Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 205

Scientific Research Publishing
believes that Scientific Research Publishing should not be used as a source on Wikipedia, due to supposedly being a predatory open access publisher. Even if this was the case, that does not necessarily affect the reliability of its content; researchers write the papers, not the journal, and the reliability of the science itself is not in question. Instead of trying to discuss this and gain consensus, JzG has now begun to unilaterally remove this journal wherever it is used as a source, thereby leaving many articles with unsourced statements, including featured ones (such as Smilodon, which is what brought me here). So I'd like some discussion of where we go from here. Either this gets blacklisted as an unreliable source, in which case we need to deal with the many resulting unsourced statements left, or JzG reverts his removals. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do understand that predatory open access publishing is a relatively new field, and it is entirely understandable that people who don't watch the fringes of our biomedical articles (where this is rife) might not be aware of the problem.
 * This is a publisher which we identify in our article, based on good sources, as having substantial problems with editorial oversight, and being probably predatory. Its publications have been used by the Burzynski Clinic to publish its "studies" on so-called antineoplastons (even the clinic's own lawyer openly acknowledges that these studies are a farce), and this draft listing a bunch of publications on treatments for non-existent diseases all published either in SciRP or Ross, another predatory publisher.
 * Predatory publishing clearly excludes any journal from being a reliable source. The editorial oversight that is supposed to act as a gatekeeper for good science, is replaced by the scientific publishing equivalent of a wallet biopsy. Any paper whose authors can afford the fee, gets published, and that makes the source no better than any other self-published venue. A self-=published document may be correct, as may a paper published in a predatory journal, but we exclude them because there is no editorial oversight and our own policies forbid us from being the ones to make a determination as to whether a primary source is reliable or not.
 * How do we know which are the fraudulent papers paid for by researchders whose work is rejected elsewhere, versus those whose authors have simply been scammed?
 * And when that publisher is actively soliciting papers promoting cancer quackery, as this one is, then there is no remaining doubt of which one might reasonably give them benefit. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many assumptions in your statement, which is why we need a wider discussion of this before taking any unilateral action. I would even propose that all removals be reverted until we gain a consensus here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While being published in a vanity press or predatory journal does not necessarily mean that the information in the study is false, it does mean that it's not verifiable in the sense that we mean here. What would it take, FunkMonk, to convince you personally that a journal is predatory?  What do you see as your standard?  Confirmation that SRP lacks of editorial oversight?  Confirmation that it will publish anyone who can pay?  Criticism in other reliable publications? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This issue is not about me being "convinced" or not, but whether we blacklist this journal or not, and what we do with the resulting unsourced statements afterwards. I couldn't care less about the journal itself, I'm worried about the articles. Simply removing sources, but not the statements they support, leaves misleading articles, and is simply irresponsible. If it is indeed policy not to use "predatory publishers" (is it?), we need this stated somewhere clearly, and filter them automatically when they're added, like we do with spam-sites. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * All content is supposed to be verifiable from reliable independent secondary sources, so if the text depends on an unreliable primary source then we should simply remove it per WP:PRIMARY as well as WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "All content is supposed to be verifiable from reliable independent secondary sources" – This is not true. You can WP:USEPRIMARY sources.  You can use non-WP:Independent sources (e.g., nearly every article about a notable academic).  All content must be verifiable in a reliable source, including non-independent, self-published, and primary sources that are reliable for the specific claim being made.  Most content is supposed to be verifiable in independent sources.  There is no policy requiring that "all" content be verifiable in sources that are both independent and secondary.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is that not what you actually did, then? In years to come, who will know that the statements left were sourced to an paper that has now been delinked? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:V say any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. If claims are uncontentious, leaving them without a source is not optimal, but not a serious problem. Backing by an unreliable source is worse than no citation at all, because it gives a wrong impression of reliability. In this particular case, I have looked at some papers published by Scientific Research Publishing, and there is no evidence of even basic fact-checking - several are pure nonsense. The journals are not reliable and should not be mistaken for good sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Backing by an unreliable source is worse than no citation at all" Sorry, but that simply doesn't cut it for featured articles. Either there's a source, or the statement is removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An FA should not have unreliable sources. How do we know if an individual unreliable source is promoting some quixotic idea rejected by the mainstream? Primary sources are only to be used with caution, for uncontentious facts. If the fact is contentious or if you otherwise consider it must have a source, then using an unreliable source is simply not a valid option and the text should be, as you say, removed. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No one said a FA should have unreliable sources. I said they should not have unreferenced statements. This means that such statements should be removed, not left, if their source is deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know the requirement of Featured Articles, but if there is no reference, why not put in the citation needed in its place?  I thought that was the standard thing to do--or better yet find a source that supports it, if one exists. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That would seem obvious, but JzG rejects doing this, for whatever reason. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and check out his contributions page[]. He seems to be on some sort of "mission". DrChrissy (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's Operation Improve Wikipedia. Have you even read the articles on predatory publishing and these publishers themselves? In fact I'd expect you to be the very last person to object, given your kvetching about Science Based Medicine, which actually does have an editorial board and doesn't accept articles for pay - to find you apparently arguing for sources much less dependable than SBM is kind of weird.. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that aimed at me? If it is, please could you provide a diff regarding the purported kvetching because I have no idea what you are talking about. DrChrissy (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How exactly does leaving a gazillion statements without source while not even leaving a note that these statements need a replacement source as result in any way "improve Wikipedia? All it does is to create unreliable articles and a giant mess for a lot of other editors to clean up. FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just add the maintenance tags, Guy. That's all.  You are there, you are editing the page, so finish the job. We don't need 50,000 characters of debate on the subject: Read the Template:Verify source: "If [a statement] is not doubtful, use Citation needed (or Cite quote) to request a citation to improve the article's verifiability."
 * Why add a maintenance tag leaving it for someone else to fix (which they probably won't), rather than fixing the actual problem? That makes no sense. It also leaves Wikipedia boosting the reputation and prominence of, bluntly, scammers. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of "not doubtful" is in question, for you? The policy for "doubtful" is clear.  The policy for "not doubtful" is also clear.  Yet JzG does not follow either policy.  How is that doing a "huge service" for Wikipedia?  Frankly, all the "huge services" JzG has performed in the last few weeks must now be carefully reviewed and reworked properly by other editors who are not so cavalier. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * These are not reliable sources. The thing that makes an academic journal a reliable source, is peer review, which is the core of what is missing with predatory journals. Moreover, the journals are undermining the integrity of academic publishing as a whole, they are often published this way because no reputable journal will touch them. There are no good reasons for using predatory open access journals as sources. None. The only question is what to do when they are removed. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * All but your last statement is beyond question. And what you call a "question" is already answered in Wikipedia policy.  Template:Verify source "If {a statement} is not doubtful, use Citation needed (or Cite quote) to request a citation to improve the article's verifiability."  But if the statement is doubtful, the other policy applies: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (from Verifiability) And now there is no question. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No assumptions at all. We have an article describing predatory open access publishing, the facts are as stated in that article. SciRP is in Beall's list, pretty much the canonical authority. There's nothing left to assume. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)]


 * You mean the Wikipedia article? That's not a Wikipedia policy page. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article tells us about the publisher. WP:RS tells us not to use the publisher, as it's the academic equivalent of a vanity press. This does not seem to em to be contentious. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As suggested by someone else here, it is subjective whether "predatory publishing" is vanity publishing. The apparent link between the two should be made explicit. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? It is a distinction without a difference. The source fails WP:RS, whether it fails it for one reason or three is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actual reliable sources describe it as a predatory publisher. Personally I never draw the fine distinction between predatory and 'vanity' that some do, either way the author pays a fee to have their work published. Publishing not based on merit or peer review means it cannot be used as a reliable source and is ripe for removal.
 * While this might unfairly label some legitimate papers as unreliable, this is not a problem of wikipedia's making. This is the problem of the author choosing an unreliable publisher to get their work out. Papers sourced solely to such journals/publishers fail our requirements for RS.
 * As for removing sources cited to papers from such unreliable sources but leaving the statements they are supporting, this is an editorial decision. The editor could have removed all the info. Unless its something particularly contentious, leaving it and asking for a better source is an option available. We do have a citation needed template after all. Info *may* be removed from articles. It doesnt necessarily have to be in all cases where sources may be found that can support it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We have sympathy for the victims but we are not qualified to work out which are victims and which are knowingly exploiting lack of peer-review. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, to not leave a mass of unreferenced articles, should at least leave a "citation needed" tag after every sentence he makes unsourced. And the journal should be listed somewhere or blocked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mind doing that where the cite is not redundant, but most of the facts I have seen don't appear to be disputed. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you base that on? In the case of Smilodon, the article refers to specific theories, not common knowledge or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if a statement required a citation before, simply removing the citation without providing an alternative, or tagging with "citation needed", is close to vandalism. I have never heard before that citations are only needed where facts are disputed - I thought this was an encyclopaedia. DrChrissy (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, If you are not familiar with WP:V, then I suggest you read it. And of course it does not say "only when facts are disputed". In general, removing bad sources is a step in the right direction. Removing dubious unsourced content is also a step in the right direction. But nobody can or should force a volunteer editor to make more steps than they do voluntarily. Otherwise, why not demand perfect FA's immediately.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming WP:V does not state - "only when facts are disputed". I was actually referring to an editor's previous comment, not he policy.  It takes no additional effort, and no further steps, to remove the material associated with a reference if this is not a RS.  It simply requires an adjustment when selecting the material to remove - I don't think this is too taxing on editors.  It also takes little effort to simply place a tag on the contested reference/content. DrChrissy (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that users can just remove sources for being unreliable without discussion, and then leaving heaps of unsourced statements for years to come, is rather baffling. Not sure what the "why not demand perfect FA's immediately" statement has to do with anything. An article does not remain an FA for long if it has unsourced statements, so these are better off removed entirely. How hard is it really for the volunteer editor to remove a sentence preceding a source? Am I missing something? It is not about "forcing" anyone, but about common sense and courtesy. By simply removing citations, the volunteer editor is leaving even more clean-up work for other volunteer editors to do (if the removal is even noticed by anyone), and yes, forcing these to do the job for them, since the quality of the article is otherwise compromised. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with this discussion is saying "x" is always or never a reliable source, full stop, is misleading. Even highly reputable sources can contain factual errors, and in those cases it would not be appropriate to cite the source. As FunkMonk suggests, if you do not believe the facts in source are reputable enough to give a solid verification to a claim, and you don't replace it with an alternative source or at least tag it with or  (thus immediately flagging it as a problem), why would you believe anything in the accompanying text is correct either? This is especially important for any featured article with a scientific emphasis. In the example given here, this edit is problematic as it gives the reader the impression that the information is cited to the next inline citation along, which is (probably) wrong - so such an edit is dangerous because it gives the impression of falsified sources. To give another example, on numerous occasions I have wandered round BLPs and taken out statements cited to The Sun, and by and large I have not left the accompanying text in (usually because doing so violates WP:BLP anyway). Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  14:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Some points that might deserve consideration. A predatory publisher essentially produces self-published sources, in relation to the author. However, the standing policy is: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. So in cases where on a scientific subject professional scientists have published peer-reviewed articles, their subsequent non-reviewed articles should in principle be considered reliable.

Secondly, we should remember that it is perfectly all-right to use even a questionable source as a source about that source itself. A Wikipedia article, even when addressing utterly uncontentious content, should ideally consist of statements of the form Source X claims fact Y anyway. So, when statements of the form Object X has quality Y are changed into Scientist Z stated/concluded/suggested in xxxx that object X has quality Y, it becomes irrelevant whether said scientist published this opinion in a questionable source — unless, of course, it was some silly hypothesis that should be disregarded by us because of Undue Weight, the reason why he could only publish it in a questionable source in the first place. Simply explicitly mentioning in the main text the author(s) and the studies involved, thus solves the problem.--MWAK (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should treat these as self-published sources. Publications become reliable because of their editorial oversight, and inclusion in Beall's list generally implies that a publisher has liittle or no oversight or that it allows what oversight it has to be trumped by fee-seeking behavior. But I would go farther than that. A paper on arXiv, for instance, is self-published (the editorial controls at arXiv are too weak to confer reliability) but neutral: many good sources are self-published at arXiv and then later peer-reviewed, there is no profit motive complicating the issue, etc. On the other hand, no self-respecting academic would knowingly publish at a predatory publisher: reliable non-predatory academic publishers are plentiful, confer more respect on one's publications, and are generally cheaper (often free to authors rather than charging publication fees). Therefore, publication in a predatory publisher such as SRP is a symptom that something is wrong and that one should treat the source very carefully if at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with treating accused sources with suspicious. But black-listing a publisher should require multiple independent sources. Beall has been called "trigger-happy" by Paul Ginsparg, the creator of arXiv, in a paper in Science.  He's been said to be falsely accusing nearly one in five as being predatory (see Jeffrey_Beall).  He often doesn't tell when a publisher is no longer in his list, and if it was because a once-predatory journal reformed or if it was accused unfairly.  Although publishers like SRP and OMICS serve as clearer examples, that are many borderline and controversial cases, such as MDPI and Frontiers Media, which were cleared by, e.g., the Committee on Publication Ethics. fgnievinski (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk insists on reinserting the cite to this source demanding that if I remove it then I must also remove all text purportedly supported by it. This is surreal. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh, JzG you've done similar at Suillellus luridus. I would agree that if you are going to remove the source, please remove the fact. In this case it is pretty trivial though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have done this where i think the information is likely to be disputed. Many cites were redundant (para already had a source) and most were for information that seems unlikely to be challenged. Some were of the class "X claims this Great new Theory, source X's paper in SCIRP", and those of course I have removed in their entirety. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Surreal"? It is common practice. Especially for FAs. And what does "para already had a source" even mean? The source at the end of a paragraph rarely if ever supports a sentence earlier in the paragraph that is followed by a different source. You're leaving the rest of us to clean up your mess, and that's why I've reverted you. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know the requirement of Featured Articles, but if deleting the predatory publication leaves no reference, why not put in the citation needed in its place? (as mentioned above) I thought that was the standard thing to do--or better yet find a source that supports it, if one exists. If no one can find a source for it, then it gets deleted:  no mess.  I don't think the FA quality is reduced by using this approach, even though "citation needed" does make the article look less attractive to the reader.  But leaving in a questionable source is not much better. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And when the form is "X claims this Great new Theory, source X's paper in SCIRP", it should not be removed at all because even when the source would be unreliable as to the content (which, again, may only be assumed if X is not an established expert), it suffices as proof that X made the claim. You are violating the NPOV principle.--MWAK (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To leave it in sounds like WP:OR to me. I thought grand new theories had to be reported in secondary sources, right?  Can you provide WP:PAG that defends your claim that this should be left in? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the existence (not truth) of even a "grand new theory" is sufficiently proven by its "primary" source if that's a scientific article. If such an article is deemed unreliable because of being published in a predatory magazine (it is BTW not to be considered unreliable if the author is an established scientist for then the rules about self-publishing should apply), this only affects the content. So we may not claim "Fact X" and merely give a citation but we may claim "Scientist Z claims Fact X" and leave it to the reader whether he wants to believe Scientist Z. To give an example: we may not claim sauropods still exist in the Congo but we may claim (and correctly do) "Roy P. Mackal in 1987 claimed that sauropods exist in the Congo" in his  A Living Dinosaur? In Search of Mokele-Mbembe even though this book is very unreliable as to the biological content. Whether a predatory publisher publishes such sources then becomes utterly irrelevant.--MWAK (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I presume we also have reliable independent secondary sources that cover that? If not, we have no idea if it's notable bollocks or just bollocks. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: if one is searching for SRP publications used as sources on Wikipedia, as well as searching for their domain name in the URL, another possibility is to search for "10.4236" in the doi. Google claims to find about 231 of these. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

