User talk:Wrighteward

Welcome!
Hello, Wrighteward, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

We are a mainstream encyclopedia
For archaeological reports we should rely on peer-reviewed journals or academic books. As we are mainstream, we don't use Creationist sources. I also note that the author of one of your sources is a graduate student at the unaccredited Trinity Southwest University, an institution not receptive to sources which contradict their religious beliefs: ""the ancient Hebrew Tanakh and the New Testament", is the "divinely inspired representation of reality given by God to humankind, speaking with absolute authority in all matters upon which it touches".[3]". Doug Weller  talk 15:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Doug, I appreciate the heads up. If I've understood you correctly, the changes I made to the Sergius Paulus article, though factual archaeologically, were rejected because the author is a graduate student at Trinity Southwest University.  I wasn't aware that Wikipedia held a "guilty-by-association" policy. I will be more careful to use academic books and peer-reviewed journals. Wrighteward (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't matter what their beliefs were, a grad student at an unaccredited institution wouldn't be a reliable source. Doug Weller  talk 18:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to mention WP:RSN. Doug Weller  talk 18:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it - thanks.Wrighteward (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just checked out the link, and am confused. I thought that quoting from a peer-reviewed archaeological journal was something that I should rely on (see your comment above). Stripling, Byers and Wood all appear to be trained, experienced archaeologists who have been published in numerous peer-reviewed archaeological journals. Your comments in the thread seem to indicate that, in your opinion, nothing they write, even if it appears in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, can't be trusted because of their beliefs. Is this correct?Wrighteward (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As you might have noticed during the Covid pandemic, not all peer-reviewed articles in even the best journals are accurate. Stripling and Wood have good archaeological credentials, Byers does not. His MA is ok, but his PhD is from Veritas International University. It's approach to archaeology is that the Bible is an accurate historical record, and that sort of approach gives a blinkered view of the subject. I'd say the same about any archaeologist who approached Roman archaeology seeing Tacitus as accurate. Certainly nothing that they write that is an interpretation of the physical facts can be reliable. Then there's the other problem being discussed at RSN, one that has bothered me in areas unrelated to creationism. Peer reviewed articles are primary sources. I think we need to be vary cautious as using them as sources until they have been discussed, particularly so when the authors are problematic because of religious or nationalist beliefs. This is a big problem in India for instance, where I would not trust government archaeological departments. Doug Weller  talk 08:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, your original statement that we should rely on peer-reviewed journals and academic books isn't really true. A more accurate reflection of your policing of WP would be we should use peer-reviewed journals and academic books, unless the author is a creationist.  Correct?  Despite their credentials, which you've said are good (in the case of Stripling and Wood), and despite the fact that the three in question have over 60 years of archaeological experience at more than a dozen combined excavations, their expertise should not be trusted.  I'm learning a lot about inner workings of WP.  May I ask what your credentials are?  You seem to portray yourself as quite an expert in the area of archaeological research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrighteward (talk • contribs) 11:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Evaluating if a source is reliable is not always easy, but is done with common sense as well as community consensus. I see that you already are participating at the reliable sources noticeboard which is the right place to have that discussion, other than at the article's talk page.  While experts in a field can often be useful to Wikipedia, editors don't need to be, since they only have to summarize sources that already reflect a certain consensus.  Not being an academic journal (WP:NOTJOURNAL), Wikipedia it is not the place for original research (WP:OR) or interpreting primary sources (WP:SYNTH).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Minor edit check box
I just noticed that you have made a lot of edits with the "Minor" check box marked. Please review the guidelines here Help:Minor_edit. I think a lot of new editors are confused by the tag. It should be used in cases like obvious spelling or punctuation errors where there is basically "no change" to the article content. Ideally no editor would ever see a reason to challenge a minor edit. Take care! Springee (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. I appreciate it as I learn.Wrighteward (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)