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)reply
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)reply
Then just switch the links for TJ to the
official archive plain and simple. — raekyt 03:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
I am repeating a post I made on this topic at
WP:RSN. This large scale clean-up is causing problems for articles like
Objections to evolution and
Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism that cover the
Creation–evolution controversy, which may not be notable as a scientific controversy because of the psuedo sicence nature of creation science, but is quite notable as a cultural/political/religious/sociological phenomenon. Anyone with any sense knows that
Answers in Genesis is never a reliable source for any scientific topic, but it is a reliable source (and an important one) for what creationists say and think and it is widely cited as such by postings on websites that are reliable sources such as
National Center for Science Education,
TalkOrigins Archive and NMSR. If we can't cite sources from organizations like AiG or
Creation Ministries International it is hard to cover the controversy, especially since those organizations are significant players in the controversy. It is a long established principle that sources that would not otherwise be considered reliable for anything else, are in fact reliable sources for their own viewpoints. Let us stop and discuss this a little before we continue to hack up perfectly good articles like the two I mentioned.
Rusty Cashman (
talk) 18:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
I see no evidence of the "hacking up" you refer to. I do understand that removing some sources from some article may make it more difficult to cover some subjects as thoroughly as some might like, however, policy a) doesn't change because of the subject article, and b) articles have
WP:IAR to fall back on if they really need to. As you can see below, many of the sources that would not be valid in many articles are already being treated as valid in articles where their inclusion makes sense. No one is slashing and burning through every reference to AiG for example. I would also add that while sources are reliable for their own viewpoints, I don't believe the Pope, for example, despite being notable, has an opinion on
Plate Tectonics that needs to be included, for obvious reasons. If there was a tectonic plate controversy article involving the Church's views, that would be different. Has someone removed AiG sources from
Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism, (other than for
WP:COPYVIO grounds, which has nothing to do with the opinions of the source)? --
Despayre tête-à-tête 04:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
On this page it is an external link - I am not so familiar with the current vagaries to EL policy to know whether that is sufficient for removal.
John Carter (
talk) 19:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)reply
(Creation ex nihilo was a 1990s glossy magazine produced by AiG creation.com's crew 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.)
And they're all copyvios, the owner of creation is
http://creation.com/ who actually maintains an archive, so all these (even when valid) need to be replaced with
http://creation.com/ links; when they're otherwise reliable and weighty for their claims.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/bears.asp#box is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/holocaust.asp is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/sun.asp is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/babel.asp is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1201debate.asp is linked from Eugenie Scott. For the fact that she participated in a debate with them, second source for the fact. Probably OK. Not necessary - same details provided by better sources too. -
Sigeng (
talk) 04:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp is linked from
Byzantine calendar. Need more eyes. Paul James-Griffiths is a practicing professional in religion, and the claim is a commonplace (though perhaps misphrased in terms of it appearing to only be literal days). My instinct is to keep it as near enough to valid, as a commonplace.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 04:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Keep, for now.
Itsmejudith (
talk) 14:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/holocaust.asp is linked from
Social Darwinism. Copyvio link (AiG doesn't publish Creation), dead link, Creation 22:1 doesn't contain an article "The Holocaust and evolution". Non-weighty claim, ie: a weight of non-scholarly opinion claim sourced off an example of that opinion, not of a review of the impact of that opinion.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 01:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks, resolved by replacing copyvio link with a valid link; weight issues noted to article talk.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 04:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp is linked from Social Darwinism Copyvio link (AiG doesn't publish Creation), dead link, Creation 22:1 doesn't contain an article "Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity". Non-weighty claim, ie: a weight of non-scholarly opinion claim sourced off an example of that opinion, not of a review of the impact of that opinion.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 01:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks, resolved by replacing copyvio link with a valid link; weight issues noted to article talk.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 04:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/cainan/ is linked from
Kenan Citation removed as inappropriate, claim retained as probable. non-scholarly non-theologian being cited on text interpretation, publication lacking adequate editorial oversight for theology / biblical hermeneutics
Fifelfoo (
talk) 01:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Then just switch the links for TJ to the
official archive plain and simple. — raekyt 03:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
I am repeating a post I made on this topic at
WP:RSN. This large scale clean-up is causing problems for articles like
Objections to evolution and
Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism that cover the
Creation–evolution controversy, which may not be notable as a scientific controversy because of the psuedo sicence nature of creation science, but is quite notable as a cultural/political/religious/sociological phenomenon. Anyone with any sense knows that
Answers in Genesis is never a reliable source for any scientific topic, but it is a reliable source (and an important one) for what creationists say and think and it is widely cited as such by postings on websites that are reliable sources such as
National Center for Science Education,
TalkOrigins Archive and NMSR. If we can't cite sources from organizations like AiG or
Creation Ministries International it is hard to cover the controversy, especially since those organizations are significant players in the controversy. It is a long established principle that sources that would not otherwise be considered reliable for anything else, are in fact reliable sources for their own viewpoints. Let us stop and discuss this a little before we continue to hack up perfectly good articles like the two I mentioned.