One aspect I do not understand here is that simply the presence of a journal or publisher's name on a list is being used to delete the reference (and sometimes the associated material). I once used the Daily Mail as a source. Due to the comments I received about this, I questioned why there is no black-list of newspapers that are widely considered as non-RS so that editors considering using these sources would be alerted prior to making the edits. In the ensuing discussion, people seemed to think that setting such lists in concrete was ill-advised, so why the difference here? I then asked about the criteria that people might use as to whether a newspaper is RS or not and whether we should include this on the policy/guideline page. I met incredible resistance to this idea. Today, I have spent some time going through several of the listed predatory journals and for some of them, the only practice they have which is different to non-listed journals is they charge money for their services. DrChrissy (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If it were only charging money for open-access publication, many well-established and mainstream academic publishers should also be listed. But no, the real problem is not the money they charge: it's that, in order to assure the continued flow of this money, these journals either perform no adequate peer review of the papers they publish (taking all or almost all submissions from authors willing to pay) or that they let the willingness to pay override the judgements of the peer reviewers. (There are also some other bad habits that can land a publisher on this list, such as falsifying their editorial boards or spamming potential contributors, that are less central to the question of how reliable they are.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But how do we know whether a journal is lying on its web-site about e.g. peer-review, editorial boards? Do we just put absolute trust in  Beall's list being 100% accurate? DrChrissy (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We know Beall is reliable because he is widely considered to be reliable by known experts. I know it can seem a little strange, given the vociferousness with which unreliable sources are often attacked, but at some point, we need to trust the experts. Establishing the reliability of a source isn't an exercise in formal logic, but more like the legal concept of the preponderance of evidence. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess part of the problem is that I am seeing some papers in these journals which are written by well-established, highly reputable authors. I can think of several possible reasons for this, e.g. to achieve a necessary deadline so the paper can be included as "published" in a grant application/CV (in my subject area, publication in traditional journals often takes 6-12 months!).  So what do we do about these papers? DrChrissy (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be able to make a case that an article by a known, reliable expert published in a predatory journal is an RS. I think that's something we'd need to decide on a case by case basis, though. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - I agree entirely. I think this is actually what is intended by WP:RS which states Beware of sources that sound reliable but... might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior.  I think we should note the word "Beware" does not mean "You are not permitted to use". DrChrissy (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If people agree that this should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, would we also agree that the best place for this case-by-case discussion, at least initially, is at the Talk page of the article in question, rather than at a more general noticeboard such as this. This would likely involve those with the greatest interest and expertise in the subject matter.  DrChrissy (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be rejected in all cases regardless of who wrote it. A recognized expert shouldn't have any problem getting published by a respectable journal, and seeing one in a vanity journal should be considered immediately suspicious. Even under optimal circumstances, a recognized expert's paper in a reliable journal, these sources are very primary and tend to represent the personal interpretations of one researcher when the article needs to represent primarily the general consensus of the field. Passing peer review doesn't confer "truth" onto an idea, it just means that it passed enough basic review that it's worth a skeptical reading by other people trained in that field. Too often editors tend to forget that and somehow these become "truth" for uncritical perusal by an untrained audience...which is not what the paper was originally intended for. A lot of funny ideas make it past peer review because they're "safe" for other experts but would never have made it into a textbook, whose intended audience might be misled. Considering these problems, considering how many respectable journals there are that we might use instead, and considering that it's hard to see why an expert would use such a venue to make a claim representative of their field, I see no reason a vanity press should be allowed at all. Geogene (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No. We don't reject all self-published sources (which is what these journals amount to: if you pay, they publish), so we shouldn't reject all predatory journal articles out of hand. That being said, the onus should be on the editor adding such a reference to show that this particular article is reliable, despite its publication circumstances. If someone were to come along and delete a reference to (for instance) a Brian Greene paper on string theory that was published in a predatory journal, that'd be fine. The person who added it should come back and explain carefully that Greene is a recognized expert before re-inserting it.
 * Also, you raise a very good point about where reputable experts will publish. The acknowledged expert who publishes in a predatory journal will be an extremely rare bird. They will be uncommon exceptions to the rule that predatory journal articles are useless. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:Geogene. Perhaps I should make my example clearer.  In my area of publication, it very often takes 6 to 12 months from manuscript submission for the journal to arrive on the library shelves/on line.  During that time, I may wish to apply for funds for a grant which asks for a publication list.  Obviously, it is more advantageous for that paper to be cited as "Published" rather than "Submitted".  The predatory journals offer a much shorter time to publication, and it might be worth me paying money to get it published there so it can be included in my grant application.  As a career-researcher, I would be considering the quality of my paper and how this will be viewed by my peers after publication.  The standard of my paper is actually independent of the money generating practices of the publishing house (which we should remember is not the journal).  I totally appreciate this type of example will not be the case for many publications in predatory journals, but I feel we need to be extremely careful of simply deleting references on the basis they are from "predatory publishers". DrChrissy (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, so experts would have a sensible reason to use a predatory journal after all. Having given this further thought, MjolnirPants would probably reject >98% of predatory journal papers as sources, and I'd reject 100%, the difference between the two isn't enough to try to edit policy over it. I do like giving my opinions though. Geogene (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, I would say I'd reject >99.9% of predatory journal articles. Other than that, I agree. The point I raised is something we should keep in mind, not something that should affect policy regarding what is considered reliable. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am actually not prepared to put a figure on this. I suspect the influence of a journal being "predatory" on the suitability of a paper as being a RS varies considerably between journals and subject areas.  By the way, I am not suggesting a re-write of policy.  The policy already states "Beware...", which is fair enough, but it does not state, "Do not use" or "Automatically delete". DrChrissy (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your example only underscores the need to look askance at such publications - the secondary gain is another reason to suspect such publications will include poor-quality research. I have no intention to impugn your work; just commenting that the example is not at all reassuring (IMHO). &mdash; soupvector (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree - all publications in predatory journals should be viewed with suspicion. I actually view all publications I reference in WP with the same eye I use as an editor and reviewer in several traditional science journals.  The point I am trying to make is that there are some quality papers in predatory journals and to have editors on WP deleting these simply on the basis of which publishing house they come from without discussing this on the Talk page first is clearly disruptive. DrChrissy (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we are not allowed to be the ones to judge whether a source is reliable: we are only allowed to choose which reliable sources we include. It doesn't matter if we like the content of a paper in a junk journal or not, it's in a junk journal, so it fails the test of being in a reliable source - and that means we don't get to decide that it is reliable after all, because Wikipedia does not allow us to be the primary judge of validity of original research. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder about the SPS exceptions. I've occasionally used expert blogs as sources myself (everybody's got a blog, and they tend to be reader-friendly and reasonably orthodox). I'd rather not lump all the different categories of self-publishing together, because some types should attract more suspicion than others, for the reasons I've given. But the existing policy does seem to support that. Geogene (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a category of SPS that warrants a metric fuck-ton of suspicion. That being said, I just can't escape the conclusion that there might be a few rare gems to be found. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In spite of this discussion being ongoing, and no consensus has been reached, JzG just keeps on mass-removing sources as a bulldozer without any prior discussion (see various complaints by several editors on his talk page). I suggest he refrain from doing anything of the sort until some conclusion has been reached here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is really very simple: every single time I have removed one of these sources, it has been a WP:PRIMARY source. Primary sources are deprecated. We also know, because these are predatory publishers, that the things which allow us to sometimes use primary sources - academic peer-review weeding out the crap, basically - is absent or seriously deficient in the journals. In fact, that's the defining characteristic. So we have primary sources in unreliable journals - inappropriate on two levels. These citations neeed to go. Including them gives a false impression of validity to the publishers. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it is very simple. Your deletions are obviously contentious (hence the number of complaints on your Talk page).  Therefore, you should be discussing these deletions at the article Talk page before making them. DrChrissy (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those removing these kind of sources need to be more careful, as discussed above, and not leave statements that looked to be referenced by a later reference that does not support he statement. So either check that it is supported by the following reference, supply an alternate reference, add, leave the reference if the author is a recognized expert, or remove the statement and the unreliable reference. If they only remove the reference and leave a dubious statement, it is a net negative to Wikipedia readers and writers. This sort of removal is akin to just deleting words that are spelled incorrectly without fixing them up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose mass removal of text, and very dubious about mass removal of sources. If a source must be removed, then a "Citation needed" tag should be inserted to alert the rest of us to the unsourced statement. It is wrong and irresponsible to remove a source, leaving as Graeme Bartlett rightly says the wrong impression that a different source may apply. It is equally wrong, irresponsible and I suggest disruptive editing to remove both text and citation on the contentious grounds that the publisher of the journal is "predatory". It is undoubtedly despicable for publishers to squeeze money from scientists, but that does NOT AUTOMATICALLY mean the affected scientific papers are worthless, still less that all statements in such papers are unreliable. While I'd agree that the usual caveats about Primary Sources apply (a fortiori if peer review has been questionable), we can still make use of non-contentious parts of such papers, where they are summarizing well-known facts as background in particular. We really should not be running about deleting hundreds of cited paragraphs of text - whole sections sometimes - especially before discussion (such as this) has been completed. It is a shame to see experienced editors behaving in such a way, and it is a great waste of time for all other editors, as well as doing a great deal of damage to all the affected Wikipedia articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. I know that being published in a predatory journal does not make the content automatically unreliable, but the source is unreliable: it lacks the necessary neutral peer-review. God knows that even real journals get bamboozled by people suggesting their own reviewers and so on, but these journals don't even try: they take the money and publish. There are numerous known examples of blatantly bogus publications (e.g. the Burzynski Clinic pushing out papers on its bogus "antineoplastons"). The point is that we cannot judge the difference - we're not allowed to. If a source does not have the quality controls that are required to make it reliable then we do not get to decide that some of the content is valid because we understand the subject and know it to be so. Wikipedia is designed precisely to stop that: we are not supposed to judge primary content ourselves, we are supposed to use reliable independent sources, and predatory journals inherently fail both those tests because there is no rigorous independent peer review. And that applies even if we think the content of the paper is unambiguously correct. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * primary sources are deprecated according to whom? Certainly not the policy you linked, which says no such thing. VQuakr (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He might be thinking of WP:MEDRS, which (rightly) does warn against relying too heavily on primary sources, because of course claims made in reporting new science can be revised and criticized by other scientists, e.g. if they can't repeat the results or they find the methodology inadequate. But that is quite different from saying we must delete all primary-sourced material. We can use primary sources with care, reporting that new science occurred, with the implication that it might be revised. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chiswick Chap. Considering how much completely unreferenced material there is in Wikipedia, a mission to remove information cited to journals published by a particular publishing house that might have used less rigour in its evaluation than other publishers, seems unnecessary to me. Much of the information thus removed is uncontentious and only used by way of background. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The solution to that is to reference the other material. It is absolutely clear that these are not reliable sources, so the only actual question is what to do about that. The options are: leave the unreliable sources, remove the unreliable sources and leave the text unsourced, or remove the unreliable sources and the text they support. I tried option 2 and people clearly preferred option 3. Option 1 is not in line with policy because the sources are unreliable.
 * You clearly think that does not matter. I disagree. I have seen papers published in these journals written by charlatans and promoting fraudulent cancer "cures". I know these to be fraudulent because there are many other sources showing them to be so. How do I know that any other publication in one of these junk journals is not fraudulent? How do we know if they are pushing an agenda and cannot get published in a proper journal? The simple fact is: we can't know without engaging in original research. The only sane policy is to exclude predatory journals.
 * Clearly a small number of valid papers might suffer. This is a result of the predatory journals doing exactly what they are trying to do: scamming academics into paying to get published. That is very sad, but it is not our problem to fix. The point of a journal as a reliable source is that it is peer-reviewed, and one of the signature features of predatory journals is that the peer review often looks no further than the credit card of the submitting author. That excludes them from use. Which leaves two optins: remove and leave uncited, or remove with the text they support. I'm happy with either. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete text and delete references (after checking is there's a better source). Our task here is to reflect "accepted knowledge". It is incredible that people seem willing to defend information cited to known dodgy sources (and too often the kind of claims being pushed are of the "chutney may cure can cancer" variety). If some piece of information only appears in a suspect journal it is not fit for an encyclopedia. True, some of this stuff may prove to be okay in time but it NOT OUR JOB to try and sit in judgement over these; we need to wait to see if it picked up by true RS and so becomes the "accepted knowledgde" we are meant to be relaying. Alexbrn (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is far too much of a "blanket" (unthinking, mass action) response. We certainly need to REPLACE dodgy sources (though I do not agree with a statement like "if it's OMICS then it's not reliable", that is far too blunt). To replace sources decently takes work, which takes time. Therefore if we have to remove a source, we should remove the associated claim if and only if that source is the only one for that claim, i.e. the claim is part of the new thesis introduced by a scientific paper, and nobody else has yet repeated the experiment or observation. When a paper (in its overview section) reviews existing work, that is likely to be correct, and it is usually easy to find replacement sources, so it is frankly stupid to delete the text in such cases. Far better to mark it "citation needed" or "better source needed" so we can replace the ref with one from a decent publisher, that's all. I've done two such today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's rare I'm a little bit at odds with other folks here that work within MEDRS a lot, but the case we're dealing with in the insect articles was that super basic non-controversial information (in a GA) happened to be sourced to an OMICS publication. The key thing for a non-MEDRS topic like this is results and conclusions from a primary paper shouldn't be in articles and even moreso if it's an OMICS publication. If it's more literature review-like information though (i.e. introduction section), immediate deletion probably isn't the way to go as there are a few other things to weigh that would be more conducive with flagging and talk page notification for regulars in the topic to figure out. I personally prefer to avoid primary introduction sections, but they have occasional use in non-MEDRS topics. If it's for MEDRS though, I'd be fine with a higher tendency to delete regardless of how the OMICS source is used. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If the goal here is to decide what to do with claims currently sourced to articles published by predatory journals, then I say we delete the text and the claim. If one can find a reliable source, or (highly unlikely) make the case that this particular paper is reliable, then the text can be restored. But I understand why Guy would remove just the source: He's not trying to alter contents, he's trying to do some housekeeping. Instead of whining about the way he's doing it try helping. I swear to god, the most frustrating thing I see here is people whining about other editors ruining the site instead of trying to improve the site themselves. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * delete text & source or tag - it doesn't matter - what matters is that local editors watching the article react, like this. Where red-flagged sources were used, WP:FIXIT with high quality sourcing.  JzG is doing a huge service to the community here - I don't care if he removes stuff or tags it - the main thing is that local editors know they have a serious issue with the integrity of content in the affected article that they actually watch and work on.   The integrity of our content is what matters and we have a ton of editing work to do. Unless you are arguing that articles from predatory journals should not be redflagged (and deleting or tagging them does the same thing in the workflow of editing Wikipedia articles) then I do not understand the fuss over the minutia of how Guy is doing this.  Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If blanking sources that accurately WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT for material that is probably not wrong is a "huge service" – thus making it more likely that future editors will not recognize and therefore not investigage the dubious origin of this material – then leaving the sources present and tagging them with better source or Unreliable medical source, or even moving the text and the lousy source to the talk page, must be rated as an "absolutely enormous service". Blanking a source only "does the same thing in the workflow" if someone is actively maintaining the article at the time JzG blanks the source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, unless JZG actually finishes the job and adds CN tags or removes the statements, he is merely hiding the fact that these statements are now unsourced. So unless other, more considerate users, realise the consequence of his edits leave misleading articles, it is a huge disservice to Wikipedia. And no, we can't just assume that other editors will do the job for him, that is simply lazy and irresponsible. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I came here via a notice on the psychology Wikiproject page. I would agree with those who say that Scientific Research Publishing journals shouldn't be used as sources. The whole set up is plainly suspect, and has been exploited by people putting forward false claims for public consumption. If the claim is non-controversial, there should be a better source for it. There is nothing to stop editors mining such articles' references for good sources. How those sources are removed is another matter. Perhaps tagging a citation with "suspect" and a relatively near date after which the material will be removed. This will give editors a chance to save that material which is OK. I am reluctant to criticise JdZ's actions because really, we should NOT be using such a source. OsFish (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete bad references, possibly delete text I wouldn't hesitate to delete a reference that I'm confident is non-RS. What comes next depends on the statement it supports. If it's "The sky is blue", I'd be inclined to leave it unsourced. If it is plausible and seems weighted properly, then Citation Needed. If it seems wrong, seems overweighted, is potentially a hoax, or otherwise is a high-risk item, then I'd delete the whole thing. But I think that removing a bad source should always be the case. A statement that is wrong and "sourced" is always more dangerous than one that isn't. Geogene (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "A statement that is wrong and "sourced" is always more dangerous than one that isn't." Not if the unsourced statement is immediately followed by another statement that is sourced, which hides the fact that the first statement has no source. And that's what we now have loads of as a result of these edits; unsourced statements masquerading as sourced ones. If other editors don't notice and fix each of these, the unsourced statements will stay there indefinitely. Much worse than before, when we could actually identify which statements that had iffy sourcing or not. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Other predatory journals
It'd have been a courtesy posting a note about the present discussion in Talk:Scientific Research Publishing and also in Talk:Predatory open access publishing.

