- @Ninney: Which edit of mine are you referring to? ȸ (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Talkback: you've got messages!
Stating claims as fact
Thank you for your recent input and welcome to Wikipedia. It must be noted that one claim in on book does not mean it is fact.
- WP:YESPOV -Avoid stating opinions as facts
- WP:OR -The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no
- WP:FRINGE -A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article
- WP:WEIGHT -Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.
- WP:DIVERSE: Sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.
- WP:SYN :Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
- WP:SYNTHESIS: If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted.
- Is one given source is quite adequate under guidelines: Yes you can write anything and source it quite liberally, but when it comes to claiming something as fact and marking it as someone's convictions be it marxist or atheist or even hindu the rules are as follows:
To use multiple sources and try to cite scholarly consensus
- WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
- WP:CHERRY fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content
- WP:SCICON The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.
- WP:NOTRELIABLE - Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional
- Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)
- I apologise if I seemed a bit harsh in my assertive directness but I have been deeply disturbed by the low level I have observed when odds and ends have been freely presented as certainties.
- WP:ASSERT When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.
- WP:YESPOV Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.
- WP:CAT Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through action. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate.
- Wild speculation and claims are not facts and should be presented as only as personal opinion by respective author until a scholarly and multiple sourced text is made available. Balanced, certified and strongly unequivocal research is not synonymous with an loose opinion here and there.
- Thank you and hope to make Wikipedia a better place!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ceremonies in Dark Old Men, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barbershop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Bernardo Segall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)