Talk:Maya calendar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removal and restoration of citation of self-published work by Finley[edit]

I removed the following citation:

The reason cited for reverting my removal is explained at Talk:Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Finley_reference; the reason:

“I strongly disagree with your removal of the reference to John Finley's site and I'm putting it back in. Because you can't ascertain Finley's academic credentials is not a viable reason for removing the reference. This is an argumentum ad hominem. This is not an argument about whether you have a bigger degree than he does. As I understand it, Finley is an astronomer and computer programer. The site is excellent, even if it's written by "just some guy". It is very well researched and written and cites very many definitive references, has an extensive bibliography of reliable sources and links to other supporting sites. If there's a better article about this subject - written or on-line, I don't know where it is. Did you actually read this? Do you have a better citation(s)? If so add it. Otherwise leave it there.”

Degrees are irrelevant, but WP:SPS does require self-published works to be authored by recognized experts in a field, published in reliable sources in that field. It isn't my responsibility to prove it's not a reliable source; if you're citing it, you should be able to show that it is a reliable source. I did perform a good faith search for information about Finley prior to removal. All I could find were his self-published writings that originated on his personal website at http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/. The only published references that cite him are a self-published book, Mundo Maya, acknowledging his unspecified work as a source, and Expecting Armageddon, which includes a version of this Wikipedia article, including its citation of Finley:

Doing a general web search (rather than scholar or book search), I found other websites that mention him, but only to cite his personal web page. Like Jacobs in the before this, I may have missed something, but nothing I've included qualifies his self-published works as reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidance for self-published sources (WP:SPS), which requires being a recognized expert in a field, published in reliable sources in that field.

Agyle (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (forgot to sign at time of post)

Using your logic, all websites would be off-limits since they're all self-published. Actually they are quite useful because of their accessibility. Finley is a great secondary source because he summarizes all of the work of the primary investigators of this subject. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Not all websites are considered self-published; nytimes.com is published by The New York Times Company. This isn't so much "my logic", but Wikipedia's longstanding policy; quoting WP:USERGENERATED:
“Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. ... Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.” (Emphasis & wikilink from the original.)
Agyle (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I replaced the Finley citation with other references that a similar view on the Venus Table. Agyle (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)