Misplaced Pages

:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources | Noticeboard | Large scale clean-ups Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:53, 22 June 2012 editFifelfoo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,796 edits →Intelligent design movement: cherry pick the easy ones (self-references on the article about AiG)← Previous edit Revision as of 04:54, 22 June 2012 edit undoRaeky (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,784 edits →Summary of problemNext edit →
Line 13: Line 13:
::::Then just switch the links for TJ to the plain and simple. —&nbsp;<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 03:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC) ::::Then just switch the links for TJ to the plain and simple. —&nbsp;<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 03:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::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. ] (]) 04:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC) :::::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. ] (]) 04:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::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 ] and we're going to have to use some of these poor sources for their claims, thats all they got. —&nbsp;<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 04:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


===RS/N report=== ===RS/N report===

Revision as of 04:54, 22 June 2012

answersingenesis.com

Requires work:

Raw external links report

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)
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)
Then just switch the links for TJ to the official archive plain and simple. — raekyt 03:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)

RS/N report

Misplaced Pages: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)

Intelligent design movement

Technical Journal suspected copyvios
Creation ex nihilo

(Creation ex nihilo was a 1990s glossy magazine produced by AiG 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.)

Biographies

Science

Debate around evolution

History and archaeology

Philosophy

Sociology

Theology, Bible

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com: Difference between revisions Add topic