Talk:Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

You cannot add claims from unreliable sources, see WP:RS. Joe Taylor is NOT a palaeontologist! A palaeontologist is someone who has a graduate degree in palaeontology. His biography lists no education.[1] This is very serious. What's his degrees in and from where? You need independent, WP:RS on his education. Someone who opens up a shop and charges $1 for children and runs around claiming to be a scientist doesn't make it so. As I explained elsewhere, claims from an uncritical or sympathetic reporter of an obscure publication don't cut it. People work hard for their graduate degrees and expertise at universities. They don't wake up and just claim to be a self-appointed scientist. We66er (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source he is an artist. We66er (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned[edit]

His websites, due to endless self-promotion (including sermon audio interviews), are on the wikipedia spam blacklist. Furthermore, it adds nothing to the article. We66er (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't on that list. Which should be self evident - if this web site were on the spam blacklist, it wouldn't be possible to add it. Right? That's how the blacklist works. And an audio interview does add to the article, you get to hear the curator's voice and own words, unfiltered by any other reporter. We don't get that from any other source. That's adding sufficiently to the article to be worth a line of text, yes. --GRuban (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the blacklist, there is overwhelming consensus against that user's self-promotion and backed by ArbCom. To top it off, the interview adds nothing. Hearing the voice of the person doesn't cut it. We66er (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not self-promotion, since he isn't adding it. Unless you're accusing me of being him? And hearing the curator of the museum talk about the museum in our article about the museum may not be the ne plus ultima, but saying it adds nothing seems hard to support. It's worth its line. --GRuban (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ban status of the person giving the interview should not be at all relevant to the editorial decision over whether to include it, given that this inclusion is being supported by at least one editor in good standing. Given that the interview subject is the curator of the museum, and the museum is considered sufficiently notable for an article, the inclusion seems logical, and opposing it requires more than the tired old arguments about "giving a forum to banned users" which have been resoundingly defeated in many instances, sometimes explicitly citing that the concept of damnatio memoriae was being rejected. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(And I just listened to the interview myself now, and find myself in pretty much complete disagreement with the religious, social, and scientific views expressed therein... but any editor's personal views on the subject matter under discussion shouldn't be what decides what's appropriate for an article.) *Dan T.* (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site in question has been spammed, it's twice been flagged on the spam project. The purpose of external links is to give context that would be excessive in a Wikipedia article or to link to content that would be included if the article ever became great; links to sermons are no different to the YouTube crud we prune every day, they are no substitute for reliable independent sources discussing the subject. And links to "Exclusive interviews!!" by interviewers whose POV aligns absolutely with the subject, so will be utterly uncritical, are not helpful to gaining any kind of balanced view of the subject. In the end it is just a traffic generator for an ad-riddled and distinctly polemical site - any site whose featured link is the work of Ian Paisley needs to be treated with enormous caution, and I'm afraid I don't see any merit to this link which outweighs these numerous problems. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having listened to the interview, it seems to be relevant enough to make sense as an external link. Indeed, it might even be a reliable source about this museum (in the same way any interview is). Unfortunately, the quality of the sound is quite poor and thus does not make a good external link. I have no objection linking if we are going to use it as a source about the makeup and layout of the museum. I don't know if we want to do that. I don't know if it makes sense as an external link. But Gastrich's history has little to do with that matter. The question is purely whether we should link to this per WP:EL. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As JzG wrote, "an interview that includes absolutely no critical judgment at all. If it was a journalist then fine, but hagiographic interviews are of no value to the encyclopaedia." Even if it were a good recording, the interview adds nothing in the way of WP:RS/value in the article. We66er (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Man as a source[edit]

User:Hrafn in this edit, removes the following source used as a reference for several facts in the article, with the claim that New Man is not RS per WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources).

Now New Man is a magazine that is 16 years old, had between 100,000 and 400,000 subscribers across the United States and Canada at the time of the article, and has never, to my knowledge been described by any reliable source as being "extremist" or "fringe". Please explain in what way it is an "extremist" or "fringe" source. --GRuban (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cited article is a ludicrous creationist anti-science screed, chock full of misrepresentations, distortions and outright untruths. The magazine appears to have been simply a Christianist propaganda rag, and about as "reliable" as Soviet-era Pravda. If you want to argue the toss, you can take it up with WP:RS/N, but I suspect that such an argument would be merely laughed at there. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's your opinion. The policy you cited, Wikipedia:Rs#Extremist_and_fringe_sources specifically says:

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist

So it looks like you need to show that reliable sources think that about New Man, not just you personally. Until then, let's leave the source in. --GRuban (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, the article in question is rabidly creationist. Creationism is widely acknowledged as a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, lacking any scientific merit. Ergo Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources applies, and we should not "leave the source in." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your definition of rabid, I'd hate to see what you say about articles that actually affirm creationism. You'll note that one doesn't - at no point does the article affirm creationism, other than stating that is the point of view of Joe Taylor. It calls him courageous and says he has a strong faith in God, but surely even you will admit to both of those statements - being courageous does not make you right. Instead, the article says "even the Christian scientific community has backed away from this evidence". That's not "rabid".
Meanwhile, you are removing the article being used as a source for the following three statements:
  • The Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum is a creationist museum in Crosbyton, Texas, opened in 1998.
  • The museum also bases the Mount Blanco fossil excavation team who go on "digs" and investigate fossil evidence according to a creationist view.
  • He became interested in fossils after cleaning and preparing bones at the La Brea tar pits, and made a 10-foot-by-40-foot casting of the Waco, Texas mammoth site, now on exhibit at Baylor University. He returned to Texas in 1984, to make a living as a fossil collector and mold-maker.
These are not particularly controversial statements that would tend to demand extreme sourcing. For these sources, a magazine with a long history, a wide subscription base, a process of editorial review, that does not hold the extreme viewpoint you seem to find in it, is perfectly adequate. Removing it is following neither the letter nor the spirit of the policy you are citing. --GRuban (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like we're getting anywhere with just the two of us. Per your kind suggestion above, I brought up our dispute at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New_Man_magazine_-_extremist_and_fringe.3F. If consensus there is against me, I will agree to remove the source. Until then, though, I'd appreciate you leaving it in, as a courtesy. --GRuban (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following Google search [2] might help for getting more biographical information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mt._Blanco_Fossil_Museum&oldid=1209233821"