Talk:Journal of Cosmology

Is "Journal of Cosmology" a WP:Reliable source ?

Is JoC a WP:RS? See the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Journal_of_Cosmology (March 2011)

65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The blog source

Blogs are not a reliable source per WP:RS. I have tried to remove the Myers blog source from the article, but it has now been reinserted. Can someone please remove this again? Nanobear (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are not always unreliable. If they are written by an established expert in the field (or if they are the blog of a major newspaper, like the Los Angeles Times blog) then they are reliable. I don't know anything about this source, so I couldn't say whether it is or is not reliable, but I just wanted to point that out. Silverseren^C 17:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In this article, the blog entry is used as a source for some pretty heavy claims. This is unacceptable unless someone can prove this blog is an RS. It should either be removed or replaced with a source that is clearly a WP:RS. Nanobear (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Pharyngula (blog) seems to indicate that it is written by an expert in the field. Silverseren^C 17:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It could be an RS, but I'm still very sceptical. The blog is advertised as "evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal" - doesn't sound very scientific or professional. Judging from PZ Myers' article, he seems to be mainly notable for his anti-creationist views and for his participation in the infamous American religion vs. science discussions. There is no evidence that he is (in the scientific community itself) one of the top names of his field - which I feel should be a requirement for his blog to be considered as an RS. Nanobear (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you should take this to the Reliable Sources noticeboard for a review. Silverseren^C 17:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Looks to me that the blog is notable (because of the engendered controversies), but really not reliable (because too opinionated for my taste). --Crusio (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Myers' blog is cited as a reference for the statement that "While the journal describes itself as peer-reviewed, several people have questioned the integrity of the process." I just searched thru the blog for the words "peer review" and all I found was the following "While they're at it, maybe they should try publishing it in a journal with some reputation for rigorous peer review and expectation that the data will meet certain minimal standards of evidence and professionalism." While these words do indeed imply that Myers is not happy with the rigor of peer review at Journal of Cosmology, there is no mention of "integrity". And is Myers "several people" or is he one person? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• There are three references, combining to make several people. Silverseren^C 00:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Three references? About integrity of the peer-review process? Where? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Facts instead of personal opinions

The description regarding "Journal of Cosmology" has been quite tendentious, presenting just negative critics. The manuscript must be rewrote in order to take a neutral position. The negative critics (e.g. "While the journal describes itself as peer-reviewed, several people have questioned the integrity of the process" shall be pointed out in the section "Reliability" together with positive points that have been ommited until now, like the renowed scientist that have been publishing. In fact, they are not SEVERAL but just SOME people.

Why consider this point obteined in blog sites (which represent just personal opinions) and not consider the fact that several renowed scientists have been publishing in this journal ??? Why not consider the fact that Sir. ROGER PENROSE edited the April. vol ??? Why not consider the fact that the journal is also indexed in several other databases ??? Altogether, these facts ratify the mediocricity of how the article has been edited. It certainly represent the personal view of these "authors", who with sure are not scientists. I have revised other descriptions of scientific journals in wikipedia and I do not see this kind of thing. Changes must be made or the article shall be removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoomerRev (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Science isn't done by renown. That Bob published in the journal does not absolve it of its flaws. There's no positive praise simply because there is none to be reported, and the opinions reported are those of biology experts who completely destroys the claims of Journal of Cosmology and points out things that are would have been picked up by any rigourous peer review process. Journal of Cosmology is viewed as a journal for cranks and crackpots to publish their claims when they can't publish them in a proper journal, so that is what is reflected by the article. No proper journal would write things like

Religion vs Science Richard Hoover's paper was received in November. It was subjected to repeated reviews and underwent one significant revision. Hoover's paper is further evidence that life is pervasive in this galaxy and exists on astral bodies other than Earth. The alternative view is life exists only on Earth, and originated on Earth, as described in the Jewish and Christian Bible and which is the official position at NASA. We believe the choice is simple: Religion vs Science. The Journal of Cosmology is devoted to promoting science. (emphasis mine)

or place an in-article advertisement for a book written by the article's author on the same topic. Or spend every third line trying to convince their reader that they are a prestigious journal. If you have to say your prestigious, you're not. Or when you accuse people people of being terrorists when they disagreed/refuted article published in your journal.

Neutral does not mean "does not take sides" (see WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL). Likewise a list of who published in the journal, guest editors, etc... is something that has no place in this article (or any journal's article). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

While I cannot support BoomerRev's rewrite, I agree the article is quite tendentious. Almost 100% of the article text is criticism; the whole purpose of the article seems to be show that the journal is unreliable. In this respect, it resembles an attack page. That most of the criticism is sourced to unreliable sources (blogs) doesn't help. Whatever we think of the journal, this is clearly not the way to write an encyclopedic article. Nanobear (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Blogs written by experts are reliable sources. To quote from WP:SPS:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

This is the case here. The criticism is also given due weight (take for example Clara Moskowitz (7 March 2011) "Scientists Dubious Over Claim of Alien Life Evidence in Meteorite", Space.com; or ) which pretty much uses the same sources as this articles [PZ Myers, R Redfield, NASA...]) since the journal is primarily known for publishing all sorts of crank nonsense and pseudoscience. There's a reason it won the Pigasus Award you know. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The blogs are used here to insert harsh claims such as "... it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life [[panspermia|originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth". Exceptional claims require exceptional sources as per WP:REDFLAG. The reliability of these blogs is not enough for such claims. Blogs have no independent fact-checking and oversight; the author can write anything he wants. Claims such as the one cited above with language such as "crank academics" would never be published in a reliable source. Other editors have also disagreed with the usage of these blogs [1]. You should not simply continue to edit war: either try to find a compromise version or drop it. Nanobear (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is. If it weren't, Space.com wouldn't have quoted PZ Myers and ScienceBlogs/Pharyngula directly on this.[2] Nor would Nature consider Pharyngula one of the top science blogs out there[3]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If "... it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics" is a wide-spread view, it should be easy to provide sources with 100% comply with WP:RS providing the same info. Please do that instead of edit warring to reinsert sources which are clearly a violation of WP:BLOGS. Nanobear (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The journal won the damned Pigasus Award for its pseudoscientific nonsense; the top blog of ScienceBlogs, acknowledged by Nature as being one of the top science blogs ever (in fact the top science blog of 2006), as reported by Space.com; countless scientists have lambasted the journal (including people who published in J. Cosmology), and so on. What more in the world could you possibly want? It doesn't get more solid than this.

Read WP:SPS yourself, I've quoted the relevant passage above and I'll requote it again (although I wonder why since it becomes increasingly apparent that you don't read neither what I write, or what you policies/guidelines you quote)

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Try to remain civil, please. From WP:SPS: "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." If these (harsh) opinions are worth inserting here and if they represent a widespread view, it should be easy for you to find non-blog sources providing the same information. Try to do this instead of edit warring and becoming incivil, please. My personal view is that blogs should almost never be used as sources. Nanobear (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Blog sources are perfectly fine if they meet the reliability criterion, which this one does. Nature considers it reliable, Space.com considers it reliable, PZ Myers a recognized biology expert and science advocate. Your argument is that all blogs are unreliable, which is pure nonsense and discredited by WP:SPS, the very policy/guidelines which you justify yourself by.

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb, just understand one thing here: If you have bad feeling about this journal, you should create your own blog and write whatever you want about it. There you can put all your negative emotions and use any bad language you wish.

BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND (!!!): This is not the way to write an encyclopedic article. Just read the description of other scientific journals. This kind of article is not allowed in Wikipedia. Thus, we cannot allow you to do that.

The current version described by myself and improved by Crusio and Nanobear represents the way to write such article. It briefly describes the Journal and contains recent relevant information like the Hoover paper controversy and the Pigasus Award, but not been tendentious, just informative, like an encyclopedic article shall be. (Kindly, BoomerRev). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.18.33.234 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not the description of most journals because most journals are not like the Journal of Cosmology. This "kind of article" is perfectly allowed in Wikipedia since articles need to reflect a neutral point of view and due weight given to the relevant viewpoints. This significantly under represents the degree to which Journal of Cosmology is distrusted amongst the scientific community. If my views on the journal were present in the article, it would be much more scathing than what those sources report. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, there's also no need to lecture me on what a "proper" journal article should be since I probably wrote more articles on journals than anyone save perhaps Crusio. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb, just don`t take to the personal side. I am not an advocate of this Journal. In fact, I agree that this journal has negative points. Yes, there are some papers, in my personal opinion, kind of odd to my knowledge. But at the same time, there are interesting and well written papers from renowned scientists.

I just think in Wikipedia we cannot choose just one side. An encyclopedic article must be neutral. Our job here is just to be informative. (BoomerRev) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia does not "choose one side", Wikipedia chooses to reflect what is written in reliable sources the consensus of experts. Find me reliable sources that says this journal is not a complete joke, and then you'll have a point. Until then the only thing your doing is give undue weight to the idea that this journal is seen at anything other than a joke. If the critics would have been milder, then the articles would reflect those milder critics. However the critics have not been mild, and the article should reflect this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

opinion

Orange Mike asked me to take a look. I decided to examine the journal, completely independently of the discussion above. The contents are a very wide mix, mostly speculation, but containing some articles which might be dignified as theory, and some as observations. The topics range from cosmology to space exploration to biological evolution, the part I am best qualified to judge. I do not find the contents nonsense, at least not all of it. The panspermia theory of the origin of life is a respectable minority theory, with distinguished supporters over a long period, and not in my opinion fringe. (My personal view is that I rather doubt it, but--unlike the situation 100 years ago, when there was no practical way to test it--it is a theory susceptible to experimental evidence. There is at present no way to rule it out a priori, and if it comes to opinion, I do not think anyone here has a right to claim a better judgement than Crick.)

Some of the articles in the journal are in my opinion remarkably unlikely [4], [5], some fascinatingly speculative [6] or unusual [7], but some perfectly reasonable [8].

The standard of peer review and editing is obviously rather loose, but this is perfectly acceptable in a speculative journal such as this. I regard the articles usable as the speculations of their authors, with their authority derived more from their authorship than from the inclusion in the journal.

I consider the presentation in the article here quite biased, using negative wordings which denigrate unfairly the admittedly mixed value of the journal. I have fixed one of them to a more neutral wording. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Consider these two links: [9], [10]. Then ask yourself what kind of journal would publish that. Or this (originally published at [11]).

The article is neutral with regards to how the world sees Journal of Cosmology. The issue here is not that panspermia is fringe or not (it's not the most popular view, but no one dismisses it with a back of the hand like say the steady-state universe), but that Journal of Cosmology is a fringe journal, with extremely low standards for publications.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Side note, before someone claims that Cosmology.com is independent see their logo. Or their contact information (http://cosmology.com/Contact.html rather than http://www.journalofcosmology.com/Contact.html). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

HEADBOMB has presented links to cached versions of the http://www.cosmology.com web site from the webcitation.org website. If one links to the current version of the cosmology web site one does not find the offensive material that is shown in HEADBOMB's links. It seems likely that the version that HEADBOMB wants to show people is not the officially approved version, and should be disregarded just as one would disregard a vandalized page on Wikipedia that for a short time showed a shocking article. It would be a strange disservice to archive such vandalized pages and display them as though they represented the nature of Wikipedia. Unless HEADBOMB can show some evidence that the cached version of the cosmology dot com web site is an officially approved version, is seems that linking to this version is a disservice to this discussion. Fartherred (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The links to these attack pages, and the censored article, do indicate low standards. I have a hard time believing bona-fide scientists with careers at NASA (and other reputable institutions) are involved with this publication. As has been discussed below, there are even more comments that sneer and attack on a juvenile level, and published by this journal. This is the light that the journal chooses to present itself. These pages shows me that this journal lacks an ability to discriminate - in contradiction to its claims of rigorous peer review. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Contributors

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44

Contributors who have written publications in the journal have included Rhawn Joseph who has argued for an Infinite universe in opposition to the Big Bang, and Chandra Wickramasinghe who has written in favour for panspermia. - I don't see why this is not aloud to be mentioned on the article? The Journal of Cosmology was set up by Schild who is also an proponent of an Infinite Universe and panspermia. Contributors to the Journal of Cosmology in no publication have they supported the mainstream Big Bang model. It needs to be made clear on the article about some of the publications which have been published. So far looking at the article there is not much information about what they have published and which scientists are contributors to the journal. Chemistryfan (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC) List of authors are usually not included in journals because of their low-relevance (see Nature, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Science, The Astrophysical Journal or Astronomische Nachrichten for examples, none of which have list of authors). See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide and related discussions like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Editorial board listings, again. This one's a bit unusual since it's a journal of pseudoscience, so an exception might be warranted, but I personally don't see a reason to make an exception here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Journal of Cosmology is not pseudoscience, you should look at some of the contributors we are talking here about PhD astrophysicists and astronomers.Chemistryfan (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC) It's at the very least a fringe publication whom no one takes seriously because of things like this and this. Having a PhD in science does not in any way guarantee that what you are doing is actually science. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC) The author of that joke website and many of those books is Rhawn Joseph, a world topgrade neuropsychologist. Lets be honest here, the only reason the Journal of Cosmology has been deemed "fringe" etc is becuase it has a few publications advocating an infinite universe and dogma of the Big Bang will not allow it. If you want to read something serious from Rhawn Joseph you may want to read this: The Myth of the Big Bang, When Religion Masquerades As Science. Chemistryfan (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Rhawn Joseph a top-grade neuropsychologist? Now that's a joke. That book of his is all the proof one needs to be convinced of that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

"Skeptical blogger and biologist PZ Myers"

So a random guy with an internet blog has attacked the Journal of Cosmology and this guy is not an astrophysicist or educated in cosmology, so why do we need need the mention of PZ Myers on this article when he is unqualified on these matters, seems irrelevant. Chemistryfan (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