If the position of removing citations to predatory publishers prevails, it must be applied consistently. Should we include current predatory journals only or also past predatory journals too? If a journal is no longer considered predatory, do past articles remain black-listed? And when a journal becomes recognized as predatory, do we black-list only new articles?

I've taken the liberty of notifying affected parties: fgnievinski (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk:Dove Medical Press, Talk:Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Talk:Libertas Academica, Talk:MDPI; and
 * Talk:Frontiers Media, Talk:OMICS Publishing Group, Talk:Scientific Research Publishing, Talk:World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology.
 * That is again such inappropriate use of article Talk pages! I am reverting those, and will discuss with you at your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you're duplicating this discussion here then. fgnievinski (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions: we are not removing these as a punishment to the journal for being predatory, we are removing them because the journal's predatory practices fail to meet our standards for what makes a reliable source. So, if a journal was once legitimate but then falls into predatory ways, or if a once-predatory journal reforms and becomes legitimate, then the references that should be removed are the ones from the period when it was predatory. But if we're not sure, we should err on the side of not accepting sources we're not sure about, rather than allowing badly sourced claims to slip into the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, so let's go ahead and remove citations to all other articles published in journals during the periods in which their publisher was considered predatory. fgnievinski (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We should summarize the present consensus in either or both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. fgnievinski (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * agree summarize the present consensus is best (WP:MEDRS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

DOIs
Thanks to above for pointing out that some predatory publishers can be identified by DOI. Here are two, including probably the worst, wiht the DOI linked to a search: Perusing these articles finds a mountain of problems other than simply crap sources. Many, many vanity articles, a lot of WP:OR and so on. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 10.4172: OMICS Group
 * 10.4236: Scientific Research Publishing
 * 10.3389: Frontiers Media (added later) fgnievinski (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Slightly different tack
I have an academic interest in this subject as well as an interest as it relates to Wikipedia. While I think being placed on Beall's List is, generally, enough of a WP:REDFLAG to warrant severe skepticism with respect to the reliability of a source, there is actually a larger problem in academic publishing generally, as of late. This is the problem with distributed editorial control of journals and is generally the problem with even so-called "Gold Standard Open Access" as Beall puts it. The basic issue is that when one replaces a small, respected editorial board with a huge (sometimes numbering in the thousands) list of potential editors, niche subjects will end up in blind alleys with papers published that do not live up to any meaningful standard of reliability. This criticism has lately included journals that are very prestigious indeed including PlosOne (recently implicated in a problematic situation where they published creationist pseudoscience), Medicine (journal) (recently implicated in a problematic situation where they published acupuncture pseudoscience), as well as Scientific Reports (recently implicated in a problematic situation where they published Ayurveda pseudoscience).

The problem for Wikipedia is not with the "predatory open access" model, per se. After all, it is to the larger Wikipedia movement's benefit that academic publishing go the way of open access, and if a journal ends up being "predatory", that's really more a matter of the ethics of publishing than it is a question of quality. No doubt that a predatory journal is much more likely to be full of low quality nonsense, but it will also, unfortunately, be prone to include a few articles that are actually decent (though the citation rates are never liable to take off because, well, predatory journals essentially by definition never show up in the standard lit. review searches done by academics). Occasionally, superb articles are dug up from predatory journals and go on to be cited widely as being particularly precocious thought or perhaps having primacy. Unfortunately, what can often happen is such papers can become memory holed once the predatory publisher decides to close shop.

From Wikipedia's perspective, the real problem is actually one of (lack of proper) editorial control. That said, just because a journal lacks proper editorial control doesn't mean that every single paper published in the journal is garbage. The only way to really tell is to look at the staying power and citations. This should be done in any case, regardless of how prestigious the journal is in which the paper is published. The use of primary sources such as journal articles should only be done after they have been vetted by several independent external authorities. After all, the vast majority of papers published in Science (journal) or Nature (journal) contain analyses and claims that are later shown to be overstated if not completely incorrect. That's the name of the game in academic research and it's exactly why WP:PSTS is so important. Wikipedia should be a non-innovative source. It should not be on the cutting edge.

I think what is needed is a sort of skepticism flag that should fly whenever a paper is a) published in a low-impact or questionable venue, b) new, c) making audacious claims that have not been commented upon by many other experts. In those cases, it's okay to put the paper in a holding area to see what may come. Because, we are not supposed to guess as to what may come. This will mean that Wikipedia lags behind the cutting edge research that excites many, but I think this is the only practical way forward.

jps (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Low impact journals are one thing, predatory ones another. We often debate whether or not to include material in low-impact journals, or ones with an ideological bias (e.g. quackery-specific ones), but these predatory journals are subverting the entire process of academic publishing and we should not use them at all, especially as primary sources. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually in my view, the reviews in Frontiers are often really bad, reflecting authors' pet views as opposed to even trying to really grapple with the field, and because they are indeed secondary, their effect is more corrosive. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Occasionally, superb articles are dug up from predatory journals and go on to be cited widely as being particularly precocious thought or perhaps having primacy."
 * Can you please provide an example of such a widely cited article? Thanks. 2601:285:101:7076:28D4:5471:9D6E:5720 (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends, of course, on what we mean by "predatory". Beall's list is basically too new for this to have occurred since he started his Sisyphean task. However, there are certain journals which I have reason to believe may have been identified as "predatory" if that classification had existed at the time (and, to be fair, may have moved away from that designation since then, but are still "low impact"). There is an excellent paper from Current Science written in the 1980s that has a significant number of citations, for example. jps (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So, no example to back up the claim. Got it. 2600:380:5730:4739:F9E3:A81F:9D73:7377 (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Current Science 51: 1096–1099. jps (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation for Current Science being a predatory journal? It does not appear to be on the list, nor identified as predatory in its Wikipedia article. They post occasional editorials about predatory journals, though, and their general advice is "... as practising researchers we may help the (scientific) community by spreading awareness about the problem (of predatory journals) and by consciously not citing papers published in such journals." So, at least they're scolding those who cite them. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:D0E0:3E67:D5AD:91EF (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So, back to no example to back up the claim. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:ECA7:CBFA:3732:E0B0 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary, secondary, tertiary
The wording of guidelines changes over time by WP:RS currently says:
 * Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. [...]
 * Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

That, plus the lack of proper peer-review in predatory journals leading to the ability of agenda-driven authors to publish bullshit (OMICS has published anti-vax papers promoting the refuted vaccine-autism link, for example) means that I cannot see any defensible policy-based objection to removing these sources. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "I cannot see..." I have cited you policy, Guy, above (23:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)). You either remove the statements, or you flag them for maintenance.  You should not just remove the sources.  Please follow the policy written by others who have been here longer than you. And when you do see the light, go back and repair the damage you have done. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Citing policy is fine and dandy, but your citation does not imply any duty to remove or flag content when bad sources are removed. Sure, just removing the sources leaves the article in a less than perfect state, but so might removing good content sourced to bad sources. And both are better than any content sourced to bad sources, because that a) is a bad precedent and b) gives a false sense of reliability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (someone who has been here longer than both Guy and you, but much longer than you - not that that is a good argument)


 * "Duty" is a legal word. If you want to edit Wikipedia, follow the WP policy.  The meaning of the policy is not ambiguous.
 * Template:Verify source "If {a statement} is not doubtful, use Citation needed (or Cite quote) to request a citation to improve the article's verifiability."
 * Verifiability: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
 * Nothing in WP policy suggests or justifies removing the source and leaving a statement without source and without maintenance tag. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Duty" is a normal English word. Nothing in your quote suggests or implies that one needs to remove content with sources. You seem to fall for a classical affirming the consequent. I agree that it's better to also remove or tag content, but it is not required. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * With your agreement that "it's better to also remove or tag content," you and I are in sufficient agreement that removing the source without maint. tagging is a non-optimum approach to WP editing. However "great" the service others may believe Guy is performing for the Encyclopedia, you and I agree that he could be doing "better" with very little effort on his part. Given that fact, Guy's refusal to do the standard thing is somewhat curious. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Everybody gets to decide how to spend their limited volunteer time to improve the project. It's only "very little effort" if you blindly attach cn's, which also is sub-optimal. Once you try to understand what's being said and what's being supported by other sources, it's easily 2-3 times more work than just removing the bad sources. I'm a big fan of curiosity, but I don't share this particular one, and I'm not sure hat you want to accomplish with stating yours in this case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I hold that Guy is damaging the Encyclopedia by these actions. Consider the statement: Cows with black spots eat grass and play the piano.[1][2]  Source [1] states that cows eat grass, and source [2] says cows play the piano.  Guy edits the page and deletes source [2] because it cites a predatory journal.  Now we have the statement, Cows with black spots eat grass and play the piano.[1]  It is a false statement that falsely cites source [1].  No other editor knows there is a problem with the statement until years later, some professional cow specialist dives into the source (from the university library), reads it end-to-end, and discovers that the statement ("play the piano") is nowhere in source [1].  How the heck did that happen?  It looks like vandalism.  But it was apparently well-sourced because Guy did only half the job and left chaos in his wake. And how many people have been miseducated about cows in the meantime? Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How is that in any way worse than the original situation? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First let us consider: How is it in any better? In both cases, before and after Guy has done his thing, the Encyclopedia contains the false statement with no clue to the casual reader or the experienced editor that the information is in doubt.  On the other hand, the CN tag tells the reader that the statement may be a wild hair: DO NOT USE THIS STATEMENT AS ESTABLISHED FACT.  The CN tag also tells the experienced editor that the statement is waiting for an RS, and exactly how long.  As the policy says, that is the purpose of the CN tag.  The architects of WP do not suggest or advocate -- or perhaps even consider -- that the Encyclopedia is improved by stripping it of sources, even bad sources.  This is Guy's invention, and it is a bad one.
 * We could compare Guy's action to a janitor inspecting theater chairs and removing any legs he found to be faulty because he didn't want the chairs collapsing during use -- then putting the 3-legged chairs back in service without warning signs. Do you see anything wrong with that plan?  We expect that janitor to post a sign, like THIS CHAIR NOT FIT FOR USE.  Like the theater is for theater goers, the Encyclopedia is for readers.  Without warning signs, users get hurt. (See Band aid solution: Hasty solution that covers up the symptoms but does little or nothing to mitigate the underlying problem. See also quick fix.") Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We seem to be at cross-purposes. I fully agree that either the text goes or the text is tagged as unsourced. The problem with tagging is the suggestion that the unreliable sources simply be tagged as unreliable, which experience indicates will never get fixed. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal
I now propose to resume removal of citations to OMICS, as arguably the most prominent predatory publisher with large numbers of cites on Wikipedia. Based on the discussions above I propose to follow this process: I think that reflects the concerns raised. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Where the source is redundant, the OMICS cite can simply be removed.
 * 2) Where a fact is sourced solely to an OMICS journal as a primary source I will remove it.
 * 3) If this is reverted (most are not, 3 out of all the articles edited to date if I recall correctly), I will replace the cite with citation needed and note on the Talk page.
 * 4) I will review each item and make all edits manually, not using AWB or any other automation tool.
 * OPPOSEIf a claim is truly supported by two sources, one good and one bad, by all means remove the bad source. But to know if the claim is truly supported by two sources, you have to read and understand the good source. If the source is too technical for you to understand, written in a language you don't understand, behind a paywall that you don't have a subscription to, or in a paper source that is not in your local library, you don't know if the OMICS citation is redundant or not.


 * If a claim is only supported by an OMICS journal, that alone does not justify removing the claim. Well-known facts that can easily be verified, like "Paris is the capital of France" do not need a citation. You could just remove the citation and leave the claim.


 * Also, it is considered a best practice, before removing a citation to an unreliable source, to attempt to find a reliable source that supports the claim.


 * Finally, whether to remove a claim for which no reliable source can easily be found, or to mark it with citation needed, depends on how unlikely or potentially harmful the claim is. If the claim seems more likely than not to be true, and isn't likely to cause any harm, it can just be marked with citation needed, and then removed after a suitable period of time. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (Added that I oppose the proposal at 23:42 UTC.)


 * Support as amplified by Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If there are two sources, one paywalled and the other not, then the paywalled source is not a predatory open access publisher. I will remove the predatory open access publisher. If the other source is also questionable, that is a separate issue. It's not necessary to understand the material in a manifestly unreliable source in order to remove it, it probably is necessary to understand the material in an apparently relaible source in order to remove it.
 * Facts sourced solely to unreliable sources are removed from Wikipedia all the time. Most such removals are not challenged. Where they are, WP:BRD applies, which is what I am proposing to do. My initial view was in line with yours, but there exists a group of editors who think that a source being removed means the text must also be removed, hence the proposal to allow restoration and discuss if challenged. There's no need to add bureaucracy to a housekeeping task, IMO. Ther eare hundreds of these and if a dozen others want to help then we can search for replacement sources but if they don't then I am going to fix the here-and-now problem of predatory sources. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I now oppose the proposal because I am convinced the proposer is determined to do a slap-dash job, without bothering to read other supporting sources or making any effort to independently verify the claim, even if the claim seems fairly likely. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, then you go it. With the time and effort spend on this discussion, the problem should vanish shortly... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Question Shouldn't this issue be raised at the Talk page of the article in question? The article watchers will likely have a much better idea idea about the quality of the journal.  For example, a huge issue (and rightly so) is whether there is adequate peer-review.  Article watchers are likely to have a much better idea, or even experience, of the level of peer review and overall quality than a single editor leaping from one diverse subject area to another. DrChrissy (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement to read other sources in detail in order to remove an unreliable source, because it's an unreliable source and it shouldn't be there in the first place. To be absolutely clear here: I was not asking for your approval. It is absolutely clear that these sources are inappropriate, the only quesiton is what to do after they are removed. Requiring in-depth research before removing text that has no reliable source constitutes an arbitrary demand for shrubberies. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Guy, are you serious about this posting? DrChrissy (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This sounds like an argument for leaving 3-legged chairs in the theater without warning signs. Removing a source without handling the text is so bizarre, the WP policy does not imagine it. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer this question again, the WP standard action is to remove the text or tag it for CN. There is no third option to leave the text hanging out like an undisputed statement. WP cannot be edited with the intelligence and discrimination of a 'bot. If you don't know the subject and the sources well enough to make an intelligent change, don't touch it.  Go to the talk page and note it for someone who knows the area. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: where two sources are commingled, I believe it's better to tag the citation to non-RS with so if someone can untangle the two, they'd know which source is unreliable. If the OP simply removes the unreliable source, it would look like the statement (of unknown accuracy, as previously in part supported by a non RS), is now all kosher. This could be misleading. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

When removing unreliable sources it's ordinarily best to remove the now-uncited material, but not always. WP:V sez "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source" -- the key consideration is "challenged or likely to be challenged." In a contrived example if the statement "most humans have five fingers on each hand" is sourced to SCIRP or OMICS, it wouldn't improve Wikipedia to remove that statement along with the citation. Editing is not always black-and-white with unambiguous rules, much as that would make our lives easier. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

American Renaissance Magazine
An editor insists that American Renaissance (magazine) is a reliable source for discussing "white pride".

