User talk:Bunofsteel

Welcome
Hello, Bunofsteel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Original research
Please read WP:NOR. Although your efforts are appreciated and I hope you will stay and assist in the development of Wikipedia articles, your contributions on two articles have been removed by another editor and myself because they are original research. Read the links you've been given and you'll understand why. It's happened to all of us, including me. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James son of Alphaeus Biblical Criticism


The article James son of Alphaeus Biblical Criticism has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Personal essay, original research, no sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sparthorse (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on m,y talk page. Unfortunately the addition to [James son of Alphaeus]] is still original research. The problem is its your interpretation of the story of James. If you were citing a published authority's research, you could include this material, but since it is your own it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please do read the linked article on original research, as this lays out the rules and rationale in greater detail. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Original research, again
Hi, please read our policy on original research. In particular the section on Synthesis. Let me quote the relevant passage: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Your addition is a classic example of synthesizing an argument by quoting a set of (in this case primary) sources. You are not allowed to include original research in Wikipedia articles, you can only include properly sourced research that has been published elsewhere in reliable sources. If you can cite such a source for the specific argument you are making, you can include it in the article. Otherwise, you cannot. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not "yanking your chain" the essence of synthesis is you take opinions from multiple places and combine them to make an argument that the original source does not make. That is exactly what you are doing. The fact that you have synthesized an argument from multiple quotations of a single source is irrelevant. You need a third party, reliable source that makes the complete argument. You cannot include an argument that you have constructed from multiple places even if those places are within a single source. Sparthorse (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at James, son of Alphaeus, you may be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to be specific about the no original research. Which statement/s constitute original research. The synthesis argument doesn't fly because I used one resource to in my article on Gospel of Mark. I did however, use more for Matthew but the only synthesis I did was to say that the calling of Matthew and calling of Levi are the same story as implied by my good news bible. I didn't imply that they are the same person. The article on the possible brother of Jesus is a example of synthesis. Highlighting elements of a story is not original research. If you disagree with various sentences I would like to know and then we can have a constructive conversation. Also it is unhelpful to threaten to block me. The idea is consensus and you will have notice that although I disagree with a number of aspects of the entire article I haven't deleted them. The only thing that I have deleted so far was to say that it was James son of Alphaeus who was killed in Acts 12:1-2 when it was clearly James son of Zebedee. I wish you would show me the same respect. Bunofsteel (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a standard template and I think it is important for editors to know that they may be blocked for original research. No original research is basic policy and consensus can't override it. I think you are trying to be constructive and have taken this to our NOR notice board for discussion. See WP:NORN where I've made some detailed points and asked you to provide quotes from Robert Eisenman and the Catholic Encyclopedia. You might note that when you cite a book you need to give a page number (normally, there are some exceptions when the entire book covers what is being sourced). Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)