PZ Myers is hardly a "random internet guy". As for his mention, he (along with Phil Plait, Rosie Redfield, and Laura Battison) played a key role in the Hoover paper controversy, and were numerously cited as references by the media. Myers has more or less been the spearhead of this criticism, hence his prominent mention (J. Cosmology even felt it was necessary to give it a reply.) And in what world is a biologist unqualified to comment on questions of biology? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The other names you mention there who are critical of the Journal of Cosmology are on topic, but PZ Myers seems out of place becuase unlike all of the other critics he is not an astronomer, It does not matter what his opinion is on this matter, he is unqualified in this area and his opinions are irrelevant, he is not educated on cosmology so it does not matter what he thinks is "crackpot", he is not authority on matters such as this, what he offers is nothing more than an opinion. On a side note I am learning biology in college and my teachers have never even dropped the name PZ Myers to me, further research shows he has not even authored a biology textbook, he does not seem notable, I just looked at his wikipedia article page and he seems to be rather an odd man who spends his life debating creationism, it is weird that his name is appearing on this article relating to cosmology. Chemistryfan (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The world is bigger than what you learn in college. This is fundamentally a question of biology, not of astronomy, and as such biologists are certainly more qualified than engineers or astrophysicists to comment on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed you have had along debate over this already with other users in the above talk page sections where users say you are not neutral on this topic. I don't think I am going to get anywhere with this so I will leave this article it is obvious you are fond of Myers. I have also noticed however that PZ Myers has called the work of Stuart Pivar "crackpot", this man obviously goes around calling everyone elses theories "crackpot", this is what scientists have resorted to is it? Chemistryfan (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's calling a spade a spade. It should come to no surprise that people who claim the modern evolutionary synthesis or that the Big Bang consist of religious pseudoscience are dismissed as crackpots by mainstream scientists. As for the above people, many were from Journal of Cosmology itself, and had huge conflicts of interest. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is biased and this user is biased. Big Bang was invented by a Catholic priest, it is a religious doctrine. Headbomb on his userpage refers to Rhawn Joseph as "Dude's a complete crackpot", you have broken WP:NPOV, but on the subject of crackpots Headbomb believes the universe was created by the Catholic God and that something comes from nothing (abiogenesis, (Biblical Genesis) neither have been observed, these cranky views are not science. Headbomb another puppet brainwashed by the Church of Big Bang Nonsense. Rhawn Joseph laughs at the Big Church of Big Bangers. Eternaluniverse88 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view." (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). @Big Bang denialism - ROFTL Bulwersator (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few variations in cosmology that mainstream scientists consider as possibilities with varying amounts of evidence that make them more or less likely speculation. None of these is Catholic doctrine. There is acceleration of expansion which contradicts the point that led to a definite age for the universe. Yet there are some definite-age-of-the-universe disciples who suggest that they are spouting only pure scientific fact. If every year in the past the expansion of the universe is less, shouldn't it at some point in the past have been zero, even negative. Just because something sounds strange to someone is no reason to call it crackpot. Use more scientific terminology and call unsupported by evidence. This is a quote from WP:NPOV:

Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.

If the perceived fault of JOC is poor peer review, write that. If the fault is presenting conclusions not properly based upon scientific method or ignoring other possible explanations write that. If it is using unscientific emotionally charged language to disparage those that disagree, write that. Present good points in proportion to their being expressed by reliable sources. Make the article a respectable article of encyclopedic tone. Fartherred (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The "perceived" fault is not merely a lack of proper peer-review, but that it's peddling pseudoscientific nonsense, have attack pages for their critics, accuses them of being terrorists, espouses ludicrous viewpoints (such as claiming the mainstream acceptance of the Big Bang is evidence of a Catholic conspiracy), and so on and so forth. By every measure available, the journal one of pseudoscience, and a refuges for crank scientists. These accusations are not made simply because "it sounds strange", otherwise people would call an article on the "Casimir effect" pseudoscience, but because it actually is pseudoscientific garbage. As for the language, the article is worded neutrally in "appropriate" non-judgmental language, and quotes are reported as they were originally said (save for Conneley's edit which slipped in before the protection), and this one should appear in full because omitting the "strong language" of the quote misrepresents it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It does take willful disregard of the evidence to call any cosmological theory Catholic doctrine. This should be noted. As for promoting false statements as if they were science, it is nothing new to scientific journals. Just what statements or research papers did you have in mind? Are you trying to call "ginned-up website" and "crank academics" strong language? I call it weak incompetent language and a disgrace to anyone who uses it. It does not identify the fault with any sort of precision. It is mere invective that interferes with any rational communication. As for the attack pages, I repeat here since it seems you otherwise ignore the comment that the examples you linked to were not from cosmology.com but from a web archive at webcitation.org. The contents that I checked at cosmology.com were nothing like what you linked which leads me to believe that the linked content was something put on the cosmology.com web site for a short time without official approval, much as often happens with rogue editors at Wikipedia making vandalism edits. Until there is evidence produced that the claimed attack pages were officially approved I consider the claim of JOC producing attack pages to be not backed by a reliable source. Fartherred (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's apply the same standard you're asking of us to your claims. Do you have a reliable non-WP:SPS source characterizing Myers' criticism as "weak incompent language" and a "disgrace"? No, you don't. Not that it's very relevant what your personal opinion of Myers are. But you are being completely unreasonable (see "stubbornness" essay)

As for Cosmology.net, Cosmology.com and JournalofCosmology.com, I explained the relation between them to you already. You have some severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and ask for an unreasonable amount of evidence for things that are as obvious as water is wet. JournalofCosmology.com and Cosmology.com are the same entity, published by the same people. They published attack pages (here, here), as well as calling their critics terrorists (the original page isn't available anymore, but you can find it reproduced here, here, or here). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the use of all imprecise inflammatory language in discussing the merits publications claiming to be scientific. That includes crank, charlatan, crackpot, ginned-up, and terrorist. You claimed the use of terrorist by JOC is evidence that it is not a respectable journal. Apparently you understand what a judgmental word is when JOC uses it. I am not the only editor that recognized the inappropriateness of "ginned-up website" and "crank academics". I have no opinion about P.Z. Meyers as a person or a professor. It is the use of imprecise emotionally inflammatory language that I object to. A reasonable editor should be able to tell the difference between non-judgmental language and imprecise emotionally inflammatory language without having to have reference to an outside reliable source. It is facts in articles and derogatory claims that inevitably come up when discussing the reliability of sources that require reliable sources.

The Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology Professor Sir Fred Hoyle article refers to disputed efforts by Hoyle to show plausibility for the idea that pathogenic microbes and viruses from space could be involved in the direction of evolution on Earth from outside. It suggested that the opposition to this argument was at times hostile to the degree of irrationality. This could explain some of the language used against JOC.

The awarding of the Pigasus Award should be completely discounted because James Randy is a popular debunker of frauds whose interest in making a sensational statement to keep his audience interested can interfere with sticking to accurate representation of the facts. The James Randi Educational Foundation in its The 5 Worst Promoters of Nonsense article describes the panspermia theory as claiming that life began before the first stars formed. That isn't the form of the theory described by the Wikipedia article Panspermia. James Randi is not an astronomer nor a biologist. His experience is in stage magic. He may have been helpful in his sincere desire to expose frauds, but in the JOC case he is not an expert source. When he uses the word crackpot to describe JOC he is not furthering his cause. His self published non expert web site should not be referred to as a source in this discussion.

If you will read carefully what I wrote, you will find that I did not in this discussion claim that JOC is independent from cosmology.com. I claim that cosmology is independent from webcitation.org which is the source of the claim that cosmology.com hosts attack pages. I claim that a cached version of a website can be a misrepresentative version that is the result of a rogue editor acting without official approval. That seems likely since the official version that I see is nothing like what you refer to as attack pages. Unless there is some particular evidence that the cached version is officially approved of, it should be considered extremely unlikely that it is. The repeated linking to these pages and the repeated claims that they are attack pages of JOC should be completely ignored. Fartherred (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As an exception to what I wrote above, The James Randi Educational Foundation can be a reliable source of the public commentary concerning Richard Hover and JOC. It cannot be a source as to professional qualifications or the quality of a research paper. The reference to JREF in the article now is proper. Fartherred (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

Are against policy. SPS cam only be used as sources on themselves. If you disagree take it to the RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

They are not against policies. Self published sources written by experts in the fields (and these are, and those are even award-winning sources, all of which were widely cited in the media for this controversy) are perfectly fine. See WP:SPS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No, and the way used is also a BLP violation. See the RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that blogs can't be used. Indeed, blogs are used, and they should be. Myers is a professional bio-type, and the question at issue is biology, so his professional opinion is relevant William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and he himself has been widely quoted on this. See e.g. [12][13][14][15], and so on and so forth. And we should not censor the quote to make Myers' opinion look milder than it is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to compromise, as long as Myers essential point is still present, the rest is not important William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, quotes should not be edited to make them milder than they actually are. The "crank" part is not some on-the-side remark but directly pertinent to his opinion of the journal. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Connoley and HB you are both incorrect. WP:SPS cannot be used to violate WP:BLP. This is well understood by experienced editors. --75.218.93.189 (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb has shown that Meyers' criticism has been widely quoted by reliable sources, and that the quote, in part or in whole, merits a place in this article. Furthermore, Meyers states if this were a bona-fide discovery, it would be published by either of the prestigious journals "Nature" or "Science". The fact that it is not, and published instead on a "fringe website" aptly challenges the legitimacy of this claim. It is also a further description of this so-called journal. I also notice that these reliable sources support the negative characterization of the Journal of Cosmology.

Self-published expert sources (e.g., blogs), produced by an expert in the field, are acceptable as a reliable source according to WP:SPS. So consensus is building in support of blogs as sources for this article, as long as the blogs are in agreement with Wikipedia standards. In general this article appears to report what reliable sources state about this topic.

FYI - I also added to the conversation in the next section. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

P.Z. Meyers is a professor of biology. In his publications in that capacity I trust he uses polite language. In his blog quoted by some reporters he stepped outside of his role as a professor of biology when he used the words "ginned-up website" and "crank academics” in describing JOC. This sort of colorful imprecise language has no place in the comments of one making a professional evaluation of publications. Since in this quote he is giving his personal feeling on the subject, his blog is not admissible as a source. In this case he can only be quoted through published news sources like Time magazine. Wikipedians are urged by policy to consider if a report is true in order to avoid repeating gossip. The quoted words of P.Z. Meyers do not even come up the standard of being classifiable as true or false. They are merely invective language that has no place in a Wikipedia article. Fartherred (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether "that sort of language" has place in academia is none of our concern, and opinion will widely differ on whether scientists should refrain from calling a spade a spade. However, the quote certainly has its place on Wikipedia, as that very quote played a central role in the Hoover paper controversy. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The quote played a part by being quoted by news sources. If the intent is to show the part it played it should be quoted from news sources thus showing the part it played. Fartherred (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Peer reviewed? Abstracted?

The journal itself claims to be PR, but can it be trusted? I don't know. It also claims to be abstracted in various place, and we copy it, saying The Journal of Cosmology is abstracted and indexed in Astrophysics Data System, Polymer Library, and ProQuest. So I found, for example, this [16]. But that links to arXiv, not the journal http://journalofcosmology.com/Multiverse2.html. Furthermore the URL - "Multiverse2.html" - looks rather more like some-blokes-blog rather than a real journal with volume numbers and all that kind of stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well J Cosmology is run by a bunch of kooks, so the peer-review process is probably "hey, does this further our ideas? If yes, approve, if not disapprove". But if you want something more tangible and backed by evidence, try [17], written by Battison who herself published in the Journal, and does not get a feeling that her articles were properly reviewed. There might be a peer-review process in place at J Cosmology, but it's probably a far stretch from what people would consider proper peer review. Otherwise stuff like this would never get published. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As for abstracting, it's indeed in ADSABS, but I haven't confirmed ProQuest and Polymer Library myself. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Connoley, with due respect I doubt that your interpretation of how URLs are supposed to relate to "volume numbers and all that kind of stuff" has very little to do with whether a journal is peer reviewed. You should learn to stick to the facts which on their face is that the journal is peer reviewed. Your WP:OR interpretations have no weight in the matter. --75.218.93.189 (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You're stalking! How sweet. But mis-spelling my name is a failure of due respect. As to the issue: do we have anything other than their word that the journal is reviewed? Not that I can see. Is there reasonable doubt that it is? Yes, certainly there is. So we should replace "peer reveiwed" with "the journal asserts that it is peer reviewed", or somesuch William M. Connolley (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you also change that for any other article about a journal that doesn't have an independent reliable source stating it is peer-reviewed. We have to be consistent and all. Silverseren^C 14:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have suggestions of the other journals for which there is reasonable doubt, please let us know William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with reasonable doubt. Without affirmation of peer-reviewed status by an independent entity, it is just the opinion of the journal that they are peer-reviewed. And, actually, Wired states they are peer-reviewed here. And they did sent out the paper to other experts for peer comment, so even if those comments were that the paper was ridiculous, that doesn't change the fact that it was peer-reviewed. Silverseren^C 16:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It has everything to do with reasonable doubt. Reliable journals published by reliable publishers do not fuck with this stuff, because it would otherwise get them incredibly bad press (like is the case for Journal of Cosmology or Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine), so you can get basic and accurate information from them (such as indexing information, impact factor, peer reviewing process, author submission guidelines, etc...). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that other sources call them peer-reviewed, so no matter what you think they do in their peer review process, it doesn't change the fact that they are peer-reviewed. Your first comment in this section up above shows that you have an extremely negative, personal opinion about this journal and, yes, while they are fringe and unreliable, your personal comments on the matter imply that you cannot neutrally edit this topic and should probably excuse yourself. Silverseren^C 18:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources calling it PR, that is great. The Wired thing isn't - its just a blog, and not one written by an expert William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How about ABC News? They call the journal peer reviewed. --174.252.214.141 (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Again: we need to evaluate our sources. ABC news isn't a source for science, obviously. Nor does it have a clue about peer review. It is merely repeating the journals claims uncritically William M. Connolley (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on what I have read in other sources I have to agree that this journal probably does not really have a peer review process that can be considered trustworthy. With published attack pages and negative characterizations of critics (as cranks, etc., ) this journal has shown it is most likely a platform to promote some point of view. I don't see this journal as really interested in promoting the advancement of science, only the advancement of its views. Also in many other reliable and notable journals the peer review process is explicitly published on their web site (and probably in the print journal as well). I agree that there is reasonable doubt about the reliability of this journal's peer review process. I am willing to go so far as to say that the claim of peer review on its web site is probably misleading. I also agree that a statement such as, "this journal asserts that it is peer reviewed..."or "Journal of Cosmology describes itself as a peer-reviewed..." is an appropriate statement for this particular article. In this way, we can agree on a consensus lede. Finally, I disagree that Headbomb should recuse himself from editing this article. I do not see any evidence that there is an attempt to add his personal opinion into the text of this article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear that some hear hold the personal opinion that the journal's stated peer review process is not to their liking. Provide a policy reference which states that it is permissible to edit your own [WP:OR] opinions into the mainspace page and you might get somewhere. Lacking that my own understanding of policy is that this is not permitted. --174.252.218.90 (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If it were only us saying this, then it would OR. However it's not only us saying the journal's PR process is bunk, but rather a whole bunch of people, including people who published in the Journal, sourced in multiple independent reliable sources. The mainstream opinion is that the PR process in J Cosmology is at best shaky (NASA), and at worse a complete travesty (PZ Myers). So that's what the article reflects. That Wikipedia editors agree with the mainstream views should be neither a surprise, nor a reason to exclude the material. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But you can have a crappy PR process. Even an incompetent one. I still don't see how that becomes there being a question on whether they have a process at all. It's quite clear they have some process through their outsourcing of peer comments to other experts, but it's also quite clear from the responses of those other experts that the Journal's PR process allows in crappy entries. That still doesn't change the fact that they have a process. Silverseren^C 23:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Precisely correct. HB makes the excellent point that others are discussing the relative merits of the journal's peer review process. This is prima facie evidence that a peer review process is actually in place. Ergo you cannot now try to argue that this means the process is non-existent. It clearly exists based on these secondary sources. And a WP:SPS is considered WP:RS for statements about itself. So there is no denying the process exists. If you wish to add properly attributed criticism of that process from a verifiable WP:RS which has sufficient weight to merit inclusion that would appear to be within policy. Assuming such WP:RS exists which remains to be seen. --174.252.218.90 (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The simple statement, unqualified, "peer-reviewed" contains the implicit qualifier "to acceptable standards". That isn't acceptable, since it isn't. The best solution would appear to be stating that the journal asserts it is PR. An alternative would be to include a section noting the doubts about its PR process William M. Connolley (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement on peer review quality in the article could be strengthened. Instead of "has been questioned" it could say "has been denounced" and still be supported by the same references. It is when I try to think of a proper way to describe the poor peer review in JOC and the poor quality of the science in Hoover's paper that I feel some sympathy with P.Z. Meyer's choice of words. Fartherred (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable assessment of this journal

