Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 September 26

= September 26 =

How to cite an anthology with a compiler instead of an editor
Greetings.

I'm trying to cite an Anthology work which has a "compiled by" instead of an "editor". How do I do that?

I tried this:

but it's clearly not right, it lists the compilers name before the name of the anthology and adds "(ed.)". Please advise, Thanks, Gecko G (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You could use the 'others' parameter, like this: Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . In this context, I believe that a human compiler is pretty much synonymous with a human editor. Comparing the meanings of the words is complicated by the fact that both words are also used in a computer software context. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I could've sworn I had tried that exact same thing and it gave me an "ignore" error message, but yeah, that works (I guess I must have had a typo or something), thanks, that will work if there's not a proper way to cite an anthology!
 * -I suppose there is some overlap, but the source specifically labels him as a compiler, not an editor so I want to list him as such.
 * to any/all- Given that this is an article originally from a magazine, collected into an anthology work, what's the best way to list the three titles (article title, original magazine title, and anthology title)? Is there no anthology specific citation templates?  I tried to find the original magazine but I'm not finding any of that years Marine Corps Gazettes in my usual online sources, let alone that particular issue.  Gecko G (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't. You cite the source that you consulted.  cs1|2 or other forms of citation are not compliations of a source's publication history.  If you consulted the magazine then:
 * Compiler/editor for the purposes of a citation are synonymous. While others 'works', editor is the better choice.  Omit Evans' rank and affiliation; name only.
 * Also, see MOS:JR.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * (and especially thanks for the link about "Jr", as I'm never sure how to properly do that).
 * Though- then when would you use publication-date if not here? Doesn't not using it make it look like the article is 30 years newer than it actually is? Gecko G (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are citing the compilation, the proper date is the publication date (date) of the compilation. The purpose of a citation is to help the reader of en.wiki articles locate a copy of the source that you used when writing the en.wiki article.  The unique weirdnesses of publication-date and publication-place don't really aid the reader in their search for the source.  I hope to see both parameters go away.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be difficult, but that really doesn't seem correct to me. Are you sure?  I'm only planning on one quote, but if there was a subsequent quote with a reference list wouldn't that have to then be listed as Heiki (2008), even though Heiki wrote in 1978, vs. Evans (2008)?  Wouldn't that make it harder for a reader to find a copy, not easier?  How do those 2 parameters not help to clarify? Perhaps I'm not understanding or missing something...  Gecko G (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you wanted the year the magazine article was initially published you could use 1978 which will have that year in square brackets (showing it has been added and is not strictly speaking part of the citation where you got it) in addition to 2008.
 * Umimmak (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure. You are citing Heiki & Heinl .  You won't find Evans 1978 in a library catalog.  You will find Evans 2008 so 2008 is the correct value for date.  Using 1978 implies that there is a 1978 edition of Evans.  Even were there an Evans 1978, don't imply that you have consulted Evans 1978 if you have not.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Using 1978 implies that there is a 1978 edition of Evans., not all that does is say that the text of the Heiki & Keinl article was originally published that year; this is standard citation practice. CMoS provides the example Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903) 2016. “Of the Coming of John.” In The Making of the American Essay, edited by John D’Agata, 253–68. Minneapolis: Graywolf Press.; MLA provides Franklin, Benjamin. "Emigration to America." 1782. The Faber Book of America, edited by Christopher Ricks and William L. Vance, Faber and Faber, 1992, pp. 24-26. Both of these have a year for the original publication date of the chapter, not of the entire anthology. Umimmak (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought I remembered that was how a citation normally would be. Unfortunately the wikipedia citation template puts the dates next to each other if using orig-date so It seems to either need further explanation (building upon your originaly idea, like in my example "A" below) or one needs to use the publication-date (like in my example "B", also below).  Personally I lean towards favoring B, but A works too.  Gecko G (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of these have a year for the original publication date of the chapter, not of the entire anthology. What?  Of course both of those have dates for the anthologies: 2016 for D'Agata and 1992 for Ricks & Vance.  I stand unpersuaded.  Too many dates is too many dates.  It is not necessary to know when Du Bois or Franklin wrote their contributions to the anthologies.  Presuming that you consulted D'Agata 2016 and Ricks & Vance 1992, knowing Du Bois 1903 and Franklin 1782 won't help a reader find the sources that you consulted.