Talk:Ariel A. Roth#RfC: Adventist sources in the article

The California creationism in public education conflict appears to have raged for much of the 1960s and early 1970s (e.g. see Numbers(2006) pp270-272), but there seems to be little indication that either the single meeting Roth attended in late 1972, nor his input at this meeting, had any significant impact. Lacking prominent third-party notice of his involvement, and given that creationists and anti-creationists testify at such meetings all the time, it seems undue WP:WEIGHT to mention this solely on the basis of the WP:PRIMARY source of his own testimony. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

::*I can understand your point. However, this is the only account as to what Roth said to the California State Board. Not all sources have to be secondary. This citation gives solid evidence that he presented to the board. Every person's presentation to such a hearing is important to their personal story. We have gone round and round re: trivial versus significant. This citation is both a secondary source and a primary source. As a secondary source, the mention of his presenting, it is reliable and verifiable. Then as a primary source, the link is interesting because any Wikipedia reader can read exactly what he said at the hearing and make up their own minds as to what he said. The undue weight opinion related to undue weight about what? The WP entry is a BLP about Ariel Roth. The fact that he presented to the California Board is important and proper weight to his story. Again, I challenge you to try to help tell the story of Roth rather than fight against it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:::*This quotation comes from the Ariel A. Roth article

:::{{quotation|In late 1972 or early 1973 he presented to the California Board of Education hearings on Creation and the classroom.{{Cite journal| last1 = Roth | first1 = Ariel A.| last2 = Brand| first2 = Leonard R. | title = The Truly Scientific Approach| journal = Review| volume = 150 | issue = 7| pages = 4,5 | publisher = Review and Herald Publishing Assoc | location = Washington, D.C.| date = February 15, 1973| url = http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19730215-V150-07__B.pdf#view=fit| accessdate = 18-11-2011|ref=harv}} (California State Board of Education hearing re: including creation as a theory of origins along with evolution.){{better source|date=December 2011}}}}

::::*The note connected to these transcripts is a secondary source. The transcripts are primary sources. The tag needs to come down. The source is a secondary one. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::*I would thank DonaldRichardSands to cease and desist doing me the incivility of insulting my intelligent. The fact that this publication gave the title "The Truly Scientific Approach" for this piece of truly anti-scientific polemics amply demonstrates its complete lack of independence from Roth's viewpoint. To claim that a brief editorial note from the editorial board that is providing Roth with this soapbox amounts to any substantive secondary coverage is quite simply absurd. What is 'needed' is for DRS to either put a non-tendentious reading of policy before promotion of the views of his own church, or to admit that his objectivity is so hopelessly compromised that he must confess a WP:COI and withdraw from editin Adventist-related articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:::*Hrafn, you are a very intelligent person. I would never insult you. I do believe that you are an advocate for naturalistic origins and common origin evolution and that you get upset when an article fairly represents the strong views of Fringe advocates, such as Roth. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:::*It seems that you are wanting the Ariel A. Roth BLP to support your view of origins. Why does it concern you that this transcript of what Roth said at the California Board get some exposure. Are his views dangerous? Is his "soap box" a threat to your views of origins, to mainstream science's views? Whether you like it or not, the story of Ariel A. Roth includes his presentation at the California School Board hearings. Now, let's consider this source:

::::#It is published by the Review and Herald, the flagship journal, for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This journal is highly respected and certainly slanted to an Adventist view point.

::::#It is a transcript of what Ariel A. Roth actually said to the Board. This makes the primary source especially helpful. Anyone wondering what Roth might say to promote his views, this is truly an important source. Right from Roth at his carefully thought out best.