It would be wrong to regard this journal as a crank journal. They do e.g. have Penrose as an editor there and people like Don Page, Paul Davies etc. publishing articles in this journal. The issue is simply that when you want to focus on speculative ideas that are held by e.g. physicists and astrophysicists on issues that are usually treated in other fields, like biology or philosophy, you may end up publishing garbage. It is not easy to get the balance between good peer review and still allowing relevant articles to be published, right.

The physics journal "Foundations of Physics" faced a similar problem about ten years ago. When Gerard 't Hooft became the editor, they became more strict with peer review etc. But you can still find the occasional problem article in that journal.

You can also compare this to the Perimeter Institute. Their focus is on foundational issues and while most of their research is not pathological, you can find examples of pathological research performed there, e.g. Joy Christian with his "Disproof of Bell's Theorem". The Foundational Questions Institute funds similar research, making them vulnerable to the same problem (and you can find plenty of examples of such problems).

So, while one certainly does have to include crititicisms of this journal, one has to put these in the proper context. Count Iblis (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned with what the others users in the above section are doing to this article. While I would agree that the journal is out there and rather certainly fringe, the attempts to make this article as negative as possible are very worrying. Silverseren^C

Count Iblis, in what universe is a journal who keeps publishing fringe stuff, new age crap, patent nonsense, features some of the worst examples of Big Bang denialism, attack pages personalized for their critics, statements calling people who disagree with views of its authors "terrorists" not a crank journal? That Penrose was the guest editor on one of the issue does not make the journal mainstream, anymore that Kary Mullis's belief in astrology means astrology is "not crank".

It's very true that not all articles published in the journal come from cranks. But having a mainstream guy write something in there once in a while does not change the fact that by, far and large, the journal is little more than a place for people who can't get published in a reputable journal to get their views published, merely because the content generally agrees with the editors' views. What would you expect to find in a reputable journal of cosmology? Articles on cosmology. Instead you find articles on quantum consciousness, evolution, genetics, Martian exploration, abiogenesis, etc... combined with millions of ads to sell books published by the main authors and editors of the journal.

Have you ever seen The Astrophysical Journal (or International Journal of Astrobiology if you want something closer to Journal of Cosmology) feature a "THIS AUTHOR WROTE A BOOK ON THIS TOPIC WHICH CAN BE FOUND ON AMAZON RIGHT HERE, YOU SHOULD BUY IT, IT REALLY IS AWESOME" included on an article published by the author? Or was used by its editors to advertise their own books?

The journal is, at best, considered fringe by the mainstream. The current version reflects what was written about the journal and is a far stretch from what "an attack page" on the journal would be (otherwise it would mention Rhawn Joseph's attempt to pass porn for science, their reply to PZ Myers ([18] [19]), their conflict of interest in advertising books by the authors on the author's articles, as well as books written by the journal's editors, and so on and so forth. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its fringe, it's not what its name suggests (a journal on cosmology) and you can find quite a few examples of problem articles that can be labeled as "new age crap" that you would never see in the regular journals. There is also a lack of editorial independence, with the main editor pushing his favorite ideas. The problem I have with calling this journal a crank journal is that it isn't like the typical crank journals like "physics essays" etc. So, "crank" has a de-facto precise meaning and this journal doesn't fit into it well.

There do exist legitimate, non-crank journals and organizations that focus on fringe issues, but they are more vulnerable to the problematic issues raised here than regular journals. An example of such a journal that has avoided these problems is Rejecta Mathematica. But if you consider that Doron Zeilberger got involved there, after this incident, you can see the potential for problems. E.g. he could have become an editor there with an axe to grind. That didn't happen as far as I'm aware of. Count Iblis (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the article doesn't call the journal "crank", so I don't see why we're getting into a meta-debate about what's "crank" and what's merely "fringe". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Well stated. As stated above I do not object to a well referenced section presenting the controversy surrounding their peer review process. I do object to the introduction of language which basically implies they are being dishonest when they describe themselves as peer reviewed. They do have a documented peer review process. It appears that they follow their process. So implying that they are somehow being dishonest with no sources stating as much is wrong and against sourcing policy. --174.252.213.159 (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable assessment would be that there is doubt about its PR status or process. Just describing it at face value as PR isn't acceptable. I'm still dubious about including the full PZ quote, which appears to be pointlessly inflammatory William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree if the quote hadn't played a key role in the controversy. But it has. The reason it "annoys" people is exactly why we should be neutral and report it unedited and uncensored, IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we're not in an ideal world, we're on less-than-ideal wikipedia. You don't get your way just because you're correct. People are going to keep reverting out the whole quote, because of the word "cranks", and it won't be really defensible with that word in. So, why not drop it? It isn't necessary William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Compromise is a good solution so long as the result remains within policy. You indicated above that we should evaluate our sources. I agree.