I disagree strongly as I think that white supremacist magazines generally should not be cited unless there is third-party notice of their positions. I would like to get some outside opinions.

jps (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "source" has any business being used anywhere on the encyclopedia for anything except discussion of itself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What NorthBySouthBaranof said. Advocacy for something does not make you a reliable source in the area, especially when the something is bigotry. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Simple answer: no. More detailed answer: hell no.
 * Source is technically based on a WP:FRINGE viewpoint regarding the effects of melanin. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source for the subject of white pride. It's obviously a connected source and their fringe views would only be noteworthy if reliable sources cover them.- MrX 12:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would, at best, only be usable for defining its own opinions cited and sourced as opinion. It appears to be problematic for "claims of fact cited as fact" at ll. Collect (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "An editor" is more correctly two editors, of three involved in the current discussion. It would have been polite to ping myself or or leave a message on the article's talk page alerting editors to this discussion.
 * American Renaissance is used as a source for the following text:
 * The source is identified as "white supremacist" and the claims are identified as opinions and attributed to their authors. Assuming the commenters here were not familiar with the source beforehand, suggesting its notability, it's been covered in Salon, The Nation, The Washington Post, Talking Points Memo and Slate - to name a few. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The source itself is notable. There is an article on it in Wikipedia. That does not mean it is a good source for an article about racism. jps (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * is not correctly representing the issue. As I mentioned back on Talk:White pride, the source is okay for attributed comments by notable people per WP:SPS. The opinions of white pride advocates may be notable and it's not surprising that they'd use white supremacist outlets. We are not using this source to make blanket statements about white pride, nor are we using it as a reliable source for anything. We're using it as a source for presumably notable comments by individuals. Note, I am not commenting on the notability of the individuals quoted, just the use of the source.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging previous commenters for their opinions given the complete lack of context in the original comment. please see comments by me and  above.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging previous commenters for their opinions given the complete lack of context in the original comment. please see comments by me and  above.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So seems to want to impugn my ability to present an issue clearly. I suppose that is EvergreenFir's right here on the wild world of wiki, but I counter that it seems to be EvergreenFir who is being dishonest about what is going on here. American Renaissance is a white supremacist magazine. It was being used in the article to present the opinions of white supremacists as to what the subject was. The two articles that EvergreenFir wants to see included have not been cited by any third-party sources as being reliable (WP:RS) or prominent (WP:PROMINENT). The opinions of white pride advocates are notable inasmuch as they are discussed by independent sources. These two articles are not noticed by independent sources. Why Wikipedia's article on white pride should include the beliefs that no one else has noticed of a retired police officer and a journalist whose prime notability is his advocacy of white supremacy, I cannot fathom. I anxiously await EvergreenFir's explanation as to why they so desperately want 10% of the article sourced to a white supremacist rag. jps (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This board is for RS, not notability. You've entirely changed your argument now that it's been pointed out how the sources are actually being used. Again, you misrepresented the issue and I'm surprised no one asked you for how it was being used. I really don't have a strong opinion the actual people cited or whether they warrant inclusion or not, but that's not what this noticeboard is about nor is it your original question. You come here, without giving any other users a courtesy notice, and present the source out of context. This after meeting resistance on the article's talk page. As for why I "desperately" want these sources, I'm doing WP:ENEMY. Stop trying to cast me as eager to support these people.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You brought up notability. The source is not reliable nor is the opinion WP:DUE. Yet you keep reinserting. You said you were going to back away, but I've reported you now to AN/I for your strange campaign to keep white supremacist text included in Wikipedia both here and at black pride. Very suspicious. jps (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That source is only very rarely appropriate, and not in the context presented. The article would need to be able to explain why the opinion of people being cited in an unreliable source is significant, otherwise it's just arbitrary. If Sailer's non-expert opinion is important, than wait until a reliable source quotes it or it gets picked up by a legitimate source. Otherwise it might be usable on Steve Sailer (although I seriously doubt that, as well) but not here. The retired cop thing is even less significant. Grayfell (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You're suggesting an SPS is only reliable for content referenced in RS, in which case the SPS is unnecessary. They're experts on their own opinions. If the issue is notability this is not the appropriate venue. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is silly WP:Wikilawyering. The question is simple, does that text you keep inserting in the article belong in the article? It doesn't fucking matter where the question is asked. jps (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion was mentioned at ANI here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The additional context merely confirms my original view. Hell no. If we are going to quote racists, we do so by reference to reliable independent secondary soruces that establish the context of their statements. If this has not been picked up by any mainstream sources then to include it at all is likely to be WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I stand by my original comments and fully understood the context the first time. The articles linked by James J. Lambden further reinforces that American Renaissance should be avoided and that we should not be wasting any ink on repeating their views. The SPLC sums it up pretty nicely:
 * - MrX 12:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see The Nation leading by example, here. Whilst denouncing that magazine in no uncertain terms, they do reference it to back up their claims and even provide a link to the publications in question. What's more, they cite that magazine to expose the views held. As should Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to argue against this. If that magazine was used as a source for any "factual" information,I would agree. However, since it's used as a source for a quote illustrating the views of white supremacists, the magazine is a quite reliable source. Moreover, an article on white pride, which omits to describe the views held by these people (supported by references) or quote their literature, violates WP:NPOV. Is the magazine racist, unreliable and all sorts of other nasty things? Sure it is. Does it reliably describe the views held by racists, white supremacists and other unsavory folks? Yes, it does. If we start discounting sources because we do not like them, we're going downhill as an encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:QUESTIONED, this is undoubtedly a questionable source. In that sense, I'd say that given the contentiousness using it has had (demonstrated in this very thread), it would be best not to. I understand the points raised by both sides, honestly. But I don't really see a major problem here. There are interviews with numerous current, former, famous and regular white supremacists out there done by undeniably reliable sources. If the views in that text are true, then it shouldn't be a problem to find a better source for them. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If we had better sources for the views of "white pride" supporters directly, replacing American Renaissance would be uncontentious. It's used because we don't. The article covers "white pride" specifically - we have high quality sources for white supremacy, the KKK, and all the rest but they don't focus on white pride. I followed the link to QUESTIONED which led to this list for WP:SELFSOURCE
 * The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
 * It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
 * It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
 * There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
 * The article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * These all seem satisfied by the current text with the exception of the police officer's trademark claim, which violates the second clause if I understand it correctly. Would removing that claim while retaining American Renaissance as a source be a satisfactory resolution? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The content in dispute is not about the magazine. It's about the views of one of it's writers and the non-noteworthy experience of a non-notable person who tried to trademark an offensive phrase.- MrX 19:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding a dearth of secondary sources... These might be useful (some may already be used, this is just a quick search of news articles for "white supremacist interview" and "white supremacy beliefs" where I tried to avoid any mention of Trump)., , , , , , , , , , ,  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is assigning undue weight to a primary source. So it should be removed.  Period.   S ławomir  Biały  20:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a primary source. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a remarkable statement. It is a primary source on the opinion of Steve Sailer.  A secondary source would be a reliable source that cites the primary Sailer source as an example of "how white pride feels about itself" (your words).  In fact, this is your interpretation of that primary source, which is explicitly disallowed under policy.  An example of a secondary source would be a sociology review article that includes a citation of the Sailer source (see the above-linked policy: "a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research").   S ławomir  Biały  16:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To analyze a source, we have to consider all three components: publisher, author, and text itself. Obviously a "retired police officer" is out of question. How we are left with American Renaissance publishing an opinion of Steve Sailer on white pride. We may exclude the magazine from potential problems, since it is low probability it distorted the opinion of Sailer. So the question is whether the opinion of Sailer is a reliable source about how "white pride" feels about itself. Sailer seems to be notable and he seems to be representative enough to deliver "the point of view of white pride". Therefore I would say that after the removal of "police officer" part the cited excerpt is admissible. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not WP:RS -- should not be used. The citing to it on the opinions of people mentioned sounds like WP:OR, based on a WP:primary, questionable source and should be avoided. (I consider a white-supremacist magazine to be a primary source on white supremacy). If there's a reliable, secondary source that analyzed these quotes and came to similar conclusions, then I would support including it. Otherwise, it sounds like the opinions of people quoted are presented in Wikipedia's voice, and is problematic. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not RS. Find reliable secondary sources. We don't give a platform for every fringe belief by attributing it. "According to some asshole, assholes smell of roses". Typing "White pride" into Google Scholar gives me about 551000 results - which makes the claim that we cannot find good secondary sources unlikely to be correct. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Stephan Schulz. I tried to bring up some of these issues in my "Herding cats" thread above, but forgot to mention the use of minor figures posting to blogs on the right as basic sources for Alt-right andthe discussion got sidetracked. Doug Weller  talk 19:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The RSN notice was not appropriately framed - we are meant to bring specific content here and the sources for it. As is said over and over here, there is no source that isn't reliable for the statement: "Source X says Y".  And that is exactly how this source is used.  So I don't find the comments here about the  unreliability of the source for the actual proposed content to be valid, at all.  They are invalid.   There are two other issues.  One which has been surfaced is whether this is UNDUE (which is what folks are referring to when they say "notability" - notability is a criteria for whether articles exist, not for content within an article.)  In my view, I wouldn't use this source for a statement unless that statement has been found to be important enough to be reported on by other independent secondary sources - they are what keep us sane - they are what guide decisions about WP:WEIGHT.  I think it is fine to bring issues of UNDUE here - sourcing and weight go hand in hand.    The other thing which has said more or less indirectly, is that the source is repugnant.  With this I agree 100%.  I don't think anybody here disagrees with that.  But abusing policies and guidelines to get rid of a repugnant source is not good for the project. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

K S Singh
Hey! Is it in accordance with the WP:IRS to cite K S Singh (former Director-General of Anthropological Survey of India) in an article on the people of India. Need for consensus on the reliability of claims DG of ASI arose b'coz of this one- Talk:Jat people. Ironically, to the editor, the DG may not even be worthy of WP:Balance, despite of the fact the person made it to the highest rank in ASI! Kindly establish if he's worthy of a citation on wikipedia or not. 1.39.35.152 (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My response at Talk:Jat people. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Kumar Suresh Singh was an apparatchik of a governmental machine that was fairly notorious for historical revisionism and social engineering. The series for which he acted as general editor - the "states series" of The People of India - has been rejected as unreliable in numerous past discussions. It is plagiarised, biassed, contradictory, poorly written and couldn't even maintain a decent relationship with its publisher, which is apparently why it changed publishers so often. Ignore him, at least in so far as the work in question is concerned. - Sitush (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

YourStory.com book review
YourStory.com is a self-publishing website. Most of its content is poor. As with any of these websites, they also publish content by subject matter experts. I would like an opinion about whether a particular book review published on that website meets RS. I would like to use that review as a reference for 1 sentence in a Wikipedia article about a book. The author of the review professes to be a research director and book editor, and my perspective is that the book review here is a thoughtful critique. Wikipedia blacklists that entire website, so I cannot link to the source here. Remove the space after http:// to make the link work. There is a whitelisting discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist were the direction was to get another opinion about whether this book review meets RS. If it does, then the page would be whitelisted and used for a citation.
 * http:// yourstory.com/2014/02/open-data-now/

Could I have any opinion about whether this publication is a reliable source as a review of the book?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It really depends on what you want to source to that review, but in general; no, that wouldn't be considered reliable. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

High Ability Studies
Hey y'all--do any of you know anything about High Ability Studies? I'm asking because it seems legit, but this abstract looks more appropriate for a trade publication. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Rise.global
In the article David McWilliams (economist) a link to rise.global is used to support the claim that the subject is "Irelands' most influential Twitter user". A quick search showed no mention of the source in previous discussions. It isn't clear what methodology is used by the site - does it meet WP:RS? Autarch (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think leaderboarded.com is RS, especially as much is self-identified as "blogs." The actual source is described as "City A.M." whose first link https://www.cityamcasino.com/lobby/cityam/ appears to be utterly commercial in nature, and not in the sense that most actual reliable sources fit. The "casino" appears to be operated from Gibraltar, as a commercial enterprise. Might it be RS in the future? Maybe. Now? No. Collect (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!Autarch (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above user. Not a reliable source.  Blogs are self-published, and are not fact checked or edited by a third party.  Good luck looking for other sources.  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 04:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The Game Crafter
Are these reliable sources:, ? They're being used to support this text, which if not supported by a reliable source would be libelous. 32.218.37.89 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Both of those link to the same youtube video, which purports to show harassing messages, apparently either exchanged between or directed at employees of LiveOps, a contract call center/social media management firm. I have absolutely no idea how the purported subject of the video relates to the article in question, absolutely no idea whether or not the youtube channel which posted the video is actually associated with the firm, and absolutely no idea whether the claims made in the description (as vague as they are) have any basis in fact. So to answer your question clearly: That is some of the worst sourcing I've ever seen and I'll be wiping that whole section and watching the page just as soon as I finish this comment. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I deleted that section. As a followup, there are more concerns. The section could be construed as libelous, given the dubious sourcing. There was nothing in there to indicate that, even if true, the incident passed WP:GNG. Furthermore, the section was written in highly suspect terms, stating that "... [she] was found to have..." without stating by whom or in what way she was found to have done anything, and the paragraph concluded by speculating that this incident may have been criminal. Furthermore, there was no background to the incident and no coverage of it beyond "she said bad things". In short, there were no redeeming qualities to that section whatsoever. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are even more concerns than that, but I didn't initially bring them up because they don't relate to WP:RS. Someone seems to be on a vendetta because editor(s) have been inserting that text repeatedly for almost a year:, , . Sockpuppetry? 32.218.37.89 (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems plausible, though I don't have time to look into it now. You may want to open a case at WP:SPI, but be aware that the filing party is expected to do research and gather evidence beforehand. If you have the diffs to prove a series (I've seen the SP templates you've added to their user talk pages) of single purpose accounts all making the same exact edit, you're probably off to a good start. Also, on an unrelated note, you may want to register an account. If you edit regularly enough to know what you're doing (and you seem to), an account will make a lot of things easier for you. If privacy is a concern, know that registered accounts are more private, so long as they're not linked to prior edits you made as an IP editor. Feel free to hit me up on my if you have any questions about getting started with an account, I'm always happy to help.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I won't be registering an account, for reasons I don't care to explain. I also won't be opening a case at WP:SPI because no one listens to IPs. More often than not when I've posted on a noticeboard, I've been attacked, rather than listened to, this being one rare exception. (Thank you!) 32.218.37.89 (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

YouTube videos are exceedingly rarely usable as sources. The claim has allegations of specific criminal acts, and, as such, should be burned :) .  Rumours do not belong in BLPs as a strong general rule, and this is not an exception. Collect (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Book reviews of a brand new book are primary sources?
An editor is claiming that book reviews of a new book are primary sources at The Battle for Sanskrit. My understanding is that primary sources are historical documents and things of that nature.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A book review is a secondary source in the context of a discussion/article on the book. If you were writing a study about book reviews, it would be a primary source--but I imagine no one is writing a study about book reviews here. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This are not book reviews, but endorsements by supporters: R Jagannathan of Swarajya writes,

"The Battle For Sanskrit is an important book, even a disturbing one, for Indians who love this country and take pride in its Hindu and Sanskrit traditions even while cherishing diversity and acknowledging our many faults and negative practices.It is our bounden duty to join Malhotra in his Battle For Sanskrit. It is our battle. And it is a battle we cannot afford to lose.

