Talk:El Bañuelo

Orihuela & López-Osorio source
Regarding this edit, normally I'd support removing a potential predatory source but in this case I know that the first author, Antonio Orihuela, is a well-known and well-published scholar on the subject across multiple publishers. I can't vouch for the journal generally, but given the author's authority and the harm (so to speak) that removing the source does to the article, I see sufficient reason to keep it. At some point in the future I'll have a look to see if the same information is published in a later article that could be cited instead (e.g. possibly in the chapter by the same author in this book), but otherwise I don't think we'll find exactly the same information in another English-language article. R Prazeres (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There's a bunch of different authors there, and experts make tons of mistakes all the time. This hasn't gone through proper peer review, and is at best no more reliable than a blog. There is no 'damage' done to anything here, there are other sources to most of the information, and we don't need to cite a predatory journal on top of these other sources. There is one tag in the article as a result of this, and putting a crap journal to back that claim is a disservice to the reader. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I didn't want to deal with this while I was abroad, but now that I have a moment I'm surprised that you immediately reinstated your edit after an objection was raised; essentially edit-warring. You're also overstating the potential unreliability of the source in question and understating the potential impact on the article. You removed five citations, not just the one that you placed a tag for, and each citation is usually there for a reason. So the article now has possible WP:INTEGRITY issues in addition to general verifiability issues. Since this is a short article, I will deal with it myself at some later time. In future situations like this, however, I'll remind you to remain collaborative rather than imposing your own conclusion. I would also suggest that if you are removing many citations from an article in the future, especially larger or more complex articles, you leave a note on the talk page with a link to your diff, so that other editors can more easily track verifiability issues arising from that edit. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed five instances of one citation, not five citations, and in four instance another citation was already there. If this causes 'integrity issues' then the other citations shouldn't be there to begin with. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You removed five citations to the same source, which means the source was supporting one part of those statements or another. In some cases the other citations may cover the same info, in other cases the statement is synthesizing info from multiple sources, which is pretty common on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but it's not constructive. Please take the advice and respect the letter and spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. That's all I'm asking. R Prazeres (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "in other cases the statement is synthesizing info from multiple sources"
 * which we explicitly shouldn't do. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * According to what? R Prazeres (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)