Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources‎ | Noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Just Step Sideways (talk | contribs) at 16:49, 14 November 2013 (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard's page for Large scale clean-ups. Items should only be referred here by the consensus of multiple editors who regularly deal with reliable sources issues, but everyone is welcome to help resolve reliability issues discovered. Please follow the transclusion system, and clean-up format, used below.

    • Please do not edit any articles as a result of them being listed here, if you have previously worked on them in any capacity. Being conflicted on one article does not mean you are necessarily conflicted about the source in other articles that you have no involvement with.
    • Please do not edit articles without a thorough and generous understanding of when sources can be reliably used; especially if sources appear to be "universally" invalid. Such an understanding can be generated through volunteering your time at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

    (This page should only be manually archived)

    Current activity: ~200 / 1500+ resolved

    Sixteen years from now you reprogrammed me to be your protector here - in this time

    Sent to remove tabloid rubbish from BLPs....Page HERE....Come with me if you want to live....Message end....TABLOID TERMINATOR

    Candidate clean-ups

    These issues have been identified as needing to be cleaned-up, but the noticeboard is currently dealing with a large enough number (1500+ items / 3 clean-ups) of issues:

    1. RS/N#Kavitakosh.org (non-permanent) "Kavitakosh.org" an open wiki (104 pages) certified by: Itsmejudith (at RS/N); Fifelfoo (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews_is_reliable. wikinews is an open wiki with an editorial policy insufficient for en.wikipedia reliability criteria. wikinews is a valid external link, and a valid inter-wiki link (10,000+ pages) certified by multiple editors at RS/N; Fifelfoo (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikimapia is an open wiki and an ELNO (Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Wikimapia). (5600+ pages) certified by Sfan00 IMG; (potentially referred to EL/N, candidature under discussion). Fifelfoo (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Clean-ups

    answersingenesis.com

    Requires work:

    Raw external links report [1]

    Summary of problem

    answersingenesis.org presents a variety of biblical literalist publications through a website, some are suspected copyvios, others are suspected of inappropriate use in articles. 1000+ external links, about 50:50 in article space.

    Suspected by who, evidence for? Wider degree of consensus here, doesn't look like this has been discussed but for almost no time and by hardly anyone. As much as I hate AIG for it's backward's ass retarded positions, I have to question blanking out them as a source for these types of articles. If they was just a massive copyright violation factory you'd think they'd be sued off the internet by now, so what is the evidence that the majority of the articles are copyright violations and how are you going to sort them for which is good and which is bad? — raekyt 02:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See the link immediately below to the RS/N discussion. AiG's publication of TJ content is an obvious suspected copyright violation, they aren't the copyright holders and they have no reputation as an archive. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then just switch the links for TJ to the official archive plain and simple. — raekyt 03:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Except many of the links use Technical Journal to claim that AiG supports a position, which it can't, or to link AiG to a position, which it can't, or to support scientific or historical claims, which it can't, or to act as a proxy for the entire YAC movement, which it can't bear the weight of because it represents a FRINGE Australian literalist YAC group only, or use it as an exemplar of YACs, which it can't bear, because again, it represents a FRINGE Australian literalist group only. Sometimes it can be valid, but generally it isn't because the publication is unreliable for so many things in wikipedia. Its scope of reliability is very limited. Similarly with the glossy pop magazines produced by AiG. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't dissagree with those statements, but I think in some cases the level of weight your expecting from a source for YEC is impossible to find. YEC is unscientific, and any claim by YEC is going to be unsupported by any SCIENTIFIC journal. So in articles specificly talking about YEC claims, I dissagree that the claim should be removed with some of your reasonings of why these sources are bad, because we'll NEVER get a good 3rd party source to backup a fringe psuedoscience claim. It may be fringe in science, but YEC is mainstream belief in American population, so articles dealing with this is clearly WP:N and we're going to have to use some of these poor sources for their claims, thats all they got. — raekyt 04:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am repeating a post I made on this topic at WP:RSN. This large scale clean-up is causing problems for articles like Objections to evolution and Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism that cover the Creation–evolution controversy, which may not be notable as a scientific controversy because of the psuedo sicence nature of creation science, but is quite notable as a cultural/political/religious/sociological phenomenon. Anyone with any sense knows that Answers in Genesis is never a reliable source for any scientific topic, but it is a reliable source (and an important one) for what creationists say and think and it is widely cited as such by postings on websites that are reliable sources such as National Center for Science Education, TalkOrigins Archive and NMSR. If we can't cite sources from organizations like AiG or Creation Ministries International it is hard to cover the controversy, especially since those organizations are significant players in the controversy. It is a long established principle that sources that would not otherwise be considered reliable for anything else, are in fact reliable sources for their own viewpoints. Let us stop and discuss this a little before we continue to hack up perfectly good articles like the two I mentioned. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no evidence of the "hacking up" you refer to. I do understand that removing some sources from some article may make it more difficult to cover some subjects as thoroughly as some might like, however, policy a) doesn't change because of the subject article, and b) articles have WP:IAR to fall back on if they really need to. As you can see below, many of the sources that would not be valid in many articles are already being treated as valid in articles where their inclusion makes sense. No one is slashing and burning through every reference to AiG for example. I would also add that while sources are reliable for their own viewpoints, I don't believe the Pope, for example, despite being notable, has an opinion on Plate Tectonics that needs to be included, for obvious reasons. If there was a tectonic plate controversy article involving the Church's views, that would be different. Has someone removed AiG sources from Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism, (other than for WP:COPYVIO grounds, which has nothing to do with the opinions of the source)? -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 04:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    RS/N report

    Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fwww.answersingenesis.org.2F:_1114_external_links. (non-permanent link)

    Progress on clean-up

    • The links in article mainspace are below, in rough categories. The biographies (most but not all of living people) are the most urgent, and have been annotated with an impression of how appropriate the link is. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Intelligent design movement

    Technical Journal suspected copyvios
    Creation ex nihilo

    (Creation ex nihilo was a 1990s glossy magazine produced by AiG creation.com's crew that fails the Ulrich's test for peer review, and which has no editorial policy listed at AiG's site. It appears to lack weight or notability amongst the community of biblical literalists in terms of its low hit count online.)

    And they're all copyvios, the owner of creation is http://creation.com/ who actually maintains an archive, so all these (even when valid) need to be replaced with http://creation.com/ links; when they're otherwise reliable and weighty for their claims.

    Biographies

    Science (all cleared)

    Debate around evolution

    History and archaeology (all cleared)

    Philosophy (all cleared)

    Sociology (all cleared)

    Theology, Bible

    *http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/noah.asp is linked from Javan removed, date uncertain Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    evolutionnews.org

    Requires work:

    External links report: [2]

    Summary of problem

    79 external links that may be inappropriately used. Evolution news is an unedited news aggregator/blog.

    RS/N report

    Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fwww.evolutionnews.org.2F:_207_external_links. (non-permanent link)

    Progress on clean-up

    independentpoliticalreport.com

    Requires work:

    Raw external links report: [3]

    Summary of problem

    independentpoliticalreport.com is an unedited link aggregator that has been repeatedly rejected by RS/N.

    0/183 potential uses have been checked. 0/111 affected articles have been checked. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    RS/N report

    Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources/Noticeboard#The_.22Indendent_Political_Report.22 (non permanent)