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It gives the researcher the option to find either the original OR the anthology, i.e. they can try to locate either Du Bois 1903 or D'Agata 2016, and it doesn't send them looking for a nonexistent Du Bois 2016 or Franklin 1992 Gecko G (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But this is Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT applies; identify  source that  consulted when you wrote whatever en.wiki article.  You have said that you consulted Heinl & Heinl  Evans 2008 so that is the date that you should use because it is the date of the enclosing work.  Here is the Library of Congress page for The Making of the American Essay.  Note the date there: 2016.  Du Bois is mentioned in the contents section without a date.  Look up the ISBN at WorldCat; note the date.  The publication date of the enclosing work is the date that should be used; any other date is extraneous and likely to be confusing.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was relying on Umimmak's "Chicago style" citation, as it's a format I don't use. After a brief research it in fact doesn't look like that is how Chicago style is normally cited with regard to the year.
 * Yes, I got it from Evans 2008, but placing the year of Evans publication immediately after the names of the authors implies the original authors work was of that year. It also does not match any normal citation style I am aware of: MLA, APA, Chicago.  If the output of the template was something like:
 * that could work and I would view that as correct, (though it seems odd to deliberately leave out information that could aid a researcher in locating it -namely that it's from the Dec. 1978 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette), but as soon as 2008 gets placed immediately after the article author names it implies the authors wrote in 2008, and I believe would be confusing to readers. Anyway, Umimmak below found the original issue of the Marine Corps Gazette online, I so I can just use that and avoid the whole issue.  Gecko G (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think that cs1|2 handles dates incorrectly, start a discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But I fear your citation would cause the reader to search a library catalog for Heiki & Heinl 2008. It seems there's one of 2 possibly correct ways to do this (if there's no anthology specific citation template).  Either:
 * A) incorporate Umimmak@undefined's suggestion of using orig-date but including explanation, thusly:
 * or B) keep closer to your idea but keeping 2008 in the publication-date parameter, thusly:
 * Thoughts? Thanks.  Gecko G (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But I fear your citation would cause the reader to search a library catalog for Heiki & Heinl 2008. no the reader will see those are the authors of just one chapter so they'll go to look up the 2008 book edited by Evans. There's no need to have extraneous information like "Original article" because having square brackets around the date says that already.
 * Another suggestion is just have both full citations, have something like [Reprint of Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 46–56, December 1978] following the citation of the 2008 book where you got it.
 * Note that the surname is not Heiki as I actually check the sources (and also obviously you should have 89–99 somewhere in your citation for the 2008 book). Umimmak (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * re: first 2 sentences- That was in reference to Trappists original suggestion of the 26th, not yours.
 * re: third sentence- At this point, yeah it might be easier to just ditch the wikipedia specific citation template.
 * re: fourth sentence- looks it up... wow.  You're absolutely right, they are both surnamed Heinl.  I must of made a sloppy typo in jotting down my notes during research.
 * Gecko G (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was planning on citing only 1 specific point and so would have the specific page number for that part, but now I'm thinking I might include more from that source, in which case I'll give the page range. Thanks.  Gecko G (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Heiki is not the surname; see "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928" (p. 103)
 * If you are going to argue that it is necessary to include the date of the magazine article, are you also going to argue that it is necessary to include the page numbers where the article appears in the magazine? It is much of a muchness.  Extraneous information should be left out.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The surname was an error on my part.
 * The best outcome would be if I could find the original Marine Corps Gazette then I could just reference Heinl & Heinl 1978. Failing that, and having to cite the anthology, using the template as you suggest would be implying a Heinl & Heinl 2008.  It looks like it's a failing in the citation templates ability to handle an Anthology since it matches none of the normal citation styles I'm familiar with (i.e. MLA).  Short of finding the original magazine, it seems the best is just to not use the wikipedia specific citation template at all and just put a normal plain text citation (like an MLA stlye one) inside a ref tag.  Thanks Gecko G (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that citing Marine Corps Gazette would be best. I disagree that 2008 implies Heinl & Heinl 2008; it does no such thing.  Readers must read the whole citation not just the first couple of elements.  You can, of course, create a manual citation within the limits of WP:CITESTYLE.  cs1|2 is a good general purpose system that has been found to be adequate for millions of articles at en.wiki and many other wikis.  cs1|2, I think, handles the Evans 2008 anthology correctly so I do not see any failure there.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean the original article is available via Google Books if you want to just cite that? https://books.google.com/books?id=R3VNAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA21-PA46
