by Elsevier. But we have WP:Randy in Boise here to explain to us how he knows best. Hooray! jps (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

RF resonant cavity thruster

We've have edit-warring for a while on the RF resonant cavity thruster (aka emdrive), the perpetual-motion machine machine that can ostensibly produce reactionless thrust in a vacuum, recently tested by the NASA Eagleworks lab; it would be good to have additional eyes on it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution