Talk:St. Ann's Well, Malvern

Sourcing

I think that Aspect Design is a self-publishing outfit [1] and hence the reference "Garrard, Rose (2006). Malvern 'Hill of Fountains': Ancient Origins, Beliefs and Superstitions Surrounding Wells and Well Dressing. Aspect Design." cannot be considered a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cusop Dingle (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. Rose Garrard is something of a local expert on the subject of Malvern Water - she spent a considerable time researching the history of the springs as part of a local-council funded art project ([2] - yes, also self-published). TFM has this to say: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications (WP:SPS#Self-published_sources). I'm not sure RG has been published by a third-party, but she has been funded by one, to research the topic in question. Would that establish her expertise? GyroMagician (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that the material has been restored by User:Kudpung, with the rationale "Generally, any references that are not used to deliberately create a false impression of notability can be used. [...] recognised publications on sale in bookshops and available in good libraries are certainly acceptable" [3]. This does not seem to me to be consistent with WP:RS. As far as the author in question is concerned, I do not believe that this makes her "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also doubtful about Weaver, Cora; Osborne, Bruce (2006). The Illumination of St. Werstan the Martyr. Cora Weaver. ISBN 9781873809679. This seems to be self-published too. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You never replied to my earlier comment. This is a very niche topic, and we have someone who has spent considerable time researching it, funded by the local council. Does that not make her an expert? GyroMagician (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I did respond yesterday, but to be clear — no, I don't think so. Scholarly articles in peer-reviewed publications, or an academic track record, yes. A community-funded art project, no. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your response in your reply to Kudpung (which I couldn't really follow). Could you elaborate a little? Is your minimum requirement for reliability really a peer-reviewed article? There are a great many sources used on Wikipedia that fail this test. Do you have a specific concern about these sources (or the way they have been referred to), or is your concern about the principle of a reliable source? I don't think these sources are saying anything particularly controversial, so I'd like to understand why you want them removed. Personally, I'm not particularly attached to these sources, but I think they make the article richer so I hesitate to remove them. It's not Garrard, but the Wellcome Trust seem happy to accept Cora Weaver as a reliable source [4]. The three books listed are also self-published. GyroMagician (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant my response on this page at 18:09 of the 5th. It's not my requirement but that of WP:SPS, which is part of WP:V, one of our core policies ("a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow"): the italicised part of your first post says it all. In this particular case the issue is about Garrard's association of a local saint with a pagan god or goddess. This is the sort of quasi-academic speculation that needs to be handled very carefully to avoid fringe theories and reflect the scholarly mainstream: so in this particular case, yes, I do particularly want to hold very firmly to the standard of academic peer-reviewed sources, or leave the speculation out completely. However, the principle is enshrined in those core policies. Garrard's publications may well enrich, and that's what we have "Further Reading" sections for. But not for sourcing. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In this diff [5] you removed references to Garrard. Only the first change mentions a saint/goddess connection, which (without reading too closely) is also supported by Palmer. The remaining changes relate to donkeys, serving tea, and a BBC TV crew. Am I missing something here? If Garrard were saying something highly controversial I would understand your reasoning, but in this case I don't really. GyroMagician (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning is simple. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question"; "This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception"; "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources"; "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Rose Garrard's books appear to be self-published and I have seen no evidence that she has been published by reliable third-party publications in this field. The only conclusion I can draw is that this source is not acceptable for use on this subject.

On detailed points. (1) "Palmer suggests ..." is an appropriate way of referring to a persons' theory about the name; the point about it being a homonym is a different pointed, stated as a bare fact in Wikipedia's voice, as if it were established mainstream scholarly opinion, whereas I see no reason to believe it is anything other than Garrard's opinion. (2) You will have noted that as well as removing an unacceptable source, I also took the trouble to actually add in some sources which may be more acceptable. As WP:SPS points out, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the Weaver SPS, you say "the Wellcome Trust seem happy to accept Cora Weaver as a reliable source [6]. The three books listed are also self-published." The link shows that the book is in the Wellcome Library, consisting of "collections of books, manuscripts, archives, films and pictures on the history of medicine from the earliest times to the present day". What on earth makes this an endorsement as a reliable source by the Wellcome Trust? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Name derivation issues

The statement "The hill in question may have been known as Tan Hill after Tanfana the Belgic God of Fire, and St Ann may be a modification of that name." is sourced to Norman May's Guide to Malvern, a self-published source from 1884. This theory, with its double level of uncertainty, may be derived from The British camp on the Herefordshire beacon, essays on scenes and incidents in the lives of the ancient Britons by James McKay (of Malvern), 1875. In turn, William Lisle Bowles The parochial history of Bremhill, in the county of Wilts of 1828 equates Tan Hill with Tanfana. These are the only sources I can locate. This speculation from nearly 200 years ago can hardly be said to represent modern scholarly opinion. I suggest that it is effectively unsourced and WP:UNDUE. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Following on from that, the sentences "Tan is modern Welsh for fire and it's celtic use for beacon fires is proved by the fires lit in Brittany “at the time of the summer solstice”.[6] St Ann's well is located on the eastern slopes of the Worcestershire Beacon, the highest hill on the range." look pretty dubious too. The reference cited as [6] is The Old Straight Track by Alfred Watkins, a fascinating book but definitely not scholarly mainstream, and definitely not a reliable source. The only acceptable way to use this book would be in a context such as "Alfred Watkins, in The Old Straight Track, claimed that ... but modern scholars believe ...". The first sentence is somewhat incoherent and the second is really just synthesis linking a speculative link between a modern Welsh word, an ancient Celtic word and the modern English name. I'm removing the whole paragraph until we can find reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, preferably an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/31335.html

  Triggered by \bgopetition\.(?:com|co\.uk|us)\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

St Ann's Well dispute section

The section on the St Ann’s Well dispute seems out of proportion to the rest of the article, and contains a lot of detail which may have been significant at the time but is much less relevant to the general history of the well. The main dispute appears to have passed, although some of its conclusions could remain relevant. My suggestion is to replace the section with a much shorter summary with relevant links, such as to the final enquiry report. Before I attempt this, has anyone got a different view? Sixsevens (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I certainly have no objections. I'd do it myself but I'm rather tied up getting one of the other Malvern related articles to GA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)