Malhotra’s is the most important critique of the new form of Orientalism that has taken root in American academia, now the European academia is no longer calling the shots on Indic studies. The reason why American Orientalism is dangerous for Indic culture is because of the sheer sophistication it brings to the idea of hollowing out Indic culture and studying Sanskrit by decapitating the head from the body. It is about studying a carcass, not a living tradition or idea."

Rajeev Srinivasan writes,

"This is an important book; for any Indian, and particularly any Hindu who is concerned about the Indian Grand Narrative, the possible loss of control over Sanskrit is a tragedy. At the moment it is an avoidable tragedy, but only if there is a concerted effort on our part. It is nothing short of an act of terrorism, if you believe the UNESCO director-general, and this book is an attempt at preventive action."

Aditi Banerjee, who has co-authored a book with Malhotra praises the book

"Malhotra explains clearly and simply the key ideas in this body of scholarship and what is at stake for Hindus and India as these ideas are being carefully fed into the mainstream culture and media. Malhotra has distilled the arcane complexities of enormous tracts of Sanskrit scholarship into a clear narrative, has explained the stakes of the debate between these scholars and a traditional view of Hinduism and has offered a compelling rebuttal to their main arguments...

We must learn and experience for ourselves the great treasures of spirituality, philosophy, ethics and literary masterpieces bestowed upon us by our ancestors. The battle for Sanskrit is on, and it is a battle we cannot afford to lose."

I've moved them into notes now; they made up a large part of the article. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   22:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever you want to call them, they are not primary sources.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They're not reviews either; they are 'calls to arms'. Too close to the subject.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Advertisements, reviews, or any other work written about other books are not primary sources.
 * Whether something is a primary, secondary, or tertiary source is irrelevant to whether it is reliable. Primary sources are open to original research problems, and so need to be used carefully (if at all).
 * Whether the sources are reliable or relevant, they are not primary sources. Glancing over them, I'm not seeing any immediate reason to doubt reliability (though I've not investigated the editorial standards of each site).  Now, I could begin to see the argument that the authors are really just citing Malhotra as their main source in their own argument instead of reviewing him, but whether that's a problem is a matter for that article's talk page.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed that WP:PRIMARY isn't necessarily the big concern here. They should also be independent of the subject and reliable sources in other ways. (1) Swarajya (magazine) does not look to be a neutral source (based on an admittedly quick glance), so any use of it should be for the opinions it presents only. (2) Rajeev Srinivasan's website (presuming it's the same person) he describes himself as "A Hindu Nationalist". I don't have any background knowledge of this dispute, but depending on the subject and the quality of the publication (I don't know it), that might affect the extent to which he is reliable for this purpose (it's always contextual, after all). (3) If Aditi Banerjee co-authored a book with the author of the subject, she is not independent of the subject. Doesn't mean she can't be used, but it certainly shouldn't be used as though it's a neutral book review. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, yeah, those are definitely problematic and should not be treated as neutral book reviews. The current version comes pretty close to resolving those issues by reducing quotes to one line of "found support from...".  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Disputed interpretation of review article in Psychiatric Quarterly
This discussion has been moved to. &mdash;Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Release year for film
There is a page for a film (Stateline Motel) with false release dates that have consequentially been copied all over the internet, perpetuating the wrong information. I have made the correct changes twice, but the creator of that page continues to revert. This last time, the user who is reverting the correct edits has used a 2013 book, which was published after this user started a Wiki page for the film using the wrong date (and wrong year), and no one seems to care enough to make the obvious corrections. We're talking about a two-year difference, not a small discrepancy between months or dates. I just started on here to fix information I happened to know is incorrect, and this page is one of them. The user is being rude, unreasonable, even hostile.

Here is a copy and paste job of an exchange he started on my talk page:


 * Also, if you are claiming the book  Italian Crime Filmography, 1968-1980 is unreliable and copied a false date from the article, go to Reliable sources/Noticeboard and makes your case. Removing sourced contents and replacing them with original research  is considered disruptive, and could lead you to be blocked, let alone edit warring and accusing other editors of "hijacking". Side note, the book is a McFarland publication (a publisher well-known for its reliability and authoritativeness), and the article never indicated the specific date 14 September 1973 which is included in the book. --Cavarrone  21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have seen examples of books copying the wrong information from the internet before. If the article never indicated the specific date 14 September 1973, then maybe IMDB did. I am looking at the film's IMDB page on the Wayback Machine. The earliest version archived is from | 2004, which had the correct year (1975). But the second-earliest version archived isn't until three years later, from | 2007, by which point the page had obviously been hacked. | At present, it appears the correct information has been restored. My belief is that you were ignorant of this fact when you created the page, copying the wrong year of release from IMDB when its dates had been hacked (apparently anyone can edit that site, just like Wiki). I'm not interested in starting an edit war with you, just composing this message is a hassle. I'm interested in correcting false information being displayed on the pages for subjects I happen to have correct knowledge of, and your reverting it back to false information makes that difficult. Iistal (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Need help distinguishing if something is usable or not
I need some help seeing which sources are usable for the article for Jérémie Pauzié. This was created by a paid editor and it's pretty unambiguously promotional. What I'm running into are issues with sources that seem like they should be usable, but then end up coming up as dead links in one way or another, like a link to the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs that just goes to the main page.

Now this wouldn't be an issue except that the editor in question (who is now blocked) has had some issues with sourcing on this and other articles. For example, he tried using this source to back up the assertion that he inspired many notable jewelers/designers like "Louis-David Duval, Krag, J-P Ador and later that of Birbaum, Louis Cartier and Carl Faberge". Pauzie's mention in the source is very brief and while it's possible that he may have had this impact, it doesn't actually explicitly state this anywhere. This was an issue with one of the editor's other articles where he tried to make some fairly large claims of notability based on primary sources that couldn't/shouldn't be used to back up such major assertions.

I'm stubbifying the article and I'm mildly surprised that it made it through AfC in this state, given that the sourcing is incredibly poor in many places and the puffery is insanely strong. They even used a Christie's auction to try to back up claims. Examples of the puffery/promotional content include pieces like "The pieces created by Jérémie Pauzié formed the extraordinary Imperial collections, with their unrivalled magnificence standing as an emblem for the formidable might of the Russian Empire and its rulers".

You can see the original format of the article here and what I need is help finding out which of these sources, if any, can be considered usable. The dodgiest ones are ones like this one that doesn't appear to have anything that could confirm that it'd be anything other than a SPS. I'm going to ask at WP:RUSSIA for help as well since I imagine that most of the coverage will likely be in Russian, but I thought that this would be a good place to start. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I do think that this guy is notable - I just think that this was something that shouldn't have made it through AfC based on the puffery and potentially poor sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Safety of Nicotine
In our article about Nicotine, the lead and body originally said (for example in this version:


 * (lead) "It is widely held that nicotine itself poses little health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups. Nicotine is associated with potential birth defects and at high enough-doses, poisonings.


 * (body) According to a 2013 report by Cancer Research UK, "The accepted medical position is that while nicotine is highly addictive and comparable to drugs such as heroin or cocaine, it poses little health risks except in certain vulnerable groups". A large number of randomized controlled trials show that nicotine replacement products do not cause serious adverse events among smokers, even in patients with established cardiovascular disease. The 2014 US Surgeon General Report concluded that nicotine negatively affects pregnancy outcomes and fetal brain development, and that experimental research suggests that adolescent nicotine use may harm brain development. It noted that evidence is inadequate to infer whether nicotine plays any role in causing cancer, but "clearly the risk, if any, is less than continued smoking".

I was uncomfortable with the un-nuanced statement in the lead, making broad claims that nicotine is "safe", as they did not reflect the very next sentence nor the body and its emphasis on the safety of nicotine in regulated drug products, which is what the sources discuss. So in these difs without changing the sourcing, i corrected the content to


 * (lead) "It is widely held that nicotine delivered as a drug in regulated nicotine replacement therapy devices at recommended doses, itself poses little health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups.


 * According to a 2013 report by Cancer Research UK, in a discussion of nicotine when delivered as a drug in regulated nicotine replacement therapy devices at recommended doses: "The accepted medical position is that while nicotine is highly addictive and comparable to drugs such as heroin or cocaine, it poses little health risks except in certain vulnerable groups".

These changes were reverted with a claim that they are not supported by the sources. I believe they are, and obviously so - see page 8 in the numbers printed in the CRUK pdf. Please note that the sources used there in the CRUK report itself are this, called Harm reduction in nicotine addiction: Helping people who can't quit and this, which each discuss the safety of nicotine in nicotine replacement products, which are regulated medical products with clear dosing and use instructions.

Again in my view the content in the lead was (and is, since the change was reverted) misleading and inaccurate. It is not something like water which only becomes toxic at crazy big doses delivered in the wrong way (like into your lungs) It is actually an insecticide and has been used to commit murder and suicide.

--Anyway I look forward to thoughts on this - basically a support or oppose for the proposed change, based on the sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * support for nicotine article per reasons given by Jytdog --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it actually "widely held that nicotine itself", the cause of some quite nasty pesticide-based poisonings and a key plot element in dozens of murder mysteries, "poses little health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups"? Does "certain vulnerable groups" include "pretty much all animals"? Also, I think that the cardiac claims might not hit the right balance.
 * says "nicotine replacement therapy was associated with an increased risk of cardiac disorders, particularly palpitations, which are a known adverse effect of smoking....Nonetheless, the cardiac effects of nicotine call for prudent use of nicotine replacement therapy: the minimum effective dose should be sought, and the goal should be total nicotine withdrawal."
 * reports on "Some acute effects of e-cigarettes on heart rate, blood pressure, and airway resistance", which doesn't sound like "posing little health risks".
 * says "The main health concern for nicotine in cigarette smokers is maintenance of addiction. Most of the adverse health effects of smoking are caused by tobacco combustion products, but there are some health concerns that are related to nicotine per se. Many of these concerns are related to the ability of nicotine to release catecholamines, including hemodynamic effects (increase in heart rate, a transient increase in blood pressure, vasoconstriction of coronary and other vascular beds), adverse effects on lipids, and induction of insulin resistance. Nicotine has also been reported to produce endothelial dysfunction and to cause fetal teratogenicity, operating by different mechanisms. Nicotine in vitro and in animals can inhibit apoptosis and enhance angiogenesis, effects that raise concerns about a role of nicotine in promoting the development and spread of cancer and in the acceleration of atherosclerotic disease." – In plain English, that's higher blood pressure, harder arteries, worse cholesterol, more diabetes, and maybe even more cancer, none of which are "little health risks" to anyone who's ever looked at a top-ten list of causes of death.
 * , which makes the case for "little health risks", agrees that pure nicotine promotes atherosclerotic disease. Unlike the other three I looked at, this one doesn't really care whether you quit nicotine, so long as you quit smoking tobacco. What all of these sources agree upon is that pure nicotine, in the amounts consumed through smoking, is importantly less dangerous than the same amount of nicotine contaminated with all kinds of nasty smoke.  That's not quite the same thing as "little health risks".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While I don't doubt your intended statement is correct, I was not able to identify where on p.8 of the CRUK source that the statement is supported. Could you please recheck, clarify the source citation, and, as it is a large source, quote the specific bit of text you are using? Also, please clarify if you are intending "regulated" to mean the control of dosage by the device, or control of the market by an administrative or legislative organization? LeadSongDog come howl!  17:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While orignal research is not the focus of this board, I echo your request, because after reading the source I can find nothing that supports the additions. AlbinoFerret  15:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If the sources cited by the CRUK source support your statement, then by implication, the CRUK source supports it. If you are getting flak because the CRUK source doesn't mention the delivery mechanism, then change the citations to the root sources. If there are further reversions, then WP policy puts you firmly in the right. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The source cited by CRUK to support their claim regarding the the safety of nicotine discusses nicotine harm reduction in all its forms, both NRT and smokeless tobaco. It states
 * Furthermore, the CRUK statement 1) is entirely in context of (preceded & followed by) unregulated e-cigarettes 2) asserts that nicotine is addictive as cocaine & heroine, which is not the case with the regulated doses of NRT.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 14:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That quote does not evince your claim. Only by engaging in synthesis can one get from "We demonstrate that smokers smoke predominantly for nicotine, that nicotine itself is not especially hazardous" to "our studies and conclusions are not exclusive to one specific form of ingestion." If you are correct, you'll need to find a better quote from the source to establish it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)'
 * The quote was not essential to my point. I will address the points made by when I get a chance.   Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 14:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 14:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, here we have a problem. A big problem., you provided a quote from the article to demonstrate that the article only references the safety of nicotine acquired through smoking. I pointed out that the quote you provided requires one to synthesize the two statements together in a specific way in order to support your claim. I was generally open to the possibility you may be right. Then, in reading the source, I found your quote. I found the entire statement, and it shows that you either deliberately quote mined it or are so biased against Jytdog's assertion that you missed what was -quite literally- right in front of your face. Here's the entire quote:
 * We demonstrate that smokers smoke predominantly for nicotine, that nicotine itself is not especially hazardous, and that if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved. &mdash; John Britton "Harm Reduction in Nicotine Addition" preface (emphasis added)
 * That full quote very strongly implies that you are wrong, and Jytdog is right. It does not prove it, but Jytdog's proposed would work on the basis of this statement just as well as on the basis of any statement that the studies were done with a non-smoking method of nicotine ingestion. I have yet to finish reading the source, but I will soon enough, and will post here when I do. However, thanks you your comment, you've made it quite clear that your arguments cannot be trusted. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, please read the entire source which refers to smokeless tobacco. Let's not get bogged down by minutia, but the statement quoted implies that nicotine is not the major source of tobacco-related harm. The end of the statement -- and that if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved -- is referring to acceptability by smokers and effectiveness to replace tobacco. synthesis is irrelevant; I'm just trying to explain why is not justified in his heroic reinterpretation of CRUK's report (which is not justified even assuming RCP report is context of medicinal nicotine)Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 15:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem I'm seeing here is that the source is making pronouncements about the molecule on the basis of harm reduction. This is comparing nicotine plus other deadly chemicals to nicotine alone, and concluding that nicotine is much, much, much better than nicotine plus deadly chemicals.  As Zvi put it, "nicotine is not the major source of tobacco-related harm".  (I agree with this.)
 * But to make an unlimited statement like "Nicotine has few health risks", you need to compare nicotine against no nicotine, not nicotine vs nicotine plus the rest of tobacco. So for context, owning a dog is something that I think we could all agree to describe as having "few health risks".  You might get diarrhea or parasites if you're not careful about sanitation, and there's a chance of a dog bite, but overall it's likely to be fine.  I'm not getting the impression from these sources that nicotine is in the same category as owning a dog.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * True. Note that despite some in vitro, in vivo and minor acute cardiovascular effects you've cited, there is quite solid epidemiological evidence that nicotine does not substantially cause heart attacks or cancer  (BTW, you've misquoted )Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 15:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Below is a response to. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 02:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) " says 'nicotine replacement therapy was associated with an increased risk of cardiac disorders, particularly palpitations, which are a known adverse effect of smoking....Nonetheless, the cardiac effects of nicotine call for prudent use of nicotine replacement therapy: the minimum effective dose should be sought, and the goal should be total nicotine withdrawal.' "
 * 2) *Response: Source continues "Nicotine replacement therapy exposes patients to a risk of palpitations but rarely to serious cardiac disorders, even in individuals with a cardiovascular history."
 * 3) " reports on 'Some acute effects of e-cigarettes on heart rate, blood pressure, and airway resistance", which doesn't sound like "posing little health risks' "
 * 4) *Response: Acute effects cardiovascular effects don't indicate long term harm, as coffee demonstrates . Despite acute blood pressure increases, even smoking is not associated with hypertension . The reference to increased (peripheral) airway resistance (sensitive measure) relates to e-cigs, not nicotine, and reports even this isn't considered clinically significant.
 * 5) " says 'The main health concern for nicotine in cigarette smokers is maintenance of addiction. Most of the adverse health effects of smoking are caused by tobacco combustion products, but there are some health concerns that are related to nicotine per se. Many of these concerns are related to the ability of nicotine to release catecholamines, including hemodynamic effects (increase in heart rate, a transient increase in blood pressure, vasoconstriction of coronary and other vascular beds), adverse effects on lipids, and induction of insulin resistance. Nicotine has also been reported to produce endothelial dysfunction and to cause fetal teratogenicity, operating by different mechanisms. Nicotine in vitro and in animals can inhibit apoptosis and enhance angiogenesis, effects that raise concerns about a role of nicotine in promoting the development and spread of cancer and in the acceleration of atherosclerotic disease.' – In plain English, that's higher blood pressure, harder arteries, worse cholesterol, more diabetes, and maybe even more cancer, none of which are "little health risks" to anyone who's ever looked at a top-ten list of causes of death."
 * 6) *Response: The source starts out noting concerns (mainly arising from theoretical or laboratory research). Then, it goes on to assess the actual epidemiology:"Because most people use nicotine in the form of tobacco products, there are relatively few data on the health effects of prolonged exposure to pure nicotine. There are some studies of prolonged NRT in smokers who have quit smoking. In these studies, no adverse effects have been found when nicotine medication was administered for months to several years. Other studies indicate that patients with known cardiovascular disease tolerate NRT well for periods up to 12 weeks. Because most of the toxicity from cigarette smoking derives from combustion products, the health effects of smokeless tobacco could be examined to assess potential long-term adverse effects of nicotine without exposure to combustion products. Smokeless tobacco users take in as much nicotine as cigarette smokers, although not by the pulmonary route. The most extensive and rigorous epidemiological studies on smokeless tobacco use come from Scandinavia, where a large percentage of men use snus, a smokeless tobacco product that contains nicotine but relatively low levels of carcinogens and other toxins. These studies report only a very small cardiovascular disease risk in snus users compared with tobacco smokers. However, discontinuation of snus use after MI has been found to be associated with nearly halved mortality risk, which is similar in magnitude to the benefit associated with smoking cessation. Thus, although the adverse health effects of e-cigarettes are not known, they are likely to be much less than those of cigarette smoking, but could be significant in individuals with heart disease."
 * ", which makes the case for "little health risks", agrees that pure nicotine promotes atherosclerotic disease. Unlike the other three I looked at, this one doesn't really care whether you quit nicotine, so long as you quit smoking tobacco."
 * 1) *Response: The source says, "it has been established that nicotine itself has minimal effect in initiating and promoting atherosclerotic heart disease".


