Talk:James Hamilton of Cadzow

DNA result
That a DNA project is crowd-sourced adds absolutely nothing to its credibility, and unless it has been formally published, it has not been peer-reviewed. All of the Family DNA project sites are self-published, in that there is no evaluation of the accuracy of their conclusions, and they represent the uncorroborated conclusions of the project manager. Inclusion of scientific results that were placed on a web page by the person drawing the conclusion is both premature and flies in the face of WP:RS. Scientific results need to have been published. Agricolae (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. These projects are the literature and they are peer-reviewed by their participants. If you are setting the standard at publication in peer-reviewed scientific or history journals, you are excluding any mention from Wikipedia, since the legitimacy of obscure medieval noblemen is of no scientific or very little if any historical interest. If the subject is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, then significant results of the DNA projects are notable for inclusion. If the results were picked up in the popular press and sourced from there, I suppose you would not object to mentioning it, even though that truly adds nothing to its credibility. NTK (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as 'peer reviewed by their participants'. The entire concept of peer review is that people independent of the work review the conclusions.  As to the majority of medieval noblemen being too obscure for mention in published sources, so be it.   DNA results that are put on a web site by the person who draws the conclusions have no scientific controls and no independent evaluation, making them no better than any other material of dubious integrity that you just 'found on the web' (and that, by the way, includes much of the material on medieval nobility).  Wikipedia has standards for reliable scientific results, and it takes more than just appearing on a web site to qualify. That is just the reliability part, but you also claim that just because you found it on a web site it is notable, but notability (i.e. due weight) is determined by the reference to the information in independent sources, so again DNA information that only appears on a web site under the control of the person drawing the conclusion doesn't qualify.  Wikipedia editors don't decide what is notable, or it would be a mess of the personal quirks of its editors, we use secondary sources to evaluate what is, and is not, notable, and this has not appeared in secondary sources. No, it doesn't belong (not yet, at least).Agricolae (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's standards for inclusion and reliable sources don't require peer review. You have not cited any established policies regarding citing to DNA projects, what you are attempting is to unilaterally establish such a standard here. NTK (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:RS does not include self-published material that has no independence of its source, nor are WP:PRIMARY sources to be the basis for information, and this is most definitely primary. We only use self-published information for the opinions of the publisher, not for historical or scientific fact. Wikipedia should not be used to publicize 'new findings'.  'I found this interesting thing on somebody's web page' doesn't cut it. Agricolae (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, I don't agree with your characterization of the DNA projects or the inclusion threshold for referencing their results. It's not just an "interesting thing on somebody's web page." There is no one single standard for all sources and materials on WP. If you're going to just keep blanking out any reference to these results, then in the absence of any established policy that is on point with respect to DNA projects, this should be arbitrated. NTK (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have laid out my policy arguments, you have simply kept putting it back because you like it, but offered nothing to counter the fact that this is self-published, primary, non-peer reviewed novel research findings that you found on a web site. It doesn't matter that it is DNA - self-published, primary, non-peer reviewed novel findings are not WP:RS, no matter what technique they involve. We don't say, 'It's DNA so all of the rules go out the window.' Agricolae (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)