Talk:Black Canaan

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Canaan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827135105/http://www.rehupa.com/romeo_southern.htm to http://www.rehupa.com/romeo_southern.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of self-published references and original research
Hello! I'm new to editing. I created this account because in the process of searching for copies of Robert E Howard's personal correspondences I stumbled onto this page, and noticed the "controversies" section seems to be full of original research, missing citations, and citations that are self-published works. I looked into the sources provided and many of them seem to me to not qualify as reliable sources. (as I understand the policies, at least) I'll provide reasoning for the changes I make when attempting to correct this issue below.

Removal of sources:





This source is from an informal fan page and "amateur press association" who's website now directs to a facebook page for an annual Robert E Howard event. (https://www.facebook.com/RobertEHowardDays/) A description of the REHupa organization can be found here: (https://howardhistory.com/2019/10/04/rehupa/) I am removing these because they qualify as a self-published source by nature of being an online amateur association, and may not qualify as a reliable source due to lacking a professional structure for publication.

 Removal of sources:



The Dark Man is a "journal" of self-published works that was created by Rusty Burke, who was the editor in 1991 when this reference was published. It is a self published work that does not qualify as a reliable source due to lacking a professional structure for publication. (https://www.thedarkmanjournal.org/the-pavilion-blog/the-origins-of-tdm-interview-with-the-founding-editor-rusty-burke) Note: This journal does not seem to be a well established peer review journal, but a collection of previously published amateur press publications. Many of it's reviewers are "Independent Scholars" and the current editors listed are a married couple that started publishing these volumes in 2019 and were not the editors at the time of original publication. (https://www.thedarkmanjournal.org/board.html) This source was also added by a user named "Chuck Hoffman" who shares a name with one of the "Independent Scholars" from this amateur press association.

Removal of source:



This is a self-published book by a fiction author that doesn't seem to be an independently published subject matter expert, rather a fiction author self publishing a biography.

Removal of previously challenged statements:

Removing the sources mentioned will cause significant changes to the controversy and analysis sections, which have many outstanding challenges for which citations have not been provided. I'm removing those statements as part of this edit as they seem to be from 2010 and it seems unlikely a citation will ever be provided.

Removal of unsupported conjecture by the original article author related to the removed citations:

At the time of writing the citations I'm removing were self-published on a fan site by an organization the original article author was a member and editor of. Since it's been 14 years and no citations beyond the self published works of this organization have been provided for these statements I'm going to remove statements that appear to be the opinion of the original author or the self published authors who's citations I'm removing. Additionally, the Analysis section appears to be original research and written as a book review by the original page author. Since the only content left after removing the book review content is a quote from HP Lovecraft I've renamed the section "Reception"

I'm not sure how relevant the remaining content is in the "Controversy" section due to it's brevity now, or how it might be better presented. It is now factual and less editorialized, though.

I would like to note (due to the topic of the sections being edited) that I do not disagree with the assertions of the original author and his associates that Robert E Howard was racist. I believe that he was. I decided to edit this page because the citations for some of the opinionated prose in this article struck me as intellectually dishonest and misleading by virtue of associated parties self-referencing.

After completing the changes above I removed the maintenance template as the citation issues have been resolved. Milquedud (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)