::::#The editors of the Review state that Roth gave this presentation at the California Board hearings. Thus, this citation verifies that Roth actually gave the presentation. The editors are not Roth, of course. Thus they are secondary to Roth. It is the editors comment which is the secondary source. Do they agree with Roth? Of course. Can they hire or fire Roth? No. Is Roth independent from them. They are both Adventists. They support each other. They are independent in matters of holding coercion over the other. Do the editors consider Roth's presentation important. You bet they do. Here is the flagship journal of Adventism giving the full text of what Roth said. Why? Because they consider what he said to affirm the Adventist view of origins. This does not make the source unreliable or unverifiable. It would be like a Roman Catholic journal applauding something the Pope said and including the text of what he said. The main difference is that the Pope has real authority over all official RC publications whereas Roth and the Review and Herald don't have such a relationship. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

::::#This citation is a powerful source. It combines the actual transcript of what Roth said at the California State Board hearing with the editors' verifying that he actually spoke at the hearing.

::::#This citation seems to be the only historical record available on the internet as to what Roth said at the hearing. And it is one of just a very few that actually mention Roth's presentation. For the Roth BLP, it is a reliable, verifiable source, valuable to our Wikipedia readership, IMO.

::::#This can be viewed as a soapbox for Roth. What is wrong with that? If Roth is to be known as a man on a soapbox (of which he isn't known), isn't that too part of the BLP Roth article?

::::DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

1. "It is published by the Review and Herald" -- a publication that nobody outside the SDA gives a rat's arse about.
2. There were in all likelihood dozens of CBOE hearings on the topic throughout the 60s and 70s at which hundreds of people, in total, testified. Nobody outside the SDA cares.
3. The editorial board are (i) Roth's co-religionists, (ii) the very people who invited him to submit this piece and (iii) in all likelihood share Roth's anti-science religious prejudices. They are NOTHING LIKE independent.
4. "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." -- WP:NOT
5. It is only "a powerful source" to somebody who is so totally-immersed, drunk-the-koolaid, committed to the SDA viewpoint, that they are unaware that any other viewpoint exists. (I'm becoming increasingly of the opinion that this description fits you.) To anybody outside the SDA, the source has no power whatsoever.
6. The view of Wikipedia is that any subject worth mentioning should have been covered by an independent source. If no independent source exists, then it is not worth mentioning.
7. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to catalog every soapbox that every fringe advocate has gotten onto. It is only in the business of documenting those soapboxes that independent sources consider noteworthy.

I would note that you are aggressively pushing the Adventist POV by pushing a piece of testimony that only Adventists find noteworthy. In doing so you are violating WP:RS & WP:V, both of which emphasise the importance of independent/third-party sources, as well as WP:NPOV.

Further, you have convinced me that there is no point whatsoever in explaining policy to you further -- I should simply stop wasting my time and refer all further disagreements to noticeboards and/or dispute resolution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:I agree that we need other people to help us resolve these differences. I am also concerned about the uncivil tone that you, Hrafn, bring to this discussion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

::Hey, Donald! I'm sorry, but I have to agree that the way you view the world is very heavily influenced by what information you receive from SDA sources to the point that you have difficulty viewing the SDA topics as an objective outsider would. The problem here is not so much about facts, but about the significance of those facts, and about how much WP:WEIGHT they should be given in the article. Things that are very significant for you, as a practicing SDA relying heavily on SDA sources are often not very significant or not significant at all for the rest of the world. A lot of the sources you use are published, at least partly, with apologetics and the promotion of the SDA viewpoint in mind.

::It would be best if you started relying more on sources independent of the SDA church, and develop some objective distance to the topics of the articles you are editing so that you can see them in terms of "the big picture".

::The problem is not that you are knowledgeable about SDA affairs and SDA history, but that you seem to have little knowledge of how they are viewed by scholars from outside the SDA church, and that is affecting your choice of sources and the weight you assign to particular events and people.

::i know you want to be a good editor on WP and contribute valuable information to the project, bbut remember that "valuable" here on WP is determined by what the mainstream scholarly society says in reliable sources, not what any particular group says in in-universe sources. Taht is the kind of information WP readers expect to see.

