Talk:Spiti Horse

Height

Am curious where the guideline is that templates mess up infoboxes (open to that debate) but I guess the bigger question is if height is really much of a "distinguishing feature," particularly when it is a range and often the least distinguishing feature of any horse breed. Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't want to start this up again, but horses are measured in hands and in the USA, we use the imperial system. Providing the conversion is a long-discused issue and it is a courtesy to the reader. Montanabw^(talk) 19:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Horses may be measured in hands in common parlance, but in all academic publications they are measured in metric units; Wikipedia has chosen to follow that example in all science-related articles. Horse-breeding (while it may not be a scientific practice!) is a scientific topic here, whether derived from agricultural science or, via mammals, from zoology. In any article, conversions must be made with an appropriate level of precision, so something like "100 centimetres (9.3+1⁄2 hands; 39+1⁄2 in)" is not so much a courtesy as an offence. It also has the effect of entirely obscuring the meaning of the sentence. Is that really what you want to achieve? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You and I both know that this was worked out with blood, sweat and tears a few years back. If you really want to open up that can of worms again, it is going to be another round of debate, discussion and bad feelings. We have been there, done that and it really needs to stay settled. I realize that conversions are a little awkward-looking, but horse breed articles are widely read by younger readers and many, many of them are American readers. You are right that horse breeding isn't particularly scientific, other than being a biology topic, and I really think it does zero harm to enlighten the lay reader. Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RS discussion

Some material and a source was removed, based on the claim that it was not an RS because it was from a "predatory open access" journal. I restored it, as the journal in question did not pop up on the list of predatory publishing [1] here and the content appears to be legitimate. My understanding is that an open-access source is not inherently not RS, but rather has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. So ... discuss? Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• It is an OMICS Group imprint. Of all predatory publishers, that appears to be about the worst. The FTC have filed suit against it, which is unique in the history of academic publishing as far as I can see. The presumption is normally against inclusion (predatory journals have the same status as self-publishing), but in this case the fraudulent nature of the publisher would I think be a pretty strong argument for never citing it anywhere. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Are we discussing the Journal of Biodiversity & Endangered Species? If we are, it is published by the OMICS group but does NOT appear on Bealle's list of predatory stand-alone journals. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The source is not crucial to the article, and if there's reasonable doubt about it then it can be removed – as indeed it has been, without any consensus on this page (what's that about, JzG?). Oh, and next time, please don't just remove the content – replace the source either with a better one, or with a {{cn}} tag. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid your request will unfortunately not be heard. This is quite typical behaviour for this admin...yes, an admin. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy If you look at the FTC case, it is against the publisher, based on their publishing model and their lack of proper academic and peer-review standards. No exceptions are listed. I don't think that OMIC Group is a "little bit pregnant", the evidence strongly suggests that their entire empire is an elaborate fraud.

Justlettersandnumbers: generally I remove text sourced to unreliable sources, unless the source is redundant. If you look at this diff, you will see that is exactly what I did. The text I left either has other sources or is not unambiguously related tot he removed citation - I did not feel the need to add {{cn}} for "It is a small, sturdy mountain horse, well adapted to the harsh environment of the Himalaya. It is fast and sure-footed on mountain terrain, and has good stamina and resistance to disease" as that appears to be uncontroversial - you wrote it though so you know what source you used for that particular statement. Feel free to remove this text or ask for a source if you think it is in any way contentious, this is janitorial work only and there are bound to be cases where the call is marginal either way. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

JzG, you are not following proper procedure to "generally ... remove text sourced to unreliable sources if the source was bad." The proper procedure is to remove the source if you really insist, but not the content -- best to tag it, and don't just remove the material. Please don't second-guess seasoned editors on something like animal breed characteristics; that sort of thing does need to be sourced (and is now). You of course can add a or tag, but it is very disruptive to remove content. We know what we are doing on these breed articles, the editors working in this area are, for the most part, long-established and experienced people. While even we can be fooled by a legitimate-looking site (as appears to have happened here), we know what needs to be sourced. Thank you. Montanabw^(talk) 02:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 205 § Scientific Research Publishing, which is representative of the level of confusion on this. I am told with equal confidence by editors of similar levels of experience to remove the cite leaving the text, and to remove the text with the cite. I do not actually care either way - reviewing and removing the text is more work but I don't mind doing it. Guy (Help!) 07:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy, I have been told countless times by yourself and others over at the RS I am not not allowed to mention that whether a source is suitable or not depends on the content to be added. However, here, you are dismissing the content based only on the publishing house. This appears to be hypocritical. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

In this particular case, Justlettersandnumbers found a better source. This is a good example of why we should tag, not delete -- stuff does get fixed. Montanabw^(talk) 07:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, whether a reliable source is included or not will depend on its significance and is an editorial judgment. For example, at homeopathy we routinely exclude the trickle of true-believer clinical studies, because the higher level evidence contradicts them and we already have good content showing why this trickle of junk will continue to appear. That's an editorial call.

Inclusion of unreliable sources is not an editorial call. See WP:RS. Predatory open access journals are not reliable independent sources because they have no effective peer review. They can be used to publish agenda-driven nonsense, they are often cited here by the authors themselves, and there is no good reason to include them.

As to whether to remove the text or tag it {{cn}}, I have been told with equal confidence to do both, and the two are mutually exclusive. Obviously there is no consensus as to which is the correct approach, and that's not a surprise to me because it is largely a matter of personal preference. If a new discussion at WP:RSN comes up with a different consensus than I'll go with it, I really do not mind either way, but my reading of the last discussion was that people preferred text sourced only to unreliable sources to be removed along with the source. As I say, it's more work, but I have no ideological view on it at all, all I care about is cleaning up the citations to junk journals. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice try in attempting to get me to discuss something you know I am topic banned from. In many ways, this discussion is not about the journal, it is about your approach when you go on one of your OMICs missions in an article. The bottom line is that you are creating work for editors when we should be working in a much more collegiate manner. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Except that I wasn't. It's an example. I don't care what you think, I am fixing a problem, citations to unreliable predatory journals. I have discussed this on RSN: the majority view is that content sourced solely to sources removed as unreliable ,should also be removed but as I say I have no caring either way. And you are wrong to say that I am making work for anybody: the work was made by whoever cited unreliable sources, whether inadvertently (as here) or not. I do not expect you to accept this as you have a fixed idea that everything I do is evil and driven by evil motives, and I doubt that will change, so fiurther discussion is futile. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)