 * Your arguments seem to be focused on the relative safety/low-toxicity of various NRTs (regulated and unregulated) compared with smoking. Nobody disputes that smoking is super bad for you.  That is a different conversation. This  conversation is about toxicities of nicotine per se (in other words, nicotine exposure compared to no nicotine). Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * At doses related to acute poisonings, nicotine is obviously more dangerous than smoking. But at common consumption doses, there is no evidence against Cancer Research UK's statement that nicotine "poses little health risks except in certain vulnerable groups".
 * Meta-analyses show that Scandinavian snuff, which delivers nicotine at doses similar to cigarettes, is not related to cancer heart attack  or stroke, despite the low levels of toxins it contains. Though, a small increase in mortality after the onset of cardiovascular diseases, patients would classify as "vulnerable groups", and confounding was considered a plausible explanation by the studies.
 * Similarly, a new review by Benowitz just published, "Cardiovascular Toxicity of Nicotine: Implications for Electronic Cigarette Use", has concluded, "Based on current knowledge, we believe that the cardiovascular risks of nicotine from e-cigarette use in people without CVD are quite low. We have concerns that nicotine from e-cigarettes could pose some risk for users with CVD. . . .For patients with cardiovascular disease in particular, we recommend that when they are confident that they no longer need to use e-cigarettes to keep from smoking, that they discontinue e-cigarette use."Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 02:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So this is kind of what I mean about the advocacy thing, Zvi. Everything you are writing here is about e-cigs vs smoking. The article we are talking about is Nicotine which is about the substance, nicotine.  Not about e-cigs.  Not even about smoking, really.   A flat statement about the substance "nicotine" that "It is widely held that nicotine itself poses little health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups" is batshit crazy, and that is what my edits were originally trying to fix. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My points above relate to nicotine's absolute hazard profile not relative to any other product. Please stick to the science.
 * When talking about the health profile of any substance, decide if you want to discuss it at the levels relating to common consumption, or its effects in pure form. When discussing the health affects of vitamin D, is the weight on acute toxicity in pure form, its use as rat poison, or the levels relating to human consumption (in >99.999% of cases)? Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 09:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth
Please see Articles for deletion/Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. In this edit the article creator acknowledges the article was compiled by cutting and pasting from other Wikipedia articles without reading the citations. Other than the references to the bible which are rather well known, and a few paper sources which I possess, I view the article as unreferenced and therefore subject to deletion. In my view, the citations that were cut and pasted without being read don't count. Please discuss at the article deletion page. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

shiksha.com
A user has been adding that site as a reference to a great many articles. I am wondering if it is reliable or spammy or what. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to the source you are referring to? What you linked was a user's edit history. Meatsgains (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here; used a shiksa article. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, Meatsgains. Yes, pretty much all of the above user's contribs are adding that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

We have "Shiksha.com". It has over 120 ext links on wikipedia. Some of them are of pretty spammy gist. For example this one in National Institute of Design merely says that NID posted results at their website ... bla-bla. So I am strongly inclined to weed them all out. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I must agree, Staszek Lem. So, not a RS? Are we in agreement here? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Spammy commercial site at best - fails WP:RS for multiple reasons including SPS for its clients, not fact checked, and not a usable source for claims of fact. Collect (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are all 79 (nearly) that I can find used as refs and maybe ext links. I've divided them into three parts in case anyone wants to chip in and do some removals. If nobody does, I will probably get to them all.


 * Part 1 of 3:


 * (✅ Done.) All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Amity University, Gwalior, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Amity University, Jaipur, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) APIIT, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) ARCH Academy of Design, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Asian Workers Development Institute, Rourkela, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) AWH Engineering College, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Babasaheb Naik College of Engineering, Pusad, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Balaji Institute of International Business, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) College of Defence Management, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) College of Engineering Roorkee, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) College of Engineering, Pune, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Department of Management Sciences (PUMBA), (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) DIT University, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Institute of Technology Jalandhar, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Draft:Department of Industrial and Management Engineering (IME), IIT Kanpur, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Draft:NIMT Group of Institutions, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Draft:Sankara Institute of Management Science, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Dwarkadas J. Sanghvi College of Engineering, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Engineering Agricultural and Medical Common Entrance Test, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Galgotias University, (in edit mode)


 * Part 2 of 3:


 * (✅ Done.) Girish Mistry, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Government Law College, Mumbai, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Guru Nanak Dev University, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Indian Diamond Institute, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Indian Institutes of Management, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) International Management Institute, New Delhi, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Jabalpur Engineering College, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Jaipur Engineering College, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Jammu and Kashmir, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) KEAM, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Kendriya Vidyalaya Barrackpore (Army), (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Kendriya Vidyalaya Bolarum, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Kendriya Vidyalaya Hebbal, Bangalore, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Kendriya Vidyalaya Tirumalagiri, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) KIIT University, (in edit mode)


 * Part 3 of 3:


 * (✅ Done.) Kohinoor-IMI School of Hospitality Management, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management & Technology, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) List of institutions granting degrees in cognitive science, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Lyallpur Khalsa College, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Maharana Pratap Engineering College, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Management Development Institute, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Manav Rachna University - formerly MRCE, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Max M. Fisher College of Business, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) National Institute of Ayurveda, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) National Institute of Fashion Technology, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) National Institute of Management & Technology, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) New Delhi Institute of Management, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) PES University, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Sardar Patel College of Engineering, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) St. Joseph's College, Bangalore, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Testfunda.com, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) The Glocal University, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) The ITA School of Performing Arts, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Thiagarajar School of Management, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Tula’s Institute, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Uday Salunkhe, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Villa Marie Degree College, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) VIT University, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination, (in edit mode)
 * (✅ Done.) World College of Technology and Management (Gurgaon), (in edit mode)

Thanks again for the feedback. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't even notice this until now. The behavioral evidence seems pretty compelling that this is refspamming, so I was going through and removing them on my own. The most common pattern has been that the link was added, and then immediately after that a second link from a more superficially reliable domain was added to shore-up the claim. This set of edits is repeated enough that it seems like it might be a deliberate attempt to 'bury' the link among others to make it seem more legit and make it slightly harder to remove. As mentioned, many of the claims are totally trivial or unimportant, along the lines of "test results for 2015 have been announced". Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right, Grayfell. I'm seeing plenty of cases by user Smith_zara where a shiksha ref is added then immediately buried by a good ref. Way too many to be a coincidence, if you ask me. I'll post at Smith_zara about this and warn of blacklisting and then begin removing the refs. Thank you! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Followup:

All removed from articles. Reappearance checking link here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A Word to the World
It looks like a personal website to me. Is it reliable source? --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a personal website/blog thus, not a reliable source. This quote is taken straight from the website: "Disclaimer: If the readers are in search of strategies and steps taken by companies in the corporate world by which they feel that they can be motivated and fuel their desire to understand the business world, then this blog is for you." It calls the site a blog. See here. Meatsgains (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, on the site he says he is currently an undergraduate college student. It is a personal website. 172.56.29.186 (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Investopedia
Is Investopedia a reliable source for this content? Thanks for the outside opinion. N2e (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blockchain.asp
 * Article: Block_chain_%28database%29
 * Content: Alternate block chains (altchains) are based on bitcoin technology in concept and/or code.


 * Without commenting on the supported statement or Investopedia as a whole, I would not use that source here. I don't see any mention in that source of any use of blockchains other than bitcoin, so this seems like it has an WP:OR problem. The very first line is "A blockchain is a public ledger of all Bitcoin transactions that have ever been executed." That leaves no room for other uses. The quote being used for the statement, "Based on the Bitcoin protocol, the blockchain database is shared by all nodes participating in a system", is open to interpretation, but my reading is that it's saying the (bitcoin) protocol determines how the blockchain database is shared within "a system", implying a bitcoin system. Since it doesn't directly acknowledge the existence of other uses of blockchain technology, it doesn't indicate where those other blockchains could've come from. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Investopedia is a reliable source. They are not a personal website and appear to be professional-level articles written by authors who know their stuff. 172.56.29.186 (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 6) and Equestria Daily
I would like to ask other editors whether they think Equestria Daily (specifically, this article) is a reliable source for My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 6), where it is currently reference 3. Everymorning (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say this specific article's citation should be qualified with a statement along the lines of "there are reports of...". We need to be careful about saying a writer wrote something since that is a statement about a living person. Overall I'd say it is a reliable source. 172.56.29.186 (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

angelfire.com
Hello Wikipedians, I found a list of 1000+ links from angelfire.com which been used as reference. Can we accept it as reliable source? am asking because Angelfire offers paid space for Websites and when we click on a link (e.g. this) it will take you to a totally different page which making me think whether it's an SEO matter or something else. Thank You – <span style="font-family: monospace;font-weight: bold;font-size: 16px;color: hsl(205, 98%, 55%); ">GSS (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether the material can be reasonably expected to be accurate per WP:RS - the example you give is clearly done by a single person, and thus does not meet the criteria for "reliable source" as such.  This does not mean, however, that no Angelfire source is reliable, but clearly sites which use that host are not automatically reliable, though some might be - but not on the basis of the webhost being a reliable source at all.    Collect (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Angelfire is just a web host. Like Geocities, Tripod, Blogspot, WordPress.com, etc. by default it hosts content on an angelfire domain. In practice it's going to be pretty rare for these to be considered reliable sources if contested, but there are exceptions as with and WP:SPS. In particular, it was less common for everybody to have their own domain name in its earlier days, so there were some respected sites that hosted their content with that sort of site. Granted, most of them since migrated, but every once in a while I come across a good resource still there. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah like he said: its all about the source itself, not the host. Something being on Anglefire is no different from it being on its own website hosted by GoDaddy. 172.56.29.186 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

DIO, the International Journal of Scientific History
While reviewing the North Pole article I discovered several references to DIO, “The International Journal of Scientific History”. (DIO website) There are around a hundred other references to this journal scattered throughout Wikipedia. I believe this journal is not a reliable source in the sense that Wikipedia requires. It appears to be a personal project of Dennis Rawlins (who I believe may be an authority on scientific history).

Some warning flags:


 * Dennis Rawlins' page describes DIO as “a compendium of several hundred of Rawlins's contributions”.
 * The journal appears to be privately published by Mr. Rawlins.
 * The article cited from the North Pole article, “First to the North Pole”, is credited to E. Myles Standish, who is also listed as being on DIO's editorial board.
 * An earlier investigation by PRODded Dio (journal), saying “No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG”  .  The proposed deletion was not contested.

I'm not sure what the appropriate action is here, but it seems to me that the other hundred-odd places that cite DIO should at the very least be marked with or something like that. —Mark Dominus (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no direct opinion on whether this journal can serve as a reliable source or not. I just would like to point out that there is no relationship between being "notable" and being "RS". Some academic journals are notable because they are so low quality or fringy that they have generated significant coverage and meet GNG. Other journals may be good quality sources, but don't meet GNG or NJournals. Looking over the DIO website, I note that the site is set up in a very amateurish way and the issues that I looked at look plainly weird to me (for the whole of issue 20 I could not even figure out who the author is). However, this is not my field and while I can recognize that DIO is not notable, I cannot say whether it is reliable enough to be used as a source. As an aside, how many times it has been cited in WP is irrelevant to either notability or being a RS, this would not be the first time that someone has "seeded" articles with references to a publication or person (but I don't have the time to look into whether this is the case for DIO). --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

David Orrell on chromosomes
Previously on the argument from authority page, David Orrell's book The Future of Everything, page 184-185, which can be found online here, was being used as a source for the statements "Painter's 'influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence'", and "'textbooks from the time carried photographs showing twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, and yet the caption would say there were twenty-four'".

This section was removed because the source was allegedly questionable due to the fact that it cited a newspaper article as its source. The book cites it here and the citation can be seen here. There is currently a dispute on the Talk page about whether it passes WP:V and WP:RS.