::By the way, have you considered starting up something like an SDA wiki? A lot of the information you want to include would be perfect in that sort of venue. You would be free to present everything from an SDA point of view without being challenged by other users. You might also be able to get funding from the SDA for the project. You will be able to rely on help from like-minded co-religionists, as well. It's worth thinking about. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:*Hi Dominus, I always appreciate your input. (I have a brother who is a Ph.D in micro-biology. That is your field, isn't it?) Yes, I usually wear my Adventist glasses. That is mainly because I work on Adventist-related articles. Once in a while I venture into other areas. My pattern of searching for all topics begins with google, then google books and google scholar, then adventist archives. I don't think my interest in minor information is all because of my Adventist mindset. My interests in bird watching and poetry, especially haiku, develop my interest in detail. Add to that an interest in the moment, existentialism. Anyway, I find all my interactions here on WP quite helpful. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent}}A quick note on some points above (still reading more, as DRS asked me to review the situation): the terms "secondary source" and "independent source" actually have no relationship, and that may be what's confusing the issue. A secondary source is simply one written after the fact, analyzing what some sort of primary documents/source/data said. It refers only to the level of analysis. An independent source is one which has no connection to the original source, in terms of being part of a related organization, employer, relative, etc. Many sources are "semi-independent"; for instance, I was just editing a different article where BBC News had an article about a music show being hosted by BBC One. Now, that is definitely a secondary source (the music show itself is the primary source), but it's only somewhat independent of the primary source. Since the BBC has an extraordinary reputation for neutrality, this is not a problem there. This case actually looks similar: the speech itself is the primary source, while the comments in the Review and Herald are a non-independent secondary source. However, unlike the BBC, the SDA (as a religious organization rather than a news organization) does not have a reputation as a neutral, independent checker of facts, and thus should be handled differently. But, in this case, the only thing they are verifying is that he spoke at a particular meeting. That seems to me to fall very safely within something that can be verified by a non-independent source (i.e., I would trust a claim by Fox News that Sarah Palin visited a certain event and gave a certain speech, even though she's an employee and thus it isn't independent, because it's a simple reporting of fact). That doesn't, though, answer the question as to whether or not the event itself meets WP:DUE and should be in the article. I hope this helps distinguish the two points and get people talk to rather than past each other. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

(i) Is it appropriate that the section on Roth's scientific career is sourced almost solely to Adventist publications? (ii) Does the citation (to the publication of Roth testimony and an opinion piece by him in an Adventist publication) demonstrate that his testimony to the California SBOE is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:Comment 1: This article is a work in process. The section of Roth's scientific career is still being developed. As one of the editors contributing to this article, I believe that other non-adventist sources can be found and will be found. More time is needed. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:Comment 2: All editors responding to this RfC ought to read the section just before this RfC section. The very fact that Roth presented to the California Board of Education is noteworthy. These board hearings are noteworthy, that is why they conduct them. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

;Background information:

• The publications in question appear to be owned and indirectly controlled by the Seventh Day Adventist church, of which the subject appears to be one of their 16 million members. Their circulation of these magazines exceeds that of most newspapers in the USA, and they appear to possess all of the standard qualities that we look for in a reliable source: a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s), a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, etc.
• The basic complaint seems to be that the publications are biased, i.e., these religion-focused publications care about subjects that (according to some editors) nobody else would care about. However, being biased does not have any bearing on whether a publication is either independent, self-published, or secondary, and according to our policies and guidelines, "being unbiased" isn't a quality that determines whether a source is reliable.
• To figure out whether the sources are independent, you need to identify any conflict of interest: Does Roth get coverage because he's directly or indirectly in control of the publications? Does he influence coverage by buying advertisements in them? Again, "independent" is not an alternate spelling for "unbiased".
• To figure out whether the sources are primary or secondary, see Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources.
• To figure out whether the sources are self-published, you need to know the identity of the author and of the publisher. Unless someone is prepared to make the case that Roth is the publisher of these magazines (rather than the people whose job titles are "publisher", or the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, which ultimately owns them), then any articles he's written for them are not self-published, and none of the articles by anyone else are, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• View on Question "(i) Is it appropriate that the section on Roth's scientific career is sourced almost solely to Adventist publications?": IMO it is more appropriate to source this section to these independent, properly published (if biased/obviously POV-holding) magazines than to source it to a self-published university webpage, which is the typical source for such sections in professor's BLPs. Furthermore, I think it silly to complain about "intricate detail" in a section that is little more than a standard list of jobs he's held over the years with a mere nine sentences in three short paragraphs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:*WhatamIdoing: Review published Roth's testimony and his opinion piece, under a highly partisan heading. This is directly relevant to whether this publication can be considered to be independent from Roth, and thus to WP:RS's requirement for "reliable, third-party, published sources". The heavy reliance on them (and you yourself admit that they are "biased/obviously POV-holding") also has implications for WP:WEIGHT. Further, I would note that the sum of $17,082 and that he once spent a week in an undersea lab, would generally be considered very routine, and thus "intricate detail"/trivia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