Sources in support of "peer reviewed" are (1) a SPS which is describing itself and is therefore allowable, and (2) a news organization generally recognized as RS on Wikipedia.

Sources questioning "peer reviewed" are (3) the personal opinions of several editors which is never allowed in mainspace per accepted sourcing policies, and (4) a SPS which is NOT describing itself and is clearly an inflammatory hit piece from a blogger.

Additionally (4) is clearly considered inferior to (2) under the generally accepted sourcing guidelines (news outlets trump SPS blogs every time). Does that about sum things up? You assert expert status for Myers, a biologist. I reject that assertion unless Myers has peer reviewed publications in the area of the nature and efficacy of various peer review processes. He may be an expert in something, which remains to be more than merely asserted, but it seems quite doubtful that as a biologist his expertise is recognized as being in the area of assessing the quality of peer review processes. That is the subject of his commentary being included in this case, correct?

If you wish to trump (2) you will need to find other news sources of equal stature that claim JOC is not peer reviewed or more definitively a "peer reviewed" source making that claim. You do not get to judge the applicability of the term "peer reviewed" based on some definition that you have created of your own devices. If we are to judge the applicability of such a term against some standard that standard must be uniformly accepted and applied. I see no such standard in this instance. --174.252.213.159 (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources are weighted against their expertise. ABC is not a reliable source concerning whether or not the Journal of Cosmology is subject to peer review, as is usually implied by the term. The only thing safe to have here, is to say that Journal of Cosmology *describes itself* as a peer-reviewed journal of cosmology. This is factual, and does not mislead the leader into thinking the journal has a peer review processed that remotely resembles what is usually implied by the term "peer-reviewed". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Sources are weighted against their expertise." OK, my source is a globally recognized news agency with a reputation for fair and accurate reporting. They refer to this journal as peer reviewed. Your source is a blogger with no particular expertise to judge "whether or not the 'Journal of Cosmology' is subject to peer review, as is usually implied by the term." Based on the regularly applied policies regarding the quality of sources here on project I believe that my source is preferred. Why do you think Myers' opinion in this matter merits any weight whatsoever? He describes himself as someone with no particular clout among the academic establishment. His background is in biology not the nuances and merits of peer review processes. He has no inside knowledge regarding the operation of this particular journal. So why should we even care what he has to say? --174.252.197.225 (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

ABC is not a reliable source of science, nor does it have relevant expertise on what is or isn't proper peer-review processes, nor do they overules the doubts of the mainstream scientific community about the quality of the process at Journal of Cosmology. It specializes in news reporting, not objective assessments of what is proper or improper peer review. If you want to play cherry picking, why not go with the LA Times, which write the much more appropriate "The Journal of Cosmology claims to be peer-reviewed. In this case, the journal's editors said it had sent a copy of Hoover's article to 100 prominent scientists for critiques and would publish them as they come in. In normal scientific publishing, peer review is conducted before a paper is published to ensure accuracy." This is not what a peer review process is in real/legitimate scientific journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gratuitous Break

An interesting article but it is confused on some key points. First, we know that the paper underwent the journal's peer review process (presumably the one documented on the site) for 4 months prior to being published. Second, the additional 100 invitations for additional commentary came only after the original peer review and publication. The LA times piece is obviously confused on this point, as are you I assume given your statement. Is it clear now? This calls the reliability of that report into question. --174.255.66.196 (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

See this for the claim of prior peer review. --174.255.66.196 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology cannot be trusted as a source on itself when it comes to questions like this. Hence, this is why we go with "The journal describes itself as peer-reviwed" rather than "then journal is peer-reviewed". This has been explained to you several times now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying the journal is lying about what transpired? They should certainly know what steps they took. Do you have any evidence that their account is untrue? --174.255.66.196 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying the current wording of "the journal describes itself as peer-reviewed" is the best one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not how other peer reviewed journals are described. If you are not asserting that they are lying then how do you justify adding "the journal describes itself as". This implies that they are not actually peer reviewed and that they are lying and being deceptive. Without evidence of this deception this wording fails NPOV. Either provide evidence that the journal is lying or this additional phrasing should be removed based on NPOV. --174.255.66.196 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And that is because those other journals aren't like Journal of Cosmology; they actually have proper peer review mechanisms in place (see WMC's comments a few sections up) whose integrity have not been called into questions by multiple sources, and are considered reliable journals by the scientific community. Which is why journals like Journal of the National Cancer Institute are indexed in PubMed/SciSearch/Journal Citation Reports, have impact factors, etc... and Journal of Cosmology] doesn't. And also why JNCI says "is a peer-reviewed journal" and not "describes itself as a peer-reviewed journal". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, so your position is that if a journal has the quality of it's peer review process called into question by a reputable scientist then we should change from saying "is peer reviewed" to "describes itself as peer reviewed". Do I have that correct? --174.255.66.196 (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Try "more than one reputable scientist" and you're getting warmer. Look, I want to habeeb as much as the next guy, but crusading against the neutral assessment this publication has been given isn't going to engender pro-belief theory any more than genuine, strictly-peer-reviewed science will. For a pertinent and temporally-relevant example of prudent science, compare this journal to the respone shown by CERN to their much more revolutionary findings concerning possible faster-than-light travel. You can clearly see the tentative and open-to-scrutiny attitude adopted by the latter source. Why? because they have nothing to fear. GRAPPLE X 01:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we can simply mention that it is peer reviewed. We should, however, mention right in the lead that the journal focusses on speculative ideas, and also that the quality of some of its articles has been called into question. I don't think there is evidence that the articles are not peer reviewed. Of course, the quality of the peer review may be questionable and that can be mentioned if that issue has been raised by the critics.

The reason why things tend to go wrong with journals like this has more to do with their focus on speculative ideas, than with a lack of peer review. Such articles are simply a lot harder to judge by the referees. If you seek out the rare cases of rubbish articles in high quality journals, what you see is that most of them are off-topic or are on completely new ideas. Count Iblis (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that the problem isn't that the journal tends to have papers on "speculative ideas", the problem is that it publishes ideas which are utter nonsense, and rubbish that would never be found in any respectable journal, and viciously attacks anyone that dares to criticizes it. When disagreement is not tolerated, and criticism not heard, what you have is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but an outlet for the fringe, similiar to viXra or Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Count Iblis. While this journal is willing to publish "original ideas" as it says it will, that doesn't make them fringe or rubbish. It makes them speculative. It will be true that speculative is necessarily not widely adopted by the mainstream which is why the larger and more respected journals shy away from them. With any new idea you will find naysayers as you have done here but a few naysayers does not equate to widespread condemnation by the mainstream. And don't forget that even Science has published papers on microfossils in meteorites so the core idea may still be controversial but it is accepted as a legitimate area of research. --174.252.211.56 (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Except these aren't "new ideas". It's fringe stuff, new age crap, patent nonsense, amongst the worst examples of Big Bang denialism, attack pages personalized for their critics, statements calling people who disagree with views of its authors "terrorists", and so one and so forth. This is not an article about the merits of panspermia in general or microfossils in meteorites, it's solely concerned about the journal. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to hold that opinion but you are not entitled to edit it into mainspace without consensus. --174.252.211.56 (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Who are these living people?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44

See here. --174.252.213.159 (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC) No living persons were being specifically mentioned, though. Describing a publication or group is not the same as describing specific individuals. I don't know how relevant BLP concerns are in this case. GRAPPLE X 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC) I acknowledge that you may have a point, but I prefer to err on the side of caution given the importance of a policy like BLP. By your logic it would be impermissible to use a SPS to say "Barack Obama is a war criminal for the assassinations of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki" but it would be perfectly permissible to say "the President of the United States is a war criminal for the assassinations of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki." Is that correct? If you can show where policy makes this distinction clear or that there is a clear consensus that your interpretation of BLP is the correct one then I will drop the whole point. But given BLP I believe that such consensus should be demonstrated before the controversial text is included. Agreed? --174.252.213.159 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC) "The President of the United States" is a specific person. However, to characterise the United States government as a whole would be different - although all of the Congressmen, Senators, cabinet members and chiefs of staff, etc etc, are clearly defined, it's a loose collection of everyone which is being attacked, not an clearly identifiable person or persons. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Heh. So my analogy was imperfect. How about this instead, "all the members of the President's Cabinet are co-conspirators to these war comes and must be tried for their crimes as well." The point is that you cannot use transparent indirections as a means of circumventing BLP. If the people being referenced are clearly identifiable, as they are for the President's cabinet and for the operators of the JOC, then BLP extends to them for the obvious reasons. At least in my opinion. As I said if there is a consensus that my interpretation is flawed and that yours is not then I will respect that consensus. Given the discussions to date from above I do not believe that such a consensus exists. Show me the consensus. --174.252.213.159 (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC) The analogy is bunk. W.M. Connolley and Grapple X explained why perfectly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC) In the first place BLP does not apply to this article. There are no clearly identifiable people are being referenced. There is no way to discern who is behind sub-standard scientific papers and attack pages. Hence, no particular person that works for the JOC is mentioned. In the second place even BLP stipulates that any unsourced negative (dispariging) comments are to be removed. The key word is "unsourced". If the negative comments are sourced then these are acceptable in Wikipedia biography articles. BLP is consistent with every other guideline and policy. However, BLP does not apply. So bringing this into the coversation is bringing oranges into an article about apples. I think the policy to focus on here is WP:Neutral point of view. Maybe it should be discussed from the top of the page to the bottom of the page to see where we are at. Perhaps we should start a new section for this discussion, and also bring together what sources we have collected. Does this appeal to everybody? Right now the discussion seems to be spread out across sections to a minor extent. In this way maybe we can achieve some focus as a group. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of the word "widespread"

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44

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)

The lack of NPOV in this article

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44

This revert illustrates the core of the problem with this page. It removes known, verifiable, and accurate facts and statements which are properly attributed to their sources and which were gleaned from the existing references. HB wishes to contrive a scenario where the journal conducted no prior peer review and only belatedly sought expert input after the criticism appeared. The journal's account of what transpired contradicts that narrative so HB seeks to suppress it. Selectively quoting material from sources in support of a predetermined narrative is the very definition of bias and that is precisely what we are seeing here. The content of this article must fairly and accurately reflect the content, all of the content, of the sources being quoted. The current selective use of the sources violates NPOV and it should be corrected. Steve Quinn suggested that we should discuss the issue of NPOV from top to bottom. Here is the first topic in that discussion. What is the justification for disallowing an accurate presentation of the journal's own account of what transpired? We have a direct statement from the journal stating that a prior to publication peer review was conducted. Why should this not be included? We also have an independent source, one who has done extensive coverage of this topic and is relied heavily upon by HB, making the point that inviting additional public commentary from 100 experts post publication is an "extraordinary" step to take. What is inaccurate in that statement? Is it common practice to make such invitations? What is the justification for excluding this from the article? What is the justification for suppressing the journal's summarization of the received commentaries? I have no objection to likewise including the journal's critics assessment of them. These are basic facts that should be included and presented fairly. I believe that these are all being suppressed simply because they contradict the narrative that HB wishes to portray. Where are HB's sources stating unequivocally that a prior to publication peer review did not occur? There are none that I see. And yet this is the implication of the current article and HB's comments here on talk. --174.255.65.20 (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC) It all comes down to things that have been explained several times to you 1) Journal of Cosmology cannot be trusted to be a source on itself, as shown repeatedly above. And it especially cannot be trusted to be a source on itself when it comes to self-examination and self-introspection. 2) You consistently cherry pick quotes and put them out of context to make Journal of Cosmology look more mainstream and reputable than it really is. E.g. when David Dobbs said the journal took the "extraordinary step" of asking for 100 comments, he did not mean "This is amazing, science should be done like that!", but rather "well that is a really weird/odd/unusual thing to do for a journal". And you also conveniently forget that many other people (e.g. [20]), cite their request for comments as a textbook case of science by press conference, and that this prima facie behaviour is evidence that the journal utterly fails at peer review. 3) The article should reflect how the world sees this publication, not how the journal sees itself. And that is indeed the case, although the article is a rather mild and toned-down reflection of that view, for sake of "encyclopedicness" because we may not engage in WP:OR. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC) "1) Journal of Cosmology cannot be trusted to be a source on itself": You can keep repeating this but it does not change the fact that established policy states otherwise. You are projecting your personal opinion and desires here, not accurately stating accepted policy. "2) You consistently cherry pick quotes and put them out of context ...": False. I used quotes from the same sources you are already quoting and I have not used them in a misleading way. Your omission is what is misleading, not my inclusion of the opposing viewpoints found in the same sources. "when David Dobbs said the journal took the 'extraordinary step'...": More projection of your own opinion. The statement just prior to his extraordinary comment was "Schild seems to recognize that he must adjust his bar to ours if he wants to convince us." This clearly contradicts your interpretation. He is clearly praising Schild for his efforts. What's David Dobbs opinion of the JOC? "The Journal of Cosmology is in fact so different from any other journal, so otherworldly, that I don’t know quite know what to make of the thing. But in a way, I like it, even as it’s dying." "And you also conveniently forget that many other people ...": One article in the LA times, one which has the timeline wrong as previously pointed out to you, does not constitute "many other people". And even if it did your point is irrelevant to the question of whether the journal's own account should be included. I am not suggesting that we remove the criticism. I am suggesting that we include the journal's own account as well. "3) The article should reflect how the world sees this publication ...": This is true but this is accomplished by fairly and accurately reflecting what the sources are saying. Your selective use of the sources does not do that. And note that the "sources" include the positions and statements made by the journal itself. You are already including such statements, but you only wish to include the ones that paint the journal in a bad light. This is the source of your bias. I am not suggesting that we provide only the journal's point of view, but rather that the journal's point of view must be fairly reflected in the article. It currently is not. --174.255.65.20 (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC) At this point I have stated my objections and your preferences for how the article should be slanted have been made quite clear. I suggest that we wait and let others weigh in on the NPOV points I have raised. --174.255.65.20 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Meeting halfway

I changed the article to say "is peer-reviewed" again, but I also went ahead and added another sentence to the lede that summarizes the criticism of the fringe articles and the peer review process of the journal described in the rest of the article. I think this is a good half-way point. Silverseren^C 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This remains unacceptable, for the reasons given above. Being peer-reviewed means something, in the real world of real journals. This journal doesn't quite inhabit that world. Also "disparaged" is very definitely not the correct word - was that really what you meant? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It has a peer-review system, you can't really debate that. It has a shitty, horrible peer-review system that has been heavily criticized, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a peer-review system. You have presented no proof that they don't have one, you and Headbomb are just arguing that because they are producing fringe science, that their word is unreliable, so they can't have a peer-review system. The two of you are decidedly violating NPOV and trying to institute your own viewpoints into the article. Silverseren^C 21:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You're committing the gray fallacy. One group says 0, the other says 1, therefore truth is 0.5. As WMC explained above "peer-review" has a specific meaning in science, and when you see the phrase "Foobar is a peer-reviewed journal of foology", it is implied that "peer-reviewed" means "rigourous and independent peer-review", with "peer" meaning "qualified mainstream scientist". This is clearly not the case with Journal of Cosmology, as detailed by Leila Batisson in her article dealing with her own experiences with the journal. And then there are other problems, such as any actual peer review process would pick up blatant nonsense like Rhawn's Joseph claims that the Big Bang is a religious myth, and that the cosmology community is a pawn of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet that article got published... in a journal where Joseph himself is on the editorial board. These are conflicts of interest that would never happened in a journal that's actually peer reviewed.

So writing "Journal of Cosmology is a peer-reviewed journal" is completely misleading, given all that's wrong with the journal, and the great number of people that expressed doubts as to whether there's even a reviewing process, and does a disservice to the reader. The wording "Journal of Cosmology describes itself as a peer-reviewed journal" is free of such problems, factual, neutral, and does not mislead the reader into thinking that the rest of the mainstream scientific world thrusts the journal actually be peer reviewed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to say that it is peer reviewed and also include the criticisms about this journal. You can also consider the NPOV aspect w.r.t. to peer review. We all know that peer review is absolutely necessary for a good journal, but it isn't sufficient by itself. We should't (indirectly) promote the mistaken idea that "peer review = proven to be correct", that is so often exploited by crackpots who somehow got published in a high quality journal.

Or have we all forgotten about the Sokal affair? :) .Count Iblis (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We also need to remember that good communication is making things clear to the reader and not mislead them. Writing the words "the journal is peer-reviewed" implies that the journal is actually considered peer-reviewed in the usual sense of the word. But it's not peer-reviewed in the usual sense of the word. So we should not write those words, because that's how they'll be interpreted. It's not even clear if there's a review mechanism at all, and if the reviewers would be considered "peers" [i.e. mainstream experts, rather than disfranchised kooks] if there was such a mechanism in place. Only JOC considers itself to have a proper peer-review mechanism in place, so the article should reflect that, and be explicitly clear that this is JOC's assertion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"Only JOC considers itself to have a proper peer-review mechanism in place": This is an unfounded statement. Where is the proof that this is true? Ad hoc blogging and circumstantial evidence from the journal's detractors is insufficient. As I have already shown there are many more qualified scientists who have chosen to respond to the journal's invitation without making any such claims and in so doing demonstrating that they do not consider the journal to be the fringe mouthpiece you make it out to be. Claiming overwhelming condemnation when you have been shown to hold a minority position by sheer numbers makes your claim rubbish. --174.252.215.182 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the burden of evidence is on you, per WP:V. Per WP:SPS, self-published sources cannot be used to substatiate their own credibility. Removing "peer-reviewed" from the article as unsubstatiated and misleading. What the JOC claims to be is irrelevant and self-serving. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Climate Change

Please replace the current contents of the scope section with the following:

According to its website the focus of this journal is the advancement of science. This is accomplished by publishing original theories and discoveries in cosmology, astronomy, astrobiology, and earth and planetary sciences. Contributions may cover multiple disciplines and sub-disciplines of biology, genetics, geology, climate change, meteorology, physics, celestial mechanics, astrophysics, particle physics, paleoastronomy, chemistry, panspermia, abiogenesis, extinction, fluid mechanics, and the origin and evolution of life.

In general published papers present original theories, reviews, commentary, and speculation. Also covered is analysis of similarities and differences between competing theories (Big Bang vs Steady State theory, panspermia vs abiogenesis, etc.).

The Journal of Cosmology is open to all scientific points of view which are supported by published scientific research.

My justification is that the current scope conspicuously leaves out climate change even though 1 of the 16 volumes published was devoted specifically to this topic. The above change would make the scope consistent with the full list of sub-disciplines documented in the journal's about page.

--174.252.215.182 (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a deliberate attempt to prevent me editing the page, and as such looks like (a) bad faith and (b) a confession of the weakness of your position William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Making an edit protected request because the article is semi-protected is in bad faith? Seriously, William, you have no position to stand on as it is. You are making statements that are not backed up by sources. Silverseren^C 17:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You obviously haven't followed the Arbcom amendment where this IP is trying to keep the ban on WMC by arguing that JOC is a journal focusing on climate change. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Declined, we do not rely on descriptions from journal websites, especially in the case of fringe journals, and we should not aim to mirror websites descriptions. General platitudes like "The Journal of Cosmology is open to all scientific points of view which are supported by published scientific research" have no place in our articles. See WP:JWG for more details on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Lawrence Solomon: Global cooling underway. There, source for climate change by Lawrence Solomon. We should add climate change into the article. Silverseren^C 18:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, an opinion piece promoting fringe views (which haven't stood up to evidence so far) by a columnist with a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy. If it's worth including in the article, it will have been covered by a better source than that. . dave souza, talk 08:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is he unreliable for stating that the Journal of Cosmology covers climate change? Silverseren^C 16:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And here's a list of climate change publications collected by the Australian Senate. It has the JoC in it. Silverseren^C 16:34, 9 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)

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)

Mass revert of improvements

Headbomb: Why did you revert all my changes?[21] Your edit summary "revert bunch of completely innappropriate changes" doesn't provide an addequate 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"?

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)

Wrong again.

• [22] The second sentence is still a run-on. This has now been fixed.
• [23] Penrose is still missing. This sets up the rest of the sentence.
• [24] 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.
• [25] 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:JCW#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. Silverseren^C 23:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)