User talk:Volound

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

December 2010[edit]

i am not making any additional claims. therefore i do not need any additional sources. i am identifying a misnomer and trying to correct it. the source that confirms his agnosticism is also the source that confirms his atheism. Volound (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are, your making the claim he is an atheist (unsourced) as well as an agnostic (sourced). Wikipedia uses terms as presented by reliable sources per WP:V / WP:BLP. The only source present on Cenk's religion says he is an agnostic (quote: "I am a fervent agnostic."), so that is what it says in the article. The article mentions atheism but it does not itself say he is an agnostic. Editors putting their own take on his religion in the article through general sources not about him is a clear violation of WP:NOR, and again is unacceptable per WP:BLP. CT Cooper · talk 12:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
someone is misusing terms here. that is a fact. whether it be you or cenk, its not me. the article says "was muslim BUT now agnostic", as if its impossible to be agnostic and a muslim, almost as if the author didnt know what agnostic means. cenk was and no longer is a muslim, sourced fact. cenk bashes organised religion (especially the abrahamics), sourced fact. cenk claims to be agnostic, sourced fact. unless cenk is some obscure kind of agnostic pantheist, he is an atheist.
i remember an excerpt from TYT from a few months back when cenk said explicitly "now, im an atheist". is that a valid source? because im going to look for it. Volound (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Your putting multiple sources together to reach a conclusion, which is original research, see WP:SYNTHESIS. If there is a video in which he states he is an atheist and it is clear and unambiguous, then it may be acceptable. If sources conflict then the context of the conflict would need to be made clear. For example, "he is an agnostic (source 1) atheist (source 2)" would again be synthesis and would not be correct. It would have to be presented along the lines of "he stated at X he was an agnostic (source 1), but said later at Y he was now an atheist (source 2)." CT Cooper · talk 15:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)