Talk:Maya calendar/Archives/2014/March

Removal and restoration of citation of self-published work by Jacobs
I removed three references to self-published works from two authors who do not seem to be published experts in archaeology or other fields, two of which were reverted by two different people for different reasons. I'll discuss them in different sections. This is one of the links I removed:



The reason cited for reverting my removal is that this work is listed on a Wikipedia page in the MesoAmerica WikiProject at WP:MESO/CITEJ. Saying it's a reliable source for Wikipedia because it's listed in Wikipedia as a reliable source is circular. There are five works by Jacob listed there, all self-published on his personal website |jqjacobs.net. A University of Oregon website that quotes his work lists him as an adjunct faculty member, with a BA in Anthropology, teaching at Central Arizona College and at Mesa Community College. Jacobs' personal website lists 11 computer-related courses he teaches (Introduction to the Internet, etc.) However, I did not turn up any independently published works in anthropology, archeology, or related fields by Jacobs. He is a co-author of two published journal articles in the field of microbiology dealing with fungi. (These could be someone with the same name, but Q isn't a common initial, and the first citation lists him as being from Arizona).



While I may have missed something, nothing I've included qualifies his self-published works as reliable sources on this subject under Wikipedia's guidance for self-published sources (WP:SPS), which requires being a recognized expert in a field, published in reliable sources in that field.

Agyle (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No discussion yet. Dougweller reverted the removal. Any additional rationale for considering the reference a reliable source? Any opinions from anyone?
 * ––Agyle (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You can find him used or in the bibliographies of other reliable sources, eg, published by a university press, , written by an established archaeologist, written by another academic. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that, but WP:RS doesn't suggest other sources referencing self-published material make it a reliable source. The main exception for self-published sources is "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." ––Agyle (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you lost track of the discussion, but I don't think you've made a case that it's a reliable source for Wikipedia, and have re-removed the reference. If you feel otherwise, I'd suggest we seek an outside opinion (e.g., WP:RSN) on the matter. Agyle (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal and restoration of citation of self-published work by Finley
I removed the following citation:


 * The Dresden Codex Venus Table by Michael John Finley

The reason cited for reverting my removal is explained at Talk:Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar; the reason:
 * “I strongly disagree with your removal of the reference to John Finley's site and I'm putting it back in. Because you can't ascertain Finley's academic credentials is not a viable reason for removing the reference. This is an argumentum ad hominem. This is not an argument about whether you have a bigger degree than he does. As I understand it, Finley is an astronomer and computer programer. The site is excellent, even if it's written by "just some guy". It is very well researched and written and cites very many definitive references, has an extensive bibliography of reliable sources and links to other supporting sites. If there's a better article about this subject - written or on-line, I don't know where it is. Did you actually read this? Do you have a better citation(s)? If so add it. Otherwise leave it there.”

Degrees are irrelevant, but WP:SPS does require self-published works to be authored by recognized experts in a field, published in reliable sources in that field. It isn't my responsibility to prove it's not a reliable source; if you're citing it, you should be able to show that it is a reliable source. I did perform a good faith search for information about Finley prior to removal. All I could find were his self-published writings that originated on his personal website at http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/. The only published references that cite him are a self-published book, Mundo Maya, acknowledging his unspecified work as a source, and Expecting Armageddon, which includes a version of this Wikipedia article, including its citation of Finley:

Doing a general web search (rather than scholar or book search), I found other websites that mention him, but only to cite his personal web page. Like Jacobs in the before this, I may have missed something, but nothing I've included qualifies his self-published works as reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidance for self-published sources (WP:SPS), which requires being a recognized expert in a field, published in reliable sources in that field.

Agyle (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (forgot to sign at time of post)


 * Using your logic, all websites would be off-limits since they're all self-published. Actually they are quite useful because of their accessibility. Finley is a great secondary source because he summarizes all of the work of the primary investigators of this subject. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not all websites are considered self-published; nytimes.com is published by The New York Times Company. This isn't so much "my logic", but Wikipedia's longstanding policy; quoting WP:USERGENERATED:


 * “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. ... Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.” (Emphasis & wikilink from the original.)


 * Agyle (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I replaced the Finley citation with other references that a similar view on the Venus Table. Agyle (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)