User talk:El kukulkano

Welcome!

Hello, El kukulkano!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Cassiopeia talk 03:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Paradox of tolerance, 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. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is appreciated, but needs explaining:

1. Your link to "reliable sources" makes no mention of original research being not allowed or reliable.

2 I sourced a book, and an article Politico none other deemed reliable enough to run. Which exactly of my 3 sources are you contesting? It cannot be all 3.

3. Your articles are always giving opinion using sourced material as stepping stones, they never just copy/paste them without opining.

If you care to elabotmrate, I will care to resubmit. El kukulkano (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

we have some very specific policies on Wikipedia around sourcing, which you can find at WP:RS.

Further, as linked above, we also do not allow original research, such as appears here in this case between your initial unsourced and then the second where you added source retroactively to fit the text you already wrote.

Specifically about the 3 sources you added, the first appears to be some blog, the second stackexchange, which both are not generally reliable sources per the above linked policy.

The 3rd source you added - politico, is generally a reliable source, but in this case, the article you linked does not discuss the Paradox of intolerance, which is the topic of the article you were editing and as such, this is likely synthesis of material which again, runs counter to our no original research policy. Raladic (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the first part, and first 2 sources are the issue.

The third one is, apparently, good enough then, and in my view it does speak to the paradox, just not in the way the rest of the article does (and thus why I wanted to include that left out side to it): one side claims to be the tolerant one yet in practice is just as intolerant as the other one (as the article demonstrates with ample sources), thus revealing the paradox an excuse used by the intolerant (masquerading as tolerant) to justify their own intolerance (read the whole article and tell me that is not true).

Would such section be OK by your policy? 2806:103E:19:6732:63A7:E56:ED08:D280 (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is mine, I just couldn't remember by pwd on my workstation where I posted it... El kukulkano (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I already pointed out above, we don't allow synthesis of material, so since the 3rd source does not discuss the paradox of intolerance, your inference would be original research and linking the two would not be proper. The linked policy has clear examples of this. Raladic (talk) 04:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what about the obvious requirement of the paradox that there is a "tolerant" side to begin with?

That research proves there really isn't.

The section could be named "Requirements of the paradox" being there is such a "tolerant" side yet the section detailing the prevalence on intolerance across all groups, and let the conclussion on that open ended. El kukulkano (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]