 * I agree with that just having the information for where you got it is sufficient, so just having 2008 as the date and only including information about the book you’re reading is fine and won’t lead readers astray. (I just  think it’s sometimes useful to provide information about when the paper was originally published or even the full citation details for that as well — there is precedent for including those in a variety of citation styles.) Umimmak (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the original Marine Corps Gazette, excellent, I can just use that and avoid the whole kerfluffel. Thank you!  Gecko G (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * re: fourth sentence- looks it up... wow.  You're absolutely right, they are both surnamed Heinl.  I must of made a sloppy typo in jotting down my notes during research.
 * Gecko G (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was planning on citing only 1 specific point and so would have the specific page number for that part, but now I'm thinking I might include more from that source, in which case I'll give the page range. Thanks.  Gecko G (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Heiki is not the surname; see "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928" (p. 103)
 * If you are going to argue that it is necessary to include the date of the magazine article, are you also going to argue that it is necessary to include the page numbers where the article appears in the magazine? It is much of a muchness.  Extraneous information should be left out.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The surname was an error on my part.
 * The best outcome would be if I could find the original Marine Corps Gazette then I could just reference Heinl & Heinl 1978. Failing that, and having to cite the anthology, using the template as you suggest would be implying a Heinl & Heinl 2008.  It looks like it's a failing in the citation templates ability to handle an Anthology since it matches none of the normal citation styles I'm familiar with (i.e. MLA).  Short of finding the original magazine, it seems the best is just to not use the wikipedia specific citation template at all and just put a normal plain text citation (like an MLA stlye one) inside a ref tag.  Thanks Gecko G (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that citing Marine Corps Gazette would be best. I disagree that 2008 implies Heinl & Heinl 2008; it does no such thing.  Readers must read the whole citation not just the first couple of elements.  You can, of course, create a manual citation within the limits of WP:CITESTYLE.  cs1|2 is a good general purpose system that has been found to be adequate for millions of articles at en.wiki and many other wikis.  cs1|2, I think, handles the Evans 2008 anthology correctly so I do not see any failure there.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean the original article is available via Google Books if you want to just cite that? https://books.google.com/books?id=R3VNAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA21-PA46
 * I agree with that just having the information for where you got it is sufficient, so just having 2008 as the date and only including information about the book you’re reading is fine and won’t lead readers astray. (I just  think it’s sometimes useful to provide information about when the paper was originally published or even the full citation details for that as well — there is precedent for including those in a variety of citation styles.) Umimmak (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the original Marine Corps Gazette, excellent, I can just use that and avoid the whole kerfluffel. Thank you!  Gecko G (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with that just having the information for where you got it is sufficient, so just having 2008 as the date and only including information about the book you’re reading is fine and won’t lead readers astray. (I just  think it’s sometimes useful to provide information about when the paper was originally published or even the full citation details for that as well — there is precedent for including those in a variety of citation styles.) Umimmak (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the original Marine Corps Gazette, excellent, I can just use that and avoid the whole kerfluffel. Thank you!  Gecko G (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the help.  Gecko G (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Labelling as 'false claims' news articles that had been corrected or retracted
It is my understanding that news publishers sometimes make corrections or retractions, with or without notice, and that it is routine practice in the industry. I came across the article The Raw Story which has a long list of entries (18) under the heading "False claims". Every one which I have looked into was about an article which had been quickly corrected or retracted within a reasonably short period of time. Some of these articles had relied on news agency or syndicated articles which were even cited/linked in the published article. I have searched other Wikipedia articles on news organizations that published/corrected/retracted the same material and yet I do not find similar content in their Wikipedia articles, nor do I find any similar sections or lists for 'false claims'.

