Talk:Swietenia

Shouldn't start with random fact

The article main body shouldn't start with a random fact about Asian importation it should describe the history and characteristics of the tree. Hwfr (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hwfr: The Overview section isn't the beginning of the article. There's an entire paragraph in the introduction up top. — voidxor 00:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Link-spammed non-RS

In this edit I removed a link to a random website of some guitar manufacturer that had been aggressively spammed in the preceding days (see [1] and [2]. This link has zero hallmarks of reliability: it has no identifiable author, and there is no reason a guitar manufacturer should employ anyone with expertise in any of the topics it discusses. My edit was recently reverted without any explanation, and without any attempt to suggest that the source has a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, as needed to satisfy WP:RS/WP:V. Therefore I am re-reverting. Per WP:ONUS, it should not be included again until an affirmative consensus has been formed that it is a reliable source (either through discussion here or an appropriate venue like WP:RSN). --JBL (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: First of all, please be careful using the phrase "your behavior" against experienced editors. I did what I think is right for the encyclopedia, as did you. There is nothing wrong with "my behavior"; we simply disagree. Furthermore, I don't think you're interpreting my edits (my "behavior") correctly. More on this below.

Also, "ONUS" is a dumb name for that shortcut. That sounds a lot like "BURDEN", and I see the hatnote linking to it. All it says is that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion; it doesn't say that the onus is on me. The primary shortcut is WP:VNOT. It refers to consensus which we haven't established yet. So I don't quite follow how I'm violating that guideline. Specifically, my interpretation is that VNOT is discussing whether verifiable claims are due in an article. It doesn't speak to sources.

Anyway, to the substance of who is correct here... I frankly think (and have always thought) that you're not slowing down enough to correctly interpret the diffs here! I did not restore any of the ref spam that was added by the IP addresses in the preceding few days (LeftHandGuitars.net). Instead, I restored a long-standing reference that the IP removed (GaskellGuitars.com). Maybe you're confused because they both have the word "guitars". Apparently, this wood species is popular in the manufacture of guitars. I still think it's a misinterpretation to assert that manufacturer websites can't be used as sources.

Takeaway: Your original revert of the IP was a little too heavy handed because, I think, you missed this distinction. I then reverted to an earlier, stable revision. Your links above are laughable because they show I'm correct. Please take a deeper look and maybe consider an apology. — voidxor 23:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

In fact the takeaway here is that you are wrong on all points. The IP, by contrast, understood what it was doing: lefthandguitars is the new (I don't know since when) website of Gaskell Guitars, and the two pages (the one dead one that was there, and the new one that the IP updated it to as part of their spamming) are the same. (I would think a saged and experienced editor of great longevity and competence might have checked that before condescending, but what can you do?) Moreover your responses vis-a-vis guidelines and policies are evasive and incorrect. You are welcome to pursue any of the options at WP:DR (that an experienced and capable editor such as yourself doubtless knows all about), but do not restore this obviously poor source without establishing a consensus for its inclusion. --JBL (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)