:*: None of the sources in the ==Career== section are written by Roth. None of them are about his testimony. And, no, a willingness to publish a guest column on a single occasion does not make other stories about the guest author in that publication magically become non-independent. (The New York Times has published a dozen guest columns by Newt Gingrich; would you declare them to be a non-independent/first-party source on this presidential candidate?) The fact that they gave the story a "highly partisan heading" is immaterial. Being biased does not make the BLP part of the magazine's staff or give the BLP any control over the magazine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

:*::All but one "of the sources in the ==Career== section are written" by Roth's own church, an affiliated/non-independent and small minority viewpoint with no particularly expertise on science (and in fact a decided WP:FRINGE axe to grind on the subject). Is this WP:UNDUE? Most certainly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::The SDA church has a very high view of science. It owns and operates Loma Linda University Medical Center in conjunction with Loma Linda University, which has operated one of the premier medical schools in the United States for over 100 years. It operates more than a hundred other hospitals, three medical schools, and about a hundred colleges and universities around the world. Science curricula is top notch in all of the church's educational institutions. Your comments expose your extreme fringe bias and abysmal ignorance. Mthoodhood (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

::::::WP:Complete bollocks. The SDA subscribes to the pseudoscientific viewpoint of Young Earth creationism. This viewpoint embodies the denialism of the evidence and theories of whole fields of science, including evolutionary biology, population genetics, palaeontology, biogeography, radiometric geochronology (and thus nuclear physics), etc, etc. It even has a whole institute, the Geoscience Research Institute, devoted to sweeping all this evidence under the carpet. To claim that the fact that it has a a good hospital in some way balances out all this anti-science activity is ludicrously partisan. SDA only values science to the extent that it either fails to contradict, or can be distorted to appear to support, their religious prejudices. This is hardly "a very high view". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Follow-up question: given that DRS has expressed his belief "that other non-adventist sources can be found and will be found" on "Roth's scientific career", I would like to ask the question, is Roth notable as a scientist (per WP:ACADEMIC)? His h-index is only 6 (based upon Google Scholar -- if you've got access to an index based upon a more comprehensive catalog, do let us know), and I have seen no relevant argument that he's notable on one of the non-citation criteria. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

::*Comment 3 As far as I can tell, Roth is not a notable scientist or academic. The bar is set way too high for him to qualify. He is a notable person. He is a significant figure in the Young earth creationist community and in the Adventist community. Fourteen years the head of GRI and twenty-three years the editor of Origins. Within the Adventist community he is considered one of the church's foremost spokespersons on matters of science and religion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

