Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 205

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

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 {{cn}} 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: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

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

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). — 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 ^{[citation needed]}, 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)

@JzG: 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.
  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.

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
    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

I've taken the liberty of notifying affected parties:

• 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

fgnievinski (talk

) 17:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

agree summarize the present consensus is best (

WP:MEDRS#Predatory journals)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk

) 19:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to @David Eppstein: 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:

• OMICS Group
• 10.4236: Scientific Research Publishing
• fgnievinski (talk
  ) 17:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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'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."
• Wikipedia: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'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'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'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'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: 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:

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.

I think that reflects the concerns raised. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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 Jc3s5h (talk · contribs) Grammar'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,

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

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'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'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 ^{[unreliable source?]} 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.

White pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 EvergreenFir 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:

Writing in the

white supremacist magazine American Renaissance, Steve Sailer argues that white pride has a negative reputation because white people are expected to be at the top of the societal ladder, and that pride movements are associated with lack of social status. He says that this stigma affects blue-collar whites in particular.^[1] Retired police officer Justin J. Moritz also wrote in American Renaissance that he tried to trademark the phrase "White Pride Country Wide" but it was denied for being offensive, despite his belief that phrases like "Black Pride" and "Black Power" were trademarked.^[2]

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)

re

}} 03:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinging previous commenters for their opinions given the complete lack of context in the original comment. @

re

}} 03:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So

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)

• 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
  re
  }} 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:

  "Founded by Jared Taylor in 1990, the New Century Foundation is a self-styled think tank that promotes pseudo-scientific studies and research that purport to show the inferiority of blacks to whites—although in hifalutin language that avoids open racial slurs and attempts to portray itself as serious scholarship. It is best known for its American Renaissance magazine and website, which regularly feature proponents of eugenics and blatant anti-black racists."
  — The Nation

- 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). [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] 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.
  Biały
  20:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It is not a primary source.
    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
      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
  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: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)