Template:Did you know nominations/Counter-apologetics
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by sst✈ 14:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Counter-apologetics
edit- ... that freethinkers answer Christian apologetics with counter-apologetics?
- ALT1:... that counter-apologetics can be countered by counter-counter apologetics?
- ALT2:... that scholars have identified both apologetics and counter-apologetics in the Bible?
Created by Brianhe (talk). Self-nominated at 01:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
QPQ performed 10 August: Template:Did you know nominations/Kim Kardashian: Hollywood Brianhe (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- This short article has eight sources and the first five are blogs which are generally (not always!) considered unreliable sources. The one I looked at certainly starts out with "This is what I think ...." which does not sound too objective. The article also says that counter apologetics are only to do with religion and in this case mostly talks about Christianity. However at least one of your sources says that apologetics are defending an argument .... not necessarily a religious position. So this article needs to be based on "reliable sources" and to describe the title of the article. I'm not sure of the right banner template for the article (can anyone help?) Thanks Victuallers (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Victuallers: Did you notice that three of the blogs are written by "an established expert on the subject matter" notable experts (i.e. the authors are linked to WP articles)? And that the other three or four sources are reputable books, one of which is written by a Cardinal in the Catholic Church? — Brianhe (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Brian. I didn't, but if one of them is a Cardinal then I would expect him (or her??) to show some bias on this issue and to be just one view. Although in this case its a book so much better.
That is why blogs are generally not good sources. Wikipedia likes 3rd party sources where the "expert view" is evaluated by peers or other mediating influences.Victuallers (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)- Eh, well if theologians can't write about theology in books, then I don't know what to use as a source. — Brianhe (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- See strike above (I misread that you were saying that the blog was written by a Cardinal). Obviously theologians can write books about theology. Books go through a process of editing and they usually include references. This is not true of blogs. This is why Wikipedia prefers books and not blogs. Victuallers (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Eh, well if theologians can't write about theology in books, then I don't know what to use as a source. — Brianhe (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Brian. I didn't, but if one of them is a Cardinal then I would expect him (or her??) to show some bias on this issue and to be just one view. Although in this case its a book so much better.
- @Victuallers: Did you notice that three of the blogs are written by "an established expert on the subject matter" notable experts (i.e. the authors are linked to WP articles)? And that the other three or four sources are reputable books, one of which is written by a Cardinal in the Catholic Church? — Brianhe (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The sourcing seems ok to me. Newness, length, original hook, qpq all ok. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)