:::*There is little evidence that "he is a significant figure in the Young earth creationist community" -- and there is far less coverage of his YEC activities than on the likes of George McCready Price, Henry M. Morris, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind or even Harold W. Clark, Jonathan Sarfati, or a whole host of other lesser lights. As to "in the Adventist community", I direct you to DV & Qwyrxian's comments in #California SBOE above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Yes, Donald. That he is notable inside the SDA community is not as important for WP purposes as how notable he is OUTSIDE of the SDA community, that is within the overall creationist community and within society at large. Seen from the outside, he seems to be a minor figure in the creationist community that has had very little impact on society at large. Within the scientific community, he is basically unremarkable and undistinguished, and his scientifc exploits have had very little impact on society as a whole. I'm not even sure if he is notable enough to have his own article. Remember that the SDA is only a small part of the YEC creationist community, the YEC creationist community is only one part of the general creationist community, and the creationist community is only one part of society at large. That is what I meant by "the big picture". We have to put things in their proper perspective. That is what WP:WEIGHT is all about. Hope this helps! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

::The place to settle questions of notability is at AFD, not at an RFC. It is possible (relatively common, even) to have sources that are totally reliable for the statements they are supporting, and for the subject to still be non-notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

:::No WhatamIdoing, notability frequently offers insight outside an AfD. In this case it helps inform the issue of WP:WEIGHT. If a topic is notable for some aspect of their life, then an argument can be made for having significant coverage (e.g. a top-level section) on that aspect. Where there is no evidence of notability for this aspect and no substantive independent coverage of it, it is very difficult to argue that the aspect merits more than a mere mention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

::::*Consdier an example: In a BLP, one specific aspect of that person's story is controversial. That aspect receives the majority of attention in the published sources. The person's birth, education, family, interests, scientific studies, theological views, etc. can be found in the published sources but not much. How much of the lesser, or least, information may be mentioned without adding too much weight? If a 'trivial' event in a person's life really affected their thinking, but is seemingly minor, can that be mentioned? Doesn't the Weight given to the controversy make the person's story seem to revolve around the one issue. Isn't that undue Weight? Doesn't the news media often skew our understanding of a subject by giving undue weight to a controversy? Any thoughts? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::*The claim that "a 'trivial' event in a person's life really affected their thinking" would be WP:OR, lacking a reliable source for the claim, so should never be introduced into the article (and if the claim cannot be introduced, there is little point in including the "'trivial' event"). Generally, unless a person is notable for their "interests, scientific studies, theological views, etc" these topics get fairly minimal coverage. We don't generally give extensive coverage to (e.g.) the theological views of scientists or the scientific interests of theologians, unless either topic impinges upon their notability. I'm afraid I'm seeing little basis for your argumentation within Wikipedia policy or practice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::*Beyond non-compliance with policy, this view would appear to be completely unworkable. Neither we editors, nor the readers would be able to tell which 'apparently-trivial' events were actually meaningful to the topic, so all we'd be left with would be a confusing mess of minutiae, that is actually a hindrance rather than a help to understanding. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

::::* Nope: Notability has nothing at all to do with WEIGHT. WP:N directly says that it has no bearing whatsoever on article content. If you've got WEIGHT concerns, then you need to argue about neutrality, not about notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::*Thank you WhatamIdoing for that myopic and unhelpful piece of WP:WIKILAWYERING (which ignores the fact that WP:N clearly leaves open that it may indirectly "limit the content of an article"). Does your comment add any useful insight whatsoever? "Nope". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent|:::::}}As an outside observer, it seems to me that both parties in this edit war are somewhat mistaken. DRS is using less-than-reliable sources (according to Wikipedia policy) to bolster an article on a proponent of (let's face it) a fringe theory. Hrafn's offense, however (gross incivility), is to me the worse of the two. I'm not sure if public attempts to humiliate a fellow editor (however much we disagree with their views) aren't disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point; see above for examples. Maybe you should both take a break from this article for a bit. Hope this helps! All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

:I think Miniapolis might have a point above. I regret to say that my own searches for Ariel A. Roth [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tab=nw&q=Ariel%20A.%20Roth&ei=YTn-TrH_I4qfgwfz9-SJAg here] and [http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn here] give me no particularly good reason to believe that WP:BURDEN is met regarding the notability as per WP:N of this individual. The Historical dictionary of the SDA is I think an acceptable source (note 6) and note 12 and maybe a few of the others might be as well. However, I am not myself yet sure that those sources contain the significant coverage required of WP:GNG. To date, I have no clear reason to believe that they necessarily do. I think clearly and establishing the "significant coverage" required would probably be the best next step to take. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

:Ukkk... I wish people who support sound theoretical positions about which they feel strongly, would not put those positions in a poor light by shouting insults. I do not remember having heard of AAR, nor in fact his associated institutions, but I followed up a few of the refs, and the arguments in the material are pretty routine for CS/ID and the like; simplistic fringe stuff. I think Miniapolis and John Carter, to name the most recent contributors, spoke pretty reasonably about participants on both sides of the divide. AAR may be salt-of-the-Earth in many ways, but if he made any substantial statements I missed them in the material I could dig up at short notice. If any of his research for his PhD or subsequently amounted to anything notable, I missed that too. However, at least he got a PhD. That is more notable than any of what seems to me a horde of rock-group wannabees and local celebs that infest the WP articles simply because there are too few of us to police them properly. I agree that his career, however virtuous, is notable most obviously for some public appearances and essays without academic merit or idealistic effectuality (putatively inspiring MB; a student question on deficient chelonian palaeontology for the love of...)

:Look, in sum, I am inclined simply to ignore this article until someone abuses our toleration by making substantial claims and raising a fuss based upon it. After that we could step on it. Or in it. Until then anyone competent to play the dragonslayer would seem to me to be spending resources better invested somewhere more rewarding. If OTOH someone does insist on leaping into the breach, then I must admit that on cursory inspection (all I could afford) I found no independent, relevant, substantial sources, nor any notable achievements to present in extenuation, let alone justification. I wouldn't be inclined to join the attack, but am unable to justify much of a defence. But as for the tone taken by persons who were offensive when they could have been effective instead... With allies like that, who am I to spurn MB? JonRichfield (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am another randomly recruited RfC commenter. As I understand the question it is quite limited and doesn't address N or WEIGHT as supported by the current citations but asks whether N requires more sources for other than solely Adventist ones. I think the question is moot since it appears that other sources have been added. Assuming I have understood the matter correctly, I suggest this RfC be dropped now. If there are new questions about N and WEIGHT, please start a new RfC. My advice to those with personal investment here: incivility is a sure way to minimize the involvement of disinterested parties who agree with your positions. Jojalozzo 15:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I realize that this Ariel A. Roth article is not about me. But, I have become somewhat the focus of discussion. A few words about one aspect of my WP editing may be helpful.

It has been suggested that my involvement with my faith community, Adventism, has caused me to have blinders on making it so I cannot sense the bigger picture. My faith community is an integral part of my life but my tendency to include detail is not because of that. My work on the Letitia Youmans article illustrates this detailist tendency. Youmans had no connection to my faith community, yet my detailing ways on that article are obvious. The main information about her came from an autobiography of hers, alas a primary source. I cut my WP editing teeth with a very patient editor who tried to teach me how an autobiography is problematic. The balance between good information and slanted information is a difficult one to attain for me, as Hrafn and others can attest. The Adventist Church has one of the most thorough online archives systems I have seen anywhere on the Internet. For me, it is a gold mine of information. Many WP Adventist articles can be improved with the information available in those archives. But, to only use those is not good. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Our guidelines call for minimal use of external links but this is not being practiced here. Maintaining a list of ELs for a topic is not what Wikipedia is about. I propose we replace this inappropriate linkfarm with one or two links to independently curated link directories, if such exist, and if there are none, then drop the section and let interested readers conduct their own Internet searches. Jojalozzo 04:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

:There were six entries in the "External links" with sourcing information. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: {{tq|Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.}}
• LINKFARM states: {{tq|There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.}}
• WP:ELMIN: {{tq|Minimize the number of links}}.
• WP:ELCITE: {{tq|access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{tl|cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.}}
• WP:ELBURDEN: {{tq|Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.}} -- Otr500 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)