User talk:Goteamanderson

Quirinius Census
The main issue is that Answers in Genesis does not meet the requirements for a reliable source. AIG would be an appropriate source only for their opinion. Wikipedia is (ideally) a collection of academic scholarship on a wide variety of topics. The essay Identifying reliable sources (history) covers this topic and identifies which sources would be appropriate to use in the Quirinius Census article. If you wish to find sources that represents a certain viewpoint, you can go to the article's talk page and inquire if there is any such sources.

Also, remember to sign your talk page comments. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the info - I'll read up on the policies. I'm new to this whole game, learning the rules! It still appears to me that the Quirinius Census article comes off unbalanced toward a critical view - that's all I was trying to do was provide a little more balance by re-phrasing the closing line of the summary and adding a conservative argument at the end. I thought it was all well supported with references - maybe should just drop the top citation to AiG?

Goteamanderson (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * AiG will not work as a source. Only the kind of scholarly sources (eg. published books from an academic press, journal articles) will work. I've given the article a look over, and it is in need of some work. It has been somewhat neglected it seems. I removed the entire section given to Richard Carrier's online essay because it is not meet the requirements for a WP:RS (published online, personal opinion essay, no peer review) and it is undue weight to devote an entire section to the work of a Masters student.
 * In addition, make sure to read:
 * Neutral point of view


 * These cover how much balance should be given to positions in an article. It is one of the more important Wikipedia guidelines.
 * --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article - and thanks for the NPOV link, that is helpful to understand better the principles guiding the articles. I am a huge fan of wikipedia and typically consult it first when doing historical research. (I am a pastor, btw - so not without an agenda...) Out of curiosity, what is your interest in the Quirinius article? Goteamanderson (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)