Rusty Cashman (
talk) 18:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
I see no evidence of the "hacking up" you refer to. I do understand that removing some sources from some article may make it more difficult to cover some subjects as thoroughly as some might like, however, policy a) doesn't change because of the subject article, and b) articles have
WP:IAR to fall back on if they really need to. As you can see below, many of the sources that would not be valid in many articles are already being treated as valid in articles where their inclusion makes sense. No one is slashing and burning through every reference to AiG for example. I would also add that while sources are reliable for their own viewpoints, I don't believe the Pope, for example, despite being notable, has an opinion on
Plate Tectonics that needs to be included, for obvious reasons. If there was a tectonic plate controversy article involving the Church's views, that would be different. Has someone removed AiG sources from
Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism, (other than for
WP:COPYVIO grounds, which has nothing to do with the opinions of the source)? --
Despayre tête-à-tête 04:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
On this page it is an external link - I am not so familiar with the current vagaries to EL policy to know whether that is sufficient for removal.
John Carter (
talk) 19:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)reply
(Creation ex nihilo was a 1990s glossy magazine produced by AiG creation.com's crew 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.)
And they're all copyvios, the owner of creation is
http://creation.com/ who actually maintains an archive, so all these (even when valid) need to be replaced with
http://creation.com/ links; when they're otherwise reliable and weighty for their claims.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/bears.asp#box is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/holocaust.asp is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/sun.asp is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/babel.asp is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp is linked from Answers in Genesis AiG didn't publish Creation, so there's no way that this represents AiG's substantive views. Other AiG opinions sourced to Creation (claims kept as uncontroversial when so, quotes obviously rmd)
Fifelfoo (
talk) 05:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1201debate.asp is linked from Eugenie Scott. For the fact that she participated in a debate with them, second source for the fact. Probably OK. Not necessary - same details provided by better sources too. -
Sigeng (
talk) 04:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp is linked from
Byzantine calendar. Need more eyes. Paul James-Griffiths is a practicing professional in religion, and the claim is a commonplace (though perhaps misphrased in terms of it appearing to only be literal days). My instinct is to keep it as near enough to valid, as a commonplace.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 04:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Keep, for now.
Itsmejudith (
talk) 14:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/holocaust.asp is linked from
Social Darwinism. Copyvio link (AiG doesn't publish Creation), dead link, Creation 22:1 doesn't contain an article "The Holocaust and evolution". Non-weighty claim, ie: a weight of non-scholarly opinion claim sourced off an example of that opinion, not of a review of the impact of that opinion.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 01:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks, resolved by replacing copyvio link with a valid link; weight issues noted to article talk.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 04:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp is linked from Social Darwinism Copyvio link (AiG doesn't publish Creation), dead link, Creation 22:1 doesn't contain an article "Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity". Non-weighty claim, ie: a weight of non-scholarly opinion claim sourced off an example of that opinion, not of a review of the impact of that opinion.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 01:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks, resolved by replacing copyvio link with a valid link; weight issues noted to article talk.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 04:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
http://www.answersingenesis.org/cainan/ is linked from
Kenan Citation removed as inappropriate, claim retained as probable. non-scholarly non-theologian being cited on text interpretation, publication lacking adequate editorial oversight for theology / biblical hermeneutics
Fifelfoo (
talk) 01:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply