User talk:Rmrarchiver

February 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to John Fogerty, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources.   Elizium23 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't edit-war with someone who is trying to improve your edits. You cannot use amazon.com as a source. You cannot say things which are not found in a WP:PRIMARY source, such as "pantheism". You cannot delete maintenance templates such as the one I used to request a non-primary source. Elizium23 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Elizium! Thanks for contacting me!

First, I did not mean to "edit-war" with anyone. I am new to Wikipedia editing, and upon checking the page in question this morning, I noticed that edits which I had made previously had been re-edited and flagged for source notation. Because I believed I had followed Wikipedia's guidelines generating the content, this re-editing and flagging made no sense to me and also seemed to strip the article of relevant information on the subject. So, I re-phrased and re-sourced the original information in a way that I thought might be more acceptable.

Upon receiving your notes, I must say I disagree with your reasoning for editing the content. No original research was involved. As defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe." The Encyclopedia Brittanica defines the term as, "the doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and laws that are manifested in the existing universe," adding, "The cognate doctrine of panentheism asserts that God includes the universe as a part though not the whole of his being." Based on these definitions, I believe a fair description of Fogerty's views as espoused in his autobiography is "more pantheistic," or perhaps "more panentheistic," than his Catholic background, and do not believe using the adjectives to describe those beliefs in an Encyclopedia entry is outside the realm of reason or a violation of Wikipedia's original research guidelines.

Regarding source, the quote was directly from Fogerty's autobiography, which I cited both in the original edit and re-edit. I do not understand your reference to "amazon.com," unless you are merely using that as an example of an invalid source, because, to my knowledge, I never, nor would have, used such a source, unless by accident. If I did, however, I apologize.

I also do not understand how Fogerty's own words from his autobiography are considered an invalid source. If this is the case, I would think the source should be flagged in every instance it is used, for it is used considerably throughout the page in question. According to Wikipedia's own primary source guidelines for an article about a person: "The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements." Therefore, quoting a passage from Fogerty's autobiography which details his views on the nature of God, coupled with a clear citation, should be acceptable. As far as deleting the maintenance template, I was under the impression that I could delete it once the offending issue had been addressed. As I thought I had addressed the offending issue, I saw no reason to allow the the template remain. If I were in error in my assertion, I apologize.

I stand by my belief in the validity of my original edit but will refrain from editing the page further until I receive a reply. Thanks! Rmrarchiver (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)