I feel that as Dr. Orrell is a reliable source and an expert in biology that this book is a reliable source for these facts, and as such the deletion should be reversed. However as there is a dispute on the Talk, outside opinions are needed. FL or Atlanta (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For starters, contrary to what is stated above, the book was not previously used in the article. FLoA is the one who added it to the page with this edit. The book, to support the statement that scientists were relying on the authority of Theophilus Painter to explain why biologists believed there were 48 human chromosomes for many years until 1956, cites a purported newspaper article which can only be found here, on an archived version of a FortuneCity web page. That source was discussed here where the general consensus was that we have no way of verifying its existence. It may exist, but we can't confirm it.
 * Also, the assertion made in the source is contradicted by numerous other sources, such as this one, this one, and this one which all ascribe the major reason for the longstanding acceptance of Painter's count to the technical difficulties in counting them using the technology and techniques of the time. No-one (again, contrary to FLoA's assertion) has argued that Painter's authority was never appealed to, but rather that a single source which is contradicted by numerous other sources is not sufficient to insert an extremely POV-ish example into the article. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've said repeatedly, no one disputes Painter got the number wrong because of faulty techniques. The issue is that the number he got with those faulty techniques was taken to be the absolute answer because of who he was, and contrary evidence was assumed to be wrong. All of that is a matter for the Talk page however. The only germane issue here is whether this passes WP:RS. Now that we've both given our sides, let's see what others say. FL or Atlanta (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is archived online, and it reports everything David Orrell says the article he is citing reported. This seems open and shut: the source is clearly reliable. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have some evidence that Orrell didn't get this from that 'archive'? Because that's the issue here. We have no idea where he got the citation from. If he got it from the newspaper itself then it's good, but if he got it from that archive we can't trust it (unless and until someone can confirm it). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. "Well how do you know he DIDN'T get it from there?" is conspiracy-level thinking. He never refers to the archive in his citation, despite the fact that authors are supposed to cite the URL if that is where it had come from. Not to mention that there is nothing wrong with the archive, everything that can be checked with other online sources there matches perfectly. This article was just not digitized anywhere else. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:V. If it's conspiracy level thinking, then it's conspiracy level thinking enshrined in WP policy. Verifiability is not assumed, it must be demonstrated. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is demonstrated by his status as a respected scientist citing a respected newspaper. If you want to bring up WP:V then your comments that we can't trust it because you don't have access to the print issue falls afoul of WP:SOURCEACCESS. Like WP:OFFLINE says, it is not good practice to say "Revert - I couldn't access and confirm this source online". This is precisely what you are advocating here. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * it is not good practice to say "Revert - I couldn't access and confirm this source online". This is precisely what you are advocating here.No, it's not. What I'm saying is that there is exactly one source which uses the same sort of language Orrell did, a source which he cites, a source which more than one editor has serious doubts about, for a variety of reasons (not least of which is the fact that the publisher has no record of it). Orrell's book is a popular science book, which reflects why he cited a mass media source, and wrote about it in black and white terms. The academic sources all paint a much more nuanced and complex issue, and the fact that all the academic sources share the same view, which differs from that of Orrell and this article suggests that Orrell's view stems from this source, not that it coincided with it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A scientists usually has a grasp of the history of his branch of science, both the peaks and the pits. Every geneticist probably knows the story of Painter's mistake and the errors of the followers through independent sources and his education.  That Orrell cites a newspaper to back him up -- or no source at all -- does not invalidate his knowledge. Policy does not require us to investigate and evaluate the sources behind the RS in an endless recursion, unless the RS is clearly handing off responsibility with such phrases as "According to the Plain Dealer of ..."  I know it gives people night sweats to hear that the great fraternity of scientists sometimes follows a leader into error, but it happens.  WP policy says, where sources conflict, cite both. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Orrell is not a biologist, but a mathematician who works only tangentially with biology. He's spent much more of his career working with economics. The academic sources I mentioned above (all of which can be found linked on the article talk page) were written by biologists, and they give a very different tone to the incident. What we have are known experts in the subject saying "this was a complicated issue with many factors," while a highly respected expert in a different subject and an unverifiable article assert that it was a black and white issue. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah the policy's clear on this one: he's a reliable source for this claim. If there are reliable sources that disagree, they should be cited as well. A source doesn't need to be direct to be used, and a source doesn't need to be able to be verified online to be used so I'd say this is a layer cake and the citation doubly makes the cut. 172.56.29.186 (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources used in Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) needs review before GA passing
While reviewing the article for GA, I informed the nominator that this source, this one, and this one used to verifiy a court battle, new label change, and an annual songwriting compeition held in her country, looked like a Romanian version of TMZ and subsequenly asked him what made them reliable, for which the nominator proceceed by informing me that "the newspaper also concepted a television show which is very popular in Romania".

For this source, I didn't know anything about the website or author so I decided to further investigate the author and found that his his 'about me' page stated that he has a BA in an unknown field of study and his Twitter account says that he is a freelancer with no credibility to his name anywhere. The nominator used the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line on me and also told me that the two reviewers who reviewed his past GA articles with the same source said nothing about it.

For this and this source I couldn't find anything on the website that gave me any reassurance that it was a reliable source so I researched the author and found a blog he uses for people to ask him questions on various topics and found nothing else on his qualifications.

And finally this source I too couldn't find anything on and when I researched the author I came across his personal website where he likes to write about the "private lives of celebrities" and gives no creditablilty as to where he gets his information from. Best, jona   (talk)   00:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources used in Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) needs review before GA passing
While reviewing the article for GA, I informed the nominator that this source, this one, and this one used to verifiy a court battle, new label change, and an annual songwriting compeition held in her country, looked like a Romanian version of TMZ and subsequenly asked him what made them reliable, for which the nominator proceceed by informing me that "the newspaper also concepted a television show which is very popular in Romania".

For this source, I didn't know anything about the website or author so I decided to further investigate the author and found that his his 'about me' page stated that he has a BA in an unknown field of study and his Twitter account says that he is a freelancer with no credibility to his name anywhere. The nominator used the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line on me and also told me that the two reviewers who reviewed his past GA articles with the same source said nothing about it.

For this and this source I couldn't find anything on the website that gave me any reassurance that it was a reliable source so I researched the author and found a blog he uses for people to ask him questions on various topics and found nothing else on his qualifications.

And finally this source I too couldn't find anything on and when I researched the author I came across his personal website where he likes to write about the "private lives of celebrities" and gives no creditablilty as to where he gets his information from. Best, jona   (talk)   00:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

iHorror.com for movie reviews in filmmaker's article
Is this iHorror.com's movie review reliable enough to include when mentioning the films of Jack Thomas Smith in Smith's article? Nightscream (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From the closest thing to a staff page: "I founded iHorror.com to be a place where people could share their love of the Horror genre. I wanted to create a site where writers had full control and freedom to express their passion for everything Horror." That does not lend me to believe that there is any editorial control over this content at all.  If the writers have "full control", it would seem to fail WP:RS.  There are lots of prominent horror film review websites that are known for a fact to have editorial control.  Many of them are listed at WP:FILM/R.  I'd use one of them instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Psychotherapeutic postural integration
I started a discussion at Talk:Psychotherapeutic postural integration about using this website as a source for this statement, "Body psychotherapy has been scientifically validated by the European Association for Psychotherapy (E.A.P.) as have a number of the various modalities within this mainstream branch of Psychotherapy. One of these approaches or “modalities” within Body-Psychotherapy includes Psychotherapeutic Postural Integration which has been recognised as scientifically valid by the EAP." A few days ago I removed that statement on the grounds that the source wasn't WP:MEDRS, but it was reverted this morning with this edit summary, "this is a reliable referenced second source validation." I'm looking for some outside input before reverting it again. Thank you. <b style="color:indigo;">PermStrump</b> (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have looked over your cited RS, and I still don't see what the heck it's about. Surely an honest source would say something substantive, like, "we twist belly buttons and feed the patient with mashed fly wings" -- or something. I suspect it's a philosophy like, "if you act happy, you feel happy."  Nothing so easy. I think it is most probably a Primary Source (that is, an advocate), so it would need a 3rd party statement for credibility, status, and recognition. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The best RS for a claim that PPI had been validated scientifically would be an explicit statement to that effect from EAP in which they discussed the evidence and concluded it was valid. If it is impossible to find such a statement then it is reasonable to doubt whether they have made this judgement or that it means what the cited source claims it does.Martinlc (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Alleged war crimes by Russians in Syria


According to Tobby72, Amnesty International uses what he alleges an "unreliable" source, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Volunteer Marek says otherwise. My very best wishes seems mixed. Hammer5000... I don't know. I was just promoting a latest story about the Russian intervention in Syria for In the News. Perhaps more involvement is needed from non-involved people. George Ho (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the source here is Amnesty International. One editor thinks that a reliable source is not reliable because ... not clear on that exactly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAIU, the source cited is AI, however the original source of information if SOHR. I believe it is known that SOHR is basically a one-man shop with dubious verifiability despite a pompous name. Further, here: Amnesty the source is not Amnesty,  but a hearsay from Amnesty's words.  The direct Amnesty source is here   We have to use direct words whenever possible, because journalists spin the news in most dramatic ways. That's their job, to make people read a newspaper. Please compare the style of Amnesty's words and newspapers'. Amnesty gives lots of detail, but uses cautious wordings. Nespapers cited don't give details, just  tremendous noise about these bad Ruskies (we know they are bad already; encyclopedia needs facts, not just shouts). Staszek Lem (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What material in the actual article is being disputed? It's been widely reported that Russia's air campaign may have violated various laws covering warfare. Amnesty International is a reliable source on such topics, and accusations of war crimes raised by the group should be considered significant enough to note in relevant articles, especially when they're reported in major reliable news sources such as Sky News and The Independent. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Amnesty International press releases are a reliable source for its own opinions, stated and sourced as opinions. It tends to use other sources for "facts" (it is not a news organization it itself, and does not many any claims that it is a news organization, or publisher of news, but an opinion organization, whose press releases tend to not make claims of direct fact per se, but of its opinions regarding alleged acts). One will note it parses claims of fact very carefully, indeed. Thus it is not usable as a source for "claims of fact" which derive from outside sources. Collect (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Amnesty International and other similar reputable organizations do their own research. Their conclusions are a lot more reliable than a typical publication in newspaper. Yes, this can be disputed, as any other research, but it was not disputed by other research sources in this particular case. My very best wishes (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with him: Amnesty International is not a reliable source on these matters. They use a definition of war crime that is deceptive, and they are far from unbiased. We should drop them, or at least say "according to Amnesty International..." and not phrase it as a matter of objective fact. Look at it this way: would you trust PETA uncritically as a source? Of course not. Amnesty International is to war what PETA is to meat: everything is a crime and villains are around every corner. Groups like these are very biased and so must be used very cautiously, if at all. 172.56.29.186 (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * PETA is an "extremist source", but Amnesty International is not. It does fact checking and verification. It has significant reputation as a reliable source of information. One can not dismiss reliable sources by simply calling them extremist sources. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Amnesty isn't perfect, but does serious research which is taken seriously by other reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Just no be clear, referring to the original question: The refs cited at the very top here are not reliable sources: these are sloppy newspaper blurbs which are a hearsay of a hearsay of a hearsay. If you want to cite something according to AmnInt, please cite directly AmnInt, not "according to Apopka News according to AmnInt <bla...>". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

planespotters and airfleets.net
There was some discussion on this before at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 21 and it has come up at Talk:Air Transat. Are http://www.airfleets.net/home/ and https://www.planespotters.net/ reliable sources? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS claim in Fire needle acupuncture
I believe this is a WP:MEDRS question. in Fire needle acupuncture, "One study comparing it with acupuncture found that fire needling 'sustains the efficacy especially on cervical headache without bony pathological changing'." Sourced to "Clinical observation on cervical headache treated with acupuncture and fire needling technique" Zhang XZ in Zhongguo zhen jiu ("Chinese acupuncture & moxibustion")

This is a primary study with a current impact factor of 0.00, comparing fire needle acupuncture with acupuncture, being used for a MEDRS statement. Comments? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Primary studies are primary sources according to WP:MEDRS, so no; this source doesn't fly from where I sit. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, not a MEDRS, removed. P.S. for MEDRS-specific questions also try WT:MEDRS. cheers --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 09:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

While we are at it, this source from "Blue Poppy Enterprises" says the treatment is used to treat "bi qi". I'm not sure if this is a MEDRS claim. I can't find anything saying what "bi qi" might be. I know what "qi" is supposed to be, but I can't find anything on "bi qi". Another source from the same publisher talks about "chicken eyes" being "stripped" in regards to the treatment being used for calluses. I suspect it is a problem with the publisher (whoever they are) using machine translation. Thoughts? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I commented on this at talk.... "chicken eyes" is a TCM term of art (Chinese language is colorful that way); "bi qi" is imo very likely one also. No reason to impugn the source but good reason to put a clarify tag on "bi qi" (which I might be able to fix).  --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 09:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