Some of the language in the Wikipedia article The Raw Story is exaggerated, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE or based on exaggerated or twisted claims by the cited articles. I have tried to remove some of the entries and have put my reasoning on the talk page, but one particular editor (who was a major contributor to content on the page and I believe who added this list) reverts and insists that the content is well sourced and NPOV. But it isn't. Regardless of what I write to explain my edit, this editor uses very strong and aggressive language to discourage me from continuing. I have tried to search for specific Wikipedia guidelines about this type of content, but have only been able to find NPOV, SYNTH, UNDUE and, frankly, WP:COMMONSENSE.

If any of the 26 citations in The Raw Story were actually alleging that Raw Story routinely and repeatedly publishes false claims and is negligent about retractions, then that would be a different story, but there are no sources covering that concept. Instead, the majority of these citations are Snopes-like in that they mention some issue that made the rounds of the internet which they found to be untrue or unlikely and they happen to mention that Raw Story as well as others had published it.

I am unsure how to proceed. The article is a wreck and even though I have only a limited amount of time to spend on Wikipedia, I don't want to abandon it to this "owner". Is there a more specific guideline or policy that covers this sort of content? Or does anyone have any advice or direction that can unstick this impasse with another editor? Grorp (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like a conversation you and need to have on Talk:The Raw Story before EITHER of you revert again.  I do see you have posted detailed reasoning for your changes on the talk page and Dr. Swag Lord has responded, but I can see how you might think his response (basically your explanation is TL:DR and to "Stop removing well-sourced content.") is less than productive.  I think the two of you need to have a good faith conversation about if that material is being given due weight or not. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Grorp As I explained on the talk page, please try your best to express your arguments in a succinct manner and avoid WP:WALLSOFTEXT. It's very difficult for editors to respond in more detail to thousands and thousands of bytes of arguments. This especially rings true when the article has been ransacked by sock-puppets, declared & undeclared COIs for the last few years. Thank you very much. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not responsible for the earlier history of the article, nor your fatigue over it. Please talk with me... and not with the "ghosts of edits past". Grorp (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Severe problem with routine addition of content
Hello, I'm having severe problems with routine addition of content, succeeding only on 5th or 7th try after 15-20 mins: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1112457436

Can anyone please investigate it and explain why? Is there any problem with editing at the moment in general? Or any problem with this IP addr or range so it triggers some internal protection (I usually get assigned IP from a different range, this one is a very rare occurrence).

This is infuriating, as I wanted to do one more edit of the page, and it keeps failing with "Error, something unexpected happened upon loading the preview. Please close and try again." reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.83.219 (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC) P.S. in case such questions should be asked elsewhere, please let me know.217.118.83.219 (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Making note here that it's definitely not an abuse filter issue (I checked and they haven't triggered any abuse filters). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be just general internet problems. In case you hadn't noticed, IP, there is an ongoing war in Europe, and both sides (in the broadest sense) are doubtless making cyberattacks on each others' internet services. {the poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.227.236 (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That would make sense considering the IP is from Russia according to WhoIs. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears the problem was entirely on my end: shortly after my futile edit attempts I noticed I couldn't watch YouTube vids even at min quality; YouTube-reported bitrate fell to 50-80 kbps – numbers I don't recall seeing before. The fact that I easily posted here, but couldn't edit the article, is probably explained by its big size – perhaps something in MediaWiki is sensitive to very low connection speed. Now the speed is back, and I edited the article as usual, without a hitch.