    Progress on clean-up

    49/183 items over 10/111 articles

    1. 2010 Libertarian National Convention removed source, duplicate spam link. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Alexander Snitker x2 removed both uses as redundant, citing from another source more broadly to cover Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    3. America's Party (political party) removed, redundant reference Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Barry Cooper (lecturer) removed, redundant reference Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Bill Still x3 resolved. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Bob Barr removed claim absent better sourcing Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 x7 Some fundamentally dubious claims (BLP slapfighting, claims attributed to other outlets). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Bob Bird (activist) replaced reference with better source Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Boston Tea Party (political party) x2 replaced or removed as possible Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008 x4 replaced where possible, cut quote with no other referencing, removed redundant uses Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    11. California Proposition 19 (2010) removed 1 redundant use, replaced 1 Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    12. Cannabis in Oregon dupe citation, removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    13. Carl Person replaced ref, rewrote section, removed BLP vandalism Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    14. Charles Jay removed as non-critical claim Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    15. Christina López removed, redundant reference Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    16. Chuck Baldwin presidential campaign, 2008 x7 Wacky, wacky uses. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    17. Cindy Sheehan removed redundant ref. JanetteDoe (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    18. Citizens Party of the United States x2 appears to have been removed. JanetteDoe (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    19. Clinton N Howard removed link from External Links section JanetteDoe (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    20. Connecticut gubernatorial election, 2010 removed link cross posted from blogspot JanetteDoe (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    21. Constitution Party (United States) removed link, added cn tag as was unable to find non-blog or aggregated source for claim. JanetteDoe (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    22. Constitution Party National Convention x3
    23. Cynthia McKinney presidential campaign, 2008 x3
    24. Darrell Castle x2
    25. David Krikorian
    26. Deaths in November 2009 => {{cn}} Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    27. Deaths in September 2008 => {{cn}} Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    28. Dennis Mikolay removed Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    29. Florida Whig Party x2 both replaced Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    30. Frank Fluckiger replaced Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    31. Gary Chartier cut, material was one of several positive reviews of the same book from political allies Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    32. Gary T. Steele expired prod, as of 2012-10-02 Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    33. Gayle McLaughlin replaced Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    34. George Wallace presidential campaign, 1968 replaced Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    35. Gordon Clark (activist) replaced Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    36. Green Party of Florida removed, redundant reference Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    37. Green Party of the United States replaced Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    38. International Society for Individual Liberty removed, redundant reference Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    39. James P. Gray x2
    40. Jerry White (socialist)
    41. Jill Stein
    42. Jim Duensing x4
    43. Jim Lendall
    44. John Eder
    45. Jordan White (musician)
    46. Kristin M. Davis
    47. Laurence Kotlikoff x2
    48. Laurie Roth
    49. LeAlan Jones
    50. Libertarian Party (United States)
    51. Libertarian Party of Alabama x2
    52. Libertarian Party of Michigan
    53. Libertarian Party of Missouri (Resolved - 1 fact cited, replaced with a different source) Herostratus (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    54. LPRadicals x3
    55. Malik Rahim Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    56. Merlin Miller
    57. Michael Badnarik
    58. Mississippi Reform Party
    59. Modern Whig Party x5 resolved, largely by removing citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    60. Monetary policy
    61. New Jersey elections, 2009
    62. New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009
    63. New York gubernatorial election, 2010
    64. Office of Technology Assessment
    65. Our America Initiative

    Har#Peta Lindsay

    1. Pirate Party
    2. R. Lee Wrights x4
    3. Randy Credico
    4. Randy Stufflebeam
    5. Rebekah Kennedy
    6. Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012
    7. Richard Winger
    8. Robby Wells
    9. Robert David Steele
    10. Rosa Clemente
    11. Roy Moore
    12. Sam Sloan
    13. Scott Boman x3 URL not found.--69.129.157.2 (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    14. Socialist Party USA BLP quote & source removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    15. Sonny Landham x2
    16. Stephen P. Gordon
    17. Ted Weill x2
    18. Third party (United States)
    19. Tiffany Briscoe x2
    20. Tom Hoefling
    21. Tom Stevens (politician) x2
    22. Tom Tancredo
    23. United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2010
    24. United States presidential election, 2008
    25. United States presidential election, 2008 timeline
    26. United States presidential election, 2012 x3
    27. United States presidential election, 2012 timeline
    28. United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010
    29. United States Senate election in Florida, 2010
    30. United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010
    31. United States Senate election in Michigan, 2008
    32. United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010
    33. United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2008
    34. United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012 x21+ BLPs, so many BLP claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Unresolved due to editwarring by page's editors. Currently at discussion on article talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    35. Vermin Supreme removed from BLP with otherwise unsourced claims removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    36. Virgil Goode removed from BLP with otherwise unsourced claims removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    37. Virginia's 1st congressional district election, 2008 removed from BLP claim with otherwise unsourced claims removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    38. Wayne Allyn Root x5 removed from BLP with otherwise unsourced claims removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    39. William E. Dannemeyer removed from BLP with otherwise unsourced claims removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Large_scale_clean-ups&oldid=581648221"