TonyOrtega.org
The article Mark Bunker cites tonyortega.org for a statement about a film release date, representing that the essay is a personal interview with Bunker. I deleted the statement and the source on the reasoning that it violates WP:SPS. reverted it, adding a gofund entry from Bunker. Seeing that including tonyortega.org in a BLP article still violated the WP policy, I deleted the tonyortega.org footnote. Grayfell restored it, saying something to the effect that I am being WP:BURO. Please see the discussion.Talk:Mark_Bunker Neither editor is changing positions and the discussion is going nowhere. Here is the question: Can we break the rules just this once over the support of article detail so trivial, or should we sacrifice this this trivial statement in favor of sustaining the policy in all its well-considered wisdom? Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh please, that's laying it on awfully thick, isn't it?
 * My point is that Tony Ortega's interview with Bunker included the anticipated release date of his project. This is a valid use of a SPS, as it's Bunker's own claim about his project, and since the other source is a rolling post to a crowd-funding site it seemed prudent to include a second source for if that one gets pushed-off the site. Nobody is contesting that Ortega did, in fact interview Bunker, or has given any reason to believe he would misrepresent this minor but useful detail. Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than repeat all that was said on the talk page, including the definitions of "self", "third-party", and "self-published", I ask other editors considering this question to read the arguments on that Talk:Mark_Bunker page as though they were copied in full here. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tony Ortega is a notable (respectable) journalist. As he is an acknowledged expert in the field of journalism, any questions about his journalism are not for us to decide. In that context, and for the simple fact that the projected release date of a film is not a controversial statement, the questions about this source seem very spurious., I don't understand your point, unless you're trying to be a wikilawyer and hone your argumentation skills. Your argument, both here and at the talk page seems predicated upon interpreting WP policy and guidelines in a very specific and very strict way, for the purpose of this particular issue. If you have a different, non-policy-based reason for not wanting to include it, you should make that clear here, as it may be that your strict, specific interpretation is desirable. But if you're just arguing from policy, then I think it's time to give up. Remember Ignore All Rules is a WP policy, too. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In evaluating the respectability and notability of Tony Ortega, include the fact that he was dismissed from the Village Voice. Use of WP:SPS in biographies of living persons is impermissible "...even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.", which seems to be your argument.  In other words, your argument has already been directly addressed and rebutted by the consensus of many others. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahem, I don't think you noticed, but I pointed out that WP:IAR is a policy, not a guideline. For a guideline that addresses this, see WP:HARM. Unless you can make the argument that this information somehow damages the subject (or the article), you're just Wikilawyering. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I get what you are saying. This documentary is so notable and important, Bunker can't get funding from regular backers to finish it.  And the news of the film's pending (but troubled) release is so important and notable that Wikipedia is vastly improved by its inclusion.  But despite the billions of words produced monthly in reliable sources, the only source that has printed notice of the release date of this notable and important film is a hobby blog, so Wikipedia should make exceptions to its own rules and cite that.  Have I got it right?  Can you explain for us the difference between this inclusion and WP:PROMO? Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long to get back to you. The difference between what I'm suggesting and promotional material lies inside another question. Is the film notable on its own? If yes, then this is just a non-controversial fact being reported by a reliable source (others may disagree, but I trust Ortega to quote the subject of his interview accurately, even if the interview was self-published). If the film is not notable, then yes, this might be construed as promotional material. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The BLP is actually quite clear on situations like this. "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." Tonyortega.org is Tony Ortega's personal self published site. It can be used to source information about Tony Ortega but not third parties. You could also use it as a source on journalism as he likely passes the threshold for being an expert on the subject. It cant be used as a source on BLP's of any other party. If the interview by Tony Ortega was published elsewhere, it could then be used (subject to reliable sourcing) as it wouldnt be self-published. Likewise if Bunker was to post on his own blog/website the expected release date of his project, that could be used in his BLP as it would be a self-published source by the subject about uncontentious information.
 * However IAR is also policy, IAR is used when ignoring a rule would improve the encyclopedia. While the argument that having a direct interview with the subject referenced would improve the article is a good one and would suffice in many cases, in this specific case as the information can probably be sourced elsewhere and is trivial and uncontentious, using IAR to 'ignore' the BLP does not seem to justified. IAR needs to have a *strong* reason to ignore core policies, and the reasoning behind this one just isnt that important.
 * I will say I find this overly burocratic however, the BLP says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." The key part for this is 'challenged or likely to be challenged', is there any expectation that this particular material is likely to be challenged? Is it factually incorrect? Self-serving or Promotional? If the material is completely uncontentious then invoking BLP and sourcing policies when there is no real argument is taking things to extremes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This promotion of Bunker's documentary took up 40% of the article -- definitely WP:UNDUE. As noted, there are multiple problems with using tonyortega.org as a source for this article.
 * It is a WP:SPS about a third party, and the policy against that IS policy, not just "rules". "likely to be challenged" is a condition that slide past the word "never" in the statement: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
 * The contended statements are NOT sufficiently notable to appear in a RS -- or at least not that any editor has produced. Though WP:NOTABLE does not cover content, in this case, the desired source is obviously WP:PROMO, and that IS policy.
 * The editors who advocate for the inclusion on this source have their own reasons, but none of it falls outside of WP:PROMO. If and when the world of reliable and notable sources takes notice of the future documentary, we will have a source we can use.  But advertizing Bunker's request for more money to finish his film is just naked promo.  Using his friend's hobby blog to advertise his need for more money also violates WP:PROMO.
 * WP:IAR does not apply to Wikipedia policy. The editor who pretended all these issues are just "rules" was untruthful and shamefully disingenuous.  In other discussions, that same editor argues "rules" like a Harvard Wiki lawyer.
 * Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:IAR does not apply to Wikipedia policy. The editor who pretended all these issues are just "rules" was untruthful and shamefully disingenuous. First off, yes it does. Did you read the page? The word "Rule" is linked to Policies and guidelines. Second, that is a personal attack. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  04:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Neat trick. In the first place, I did not name anyone personally, so it was not a personal attack.  But in the second place, someone said we should "ignore all rules," so why would it matter?  In the third place, citing a rule to mean that we should ignore all rules is an impossible paradox. That is not what that page means.  And in the fourth place, turning the Wikipedia into a billboard to advertise Mark Bunker's enterprise does not improve the Encyclopedia. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First off, there is no rule or convention that says if you didn't type a user name you didn't make a personal attack. This has got to be one of the most juvenile arguments I've ever seen on this site. You identified the editor you were referring to (me) by describing what I said. Second, you're still wikilawyering by bickering over rules instead of working to edit collaboratively. Finally, you couldn't possible be more wrong about everything you've said regarding WP:IAR. Please read the long-standing essay What "Ignore All Rules" Means to help you better understand the point and use of IAR. You've already misused it once, in addition to demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sputnik News
I would like to know if Sputnik News is reliable for:

The intervention was tacitly endorsed by U.S., according to the Sputnik International.

Please consider that similar statement is published by The Japan Times. Mhhossein (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The current policy seems to be to not currently trust opinion-based accounts in newspapers. So I would say if they give a reason it was tacitly supported, cite them (like an action on the government's part or a statement by an official). Otherwise I'd leave them out. 172.56.29.186 (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like a propaganda publication because it tells about "Masochistic Alliance" between countries that are well known as long-term allies. Sputnik (news agency) is basically as reliable as RT (TV network). Better to avoid on political subjects like that one. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed this from the Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain article as Sputnik is a propaganda outlet, not a reliable news source. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sputnik News is a well-known propaganda mouthlet of Russia. While it may describe real events, they are inevitably full of pro-RU-anti-West spin (propaganda). Therefore no way it can be a reliable encyclopedic source. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It has all the credibility of Reader's Digest and fulfilled much the same geopolitical role, only from the other side of the fence. I first read a copy in 1976, on a trip to the Soviet Union, and it explained the SS' Katyn massacre and described that well known hero of Soviet Science, Paul Dirac. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a bit slow. This is irony, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Opinions (and that is clearly the case at hand) properly sourced, ascribed and cited as opinions can generally be used. In the case at hand, I can not find any details about "Sputnik News" corporate ownership etc. so it is possible that its opinions may not be deemed sufficiently notable by consensus, or that the nature of its operations may be deemed relevant by consensus.. Collect (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "I can not find any details about "Sputnik News" corporate ownership" - Are you serious? It is wholly owned by Russian government. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * opinions (and that is clearly the case at hand) properly sourced ...." - No. Opinions are may be used if (a) the opinion is from a notable person (b) the publisher of the opinion is known to be reliable, i.e, it is guaranteed that the opinion is not misquoted or taken out of context. That said, any information coming from Sputnik News other than an opinion of Russian govt requires double-check for spin, hence you'd better find a better source anyway. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary versus secondary sources (Point Blank (1967 film))
Editor Gothicfilm is under the impression that film credits as seen on the film itself and on the film's poster -- both primary sources -- must be used in our articles, even when multiple reliable secondary sources, including the authoritative American Film Institute Catalog, contradict those primary sources. I have tried to explain to the editor that reliable secondary sources are to be preferred over primary sources (especially in film credits, where names often get left off for a large variety of reasons), but he seems not to understand. The latest edit in question, in which the editor removed 7 reliable secondary sources were removed in favor of the film's credits, can be found here.

I have advised the editor to come here for further information. BMK (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Uncredited positions need RS showing a controversy
There is already a discussion on this at Talk:Point Blank (1967 film). As I said there, the AFI page for Point Blank lists the misspelled Irvin Winkler as a producer, not Irwin Winkler, and there is no "Uncredited" or "Offscreen" for the incorrect Winkler credit, which is what the AFI uses for uncredited positions. So it's clear their page for Point Blank is not up to the reliable standard one needs, particularly if an editor is using it to dispute a credit. No one has supported the position of BMK. His cited sources do not backup the idea that there was any dispute about the credits. Most are simplifying the producer credits, because they didn't want to go to the trouble to break down who got "Produced by" and who got "Production". But simplifying a credit does not make it encyclopedic. Here we have an infobox that allows a more accurate representation of Winkler's Production credit, without having to blend it into the Produced by field. So we have "A Judd Bernard-Irwin Winkler Production" in the Production Company field, and Bernard and Chartoff in the "Produced by" field. This is consistent with the credits. I have seen no source claim they were controversial or disputed in any way. As Roman Spinner wrote, ''Irwin Winkler's name should not appear in the "Produced by" field, which is governed by what appears in the credits. If there is a case to be made that Winkler was an uncredited producer on the film, such arguments [with all the accompanying links] should be presented in the article under section header "Production".'' - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are six other citations from reliable secondary sources for Winkler as a producer of the film, and that there aren't any more is simply due to my stopping adding them. I can easily add another 6 more. The fact that there's a blatantly obvious typo in AFI's listing (" Irvin Winkler" for " Irwin Winkler") does not disqualify it from use.Article talk page discussion cannot override basic Wikipedia policies. BMK (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP policy is not intended to be used for this purpose. Not when none of your sources say there was any controversy regarding the credits. It's obvious they were simplifying the producer credits, because they didn't want to go to the trouble to break down who got "Produced by" and who got "Production". Most of them don't even pose it as a credit, but just casually say these two "produced" the film, e.g. "Early in his career [Robert Chartoff] and Winkler produced Point Blank", without mentioning Judd Bernard, the producer who actually does have a credit. That is not a source giving an official determination of a credit.


 * To repeat: in addition to the misspelling, there is no "Uncredited" or "Offscreen" for the incorrect Winkler credit, which is what the AFI uses for uncredited positions. So it's clear their page for Point Blank is not up to the reliable standard one needs, particularly if an editor is using it to dispute a credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are required to discuss any controversy, because no one (except yourself) has ever talked about any "controversy". What I've said is that credits get left off of films for a variety of reasons (especially in the days when film credits were minimal, not the never-ending scrolls we get today).  All of the reliable sources I provided specifically list or discuss Winkler as a producer of the film.  That is sufficient for him to be listed in our infobox.The bottom line is multiple reliable secondary sources show that Winkler is a producer of the film.  For whatever reason (we may never know), the film itself (a primary source) does not list him.  Nevertheless, the multiple reliable sources are sufficient to list him as a producer of the film.  Other arguments, speculation made up out of whole cloth, and bootstrapping, are irrelevant. BMK (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What's irrelevant is sources that do not make any attempt at a determination of what the film's official credits are or should be. Most of your sources make no such attempt, and they make no distinction between "Produced by" and a Production credit, so they are not valid for backing up your claim. The only one that does is the AFI, but it has multiple mistakes, and is not reliable for this purpose, as shown elsewhere in this discussion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) The ultimate authority for a film's credits should be what the film itself depicts on-screen and such film's infobox should represent those on-screen credits. Therefore, there should be no need for inline cites in the infobox since it only reflects what is in the credits.


 * 2) For films which, as BMK points out, have minimal credits, the simplest form is an indication in each respective field of "no credit" or "uncredited" (e.g. "producer = no credit"). the alternative form ("producer = John Doe (uncredited)") would indicate research [original, or not] and would also require one or more inline cites in the infobox. In all such situations, especially when there is controversy or lack of consensus among editors, a dedicated section header, "Credits", should be appended to the relevant film article, with all missing or disputed details put forth and explained.


 * 3) For lost or otherwise unavailable films, the credits would need to be compiled from various reliable sources, such Variety, Box Office, The Hollywood Reporter, Film Daily or their counterparts in Britain and other countries. Websites such as AFI Catalog, BFI National Archive, IMDb, TCMDb, AllMovie, TVGuide and various others may/should also be cited in support of credit details for inaccessible films.


 * 4) In the case of Point Blank, the AFI Catalog indicates, immediately at the top of its entry for that film, that Point Blank is not among the films that their researchers have personally viewed and, at the bottom of their entry, does not specify (as it does for numerous other films) the sources (Variety, etc) which were used in researching the film. Such shortcomings reduce (to some degree, or even substantially) the value of AFI's entry. One should note the imperfectly proofread nature of the entry in its listing "Production Text:	 A Judd Bernard-Irwin Winkler Production" [with Winkler's name spelled "Irwin"] and, a few lines down, indicating "Producer:	 Judd Bernard	 (Prod) Robert Chartoff	 (Prod) Irvin Winkler	 (Prod) Irvin Winkler	 (Prod)" [with Winkler's name inexplicably listed twice, and both times as "Irvin"].


 * 5) At the end, no one disputes Irwin Winkler's contribution to Point Blank, but Wikipedia's entry should not second-guess the meaning and intention of the film's creators and presume to give Winkler an additional credit which is not on-screen and which has no record of complaint (public or otherwise) that he was deprived of his rightful due. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with BMK, I'm afraid. What a film lists in its own credits is an important source, but not the ultimate authority. Probably the classic example is our article on Alan Smithee, a pseudonym used in numerous film credits. If the credits were the ultimate authority, we wouldn't be listing who those many Smithees actually were; but we do, because we are not restricted to those film credits. In the infobox we are saying who the producer, or editor, or whatever, for a film actually was, not just who the film says it was. It should take very reliable sources to overrule what a film actually says in its credits, but it is quite possible. --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. To be clear, I'm all for putting an uncredited position in the infobox if it's notable and listed as (uncredited). I have done this myself several times. The problem here is that with Irwin Winkler on Point Blank, his uncredited status as a producer is not at all notable. No source discusses it, as far as I have seen. I'm the one who did add him to the Production company field, where he actually does belong. But he does not belong in the "Produced by" field. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Alan Smithee/Allan Smithee/Allen Smithee is, indisputably, an official on-screen credit and should be listed as such in the infobox. One option is a parenthetical addition to the field director = Alan Smithee (see section "Credits"), while another option is director = Alan Smithee (John Doe). The second option would require a numerical symbol in the infobox, pointing to an inline cite which sources the John Doe name, while the first option would leave all the details to be explained under section header "Credits".
 * 2) Even taking into account its fame/notoriety, the credit "Alan Smithee" is still relatively uncommon to the extent that all of its known uses are easily enumerated within Wikipedia's article Alan Smithee. All other uncredited names (producer, editor, composer, etc) should be elucidated under "Credits", with cited details [if available] as to why such name credits were omitted. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And just as we write "Joe Schmoe (credited as Alan Smithee)" we can write "Irwin Winkler (not credited)". --GRuban (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Even that option has not been taken within the Point Blank infobox. What we have, instead [as of this writing], is "Produced by = Judd Bernard     Robert Chartoff      Irwin Winkler[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]", with "(not credited)" nowhere in sight. The seven (or even one) numerical symbols for cites are intrusive and completely unnecessary since Winkler's name already appears in the production credits — simply not as one of the two producers. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs)

The other source beside the AFI that attempts an official determination is the BFI, which makes it clear Winkler does not have "Produced by" credit, as now shown at Talk:Point Blank (1967 film), thanks to Betty Logan. As seen at http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6b337ac0, it is consistent with the film's credits if you follow the links Betty provided. Given this, the sources that do not make any attempt at a determination of what the film's official credits are should be dismissed. That leaves only the AFI and BFI. The AFI listing has multiple mistakes. There is no "Uncredited" or "Offscreen" for the misspelled Winkler credit, which is what the AFI uses for uncredited positions. Their page for Point Blank is not up to the reliable standard one needs. It seems clear to me in this instance we should go with the BFI. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Point Blank is an American film, so the AFI is controlling, just as the BFI would be for a British film. In any case, the 7 reliable sources I have provided affirmatively list Winkler as a producer. That another source doesn't list him is not an indication of any research, it's more than likely an indication that they copied the film's credits. BMK (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, if it will settle this, I have no objection to Winkler being listed as "uncredited". BMK (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? None of your preferred sources say he's uncredited, which is a large part of the problem. There is no evidence of any particular "research" from any of them. Aside from the AFI, it appears they merely present quoted casual statements from certain people, or the article writer summarizes such statements. Most are simplifying the producer credits, but simplifying a credit does not make it encyclopedic. If a source makes no distinction between "Produced by" and a Production credit, they are not valid for backing up your claim. Such quotes are in no way a reliable source for something meant to be taken as an official credit or overruling established credits - particularly when they make no mention of the fact they're inconsistent with the film's credits, much less explain why. Their failure to mention Winkler had no "Produced by" credit is evidence those sources did no research on the issue of who should be listed as a producer, and are thus not reliable on that issue. Most do not make any attempt at a determination of what the film's official credits are or should be. The only one that does is the AFI, and we have shown that it is mistaken on multiple points. And let's see you indicate the policy that says the AFI is controlling for an American film "just as the BFI would be for a British film." Looks to me like you just made that up. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)