User talk:Goteamanderson

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

Quirinius Census[edit]

The main issue is that Answers in Genesis does not meet the requirements for a reliable source. AIG would be an appropriate source only for their opinion. Wikipedia is (ideally) a collection of academic scholarship on a wide variety of topics. The essay Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) covers this topic and identifies which sources would be appropriate to use in the Quirinius Census article. If you wish to find sources that represents a certain viewpoint, you can go to the article's talk page and inquire if there is any such sources.

Also, remember to sign your talk page comments. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info - I'll read up on the policies. I'm new to this whole game, learning the rules! It still appears to me that the Quirinius Census article comes off unbalanced toward a critical view - that's all I was trying to do was provide a little more balance by re-phrasing the closing line of the summary and adding a conservative argument at the end. I thought it was all well supported with references - maybe should just drop the top citation to AiG?

Goteamanderson (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

AiG will not work as a source. Only the kind of scholarly sources (eg. published books from an academic press, journal articles) will work. I've given the article a look over, and it is in need of some work. It has been somewhat neglected it seems. I removed the entire section given to Richard Carrier's online essay because it is not meet the requirements for a WP:RS (published online, personal opinion essay, no peer review) and it is undue weight to devote an entire section to the work of a Masters student.
In addition, make sure to read:
These cover how much balance should be given to positions in an article. It is one of the more important Wikipedia guidelines.
--Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article - and thanks for the NPOV link, that is helpful to understand better the principles guiding the articles. I am a huge fan of wikipedia and typically consult it first when doing historical research. (I am a pastor, btw - so not without an agenda...) Out of curiosity, what is your interest in the Quirinius article? Goteamanderson (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)