So thanks to all who reached out to help, and apologies for the alert folks, if it occurred to me that I should have checked my connection, I would have done it. Case closed it seems (except someone here is brave enough to go ahead and fix that MediaWiki "feature" for the good of all editors sitting on flaky connections).217.118.83.219 (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would be a MediaWiki issue but probably just a website issue. Usually if your connection isn't very good certain things won't work on websites because your internet isn't strong enough. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a good thing for WMF to look into - countries with weak Internet connection should also be able to edit properly. While 100 Mbps is commonplace on many countries, it is not so for many others. We are talking about regions either - West Virginia only enjoy average speed of 60 Mbps while Delaware enjoyed around 140 Mbps. And we are talking about mobiles too, mobiles in many countries only average under 20 Mbps.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   15:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Censorship and propaganda.
If Wikipedia wishes to remain a legitimate source of knowledgeable information, it should refrain from locking pages with politically biased information subject to propaganda laws and attributes to support narratives through emotion and remain factual and logical. Example: Fascism - Wikipedia States "far-right" and locked in Talk as: The lead of the article says that "Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." This statement is the result of a very long process of discussion and debate and has strong consensus acceptance within the Wikipedia community, based on the consensus of political scientists, historians, and other reliable sources that Fascism is a (far) "right-wing" ideology and not a "left-wing" one. This has been discussed numerous times. Please see this FAQ and read the talk page archives." When in fact no discussion was had. I do not know, though I suspect government meddling, was the source cause of this. I have plenty of biased propaganda sources such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube for these kinds of content, and hope Wikipedia can return itself to normalcy while remaining unbiased in word definitions. The above example of "Fascism" is neither right nor left as described and outlined in the remainder of the article as well as its source references. This and other similar source information meddling is the reason I no longer monetarily support the Wikipedia foundation, see also redefinition of “Vaccine” as other source. ELXaber (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Fascism has a "Search archives" field. A search of left-wing shows many discussions. Some American conservatives and others are trying to redefine the term but until they convince the World at large, Wikipedia will probably continue to use the normal international meaning. I don't know where you are from but if you mainly follow conservative American media then you don't get a proper impression of how the term is normally used. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and tries to avoid special terminology used by limited groups. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , the Wikimedia Foundation has massive cash reserves and will not miss your donations. Experienced Wikipedia editors pay no attention whatsoever to anyone's comments about withholding donations. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a help desk for answering questions about editing. In the future please feel free to voice your concerns by starting a discussion on the relevant article talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  20:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Edits using bot
Hi, I need to find a talk page (or project) or a user who knows how to operate a bot (I've seen these edits before, but can't remember who made them). I don't edit English Wikipedia, so don't know where to ask my question exactly. Thank you RiniX (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're looking for Bot requests, or possibly Bots/Noticeboard, depending on the nature of your question. —Cryptic 19:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

User:ItsKesha
User:ItsKesha makes unexplained deletes. User:ItsKesha also makes additions to Professional wrestling and association football articles. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Why are you saying this here, 0mtw etc? You do not appear to have made any edits to User talk:ItsKesha or any other talk page in the last four days. Those are where you should start any discussion with or about the other user. ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Main Page
Is there a way to receieve a daily email link to the Main page. I've found that I simply can't remember everyday to go there but an email (which I check regularly) would be a helpful reminder. 108.54.151.146 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia can do that. The Google search gives many services. I don't know what else they may do with your email address. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You could subscribe to the daily featured article email list? https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/daily-article-l.lists.wikimedia.org/ 163.1.15.238 (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)