Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Spam Issue

to whom it may concern

i have a site which is currently on your blacklist i have became aware of my it department who tried several times to add pages to the wiki was having a difficult time determining what pages he was added if it was spam or not. we condone spam and i assure u we will avaoid positing any further company url links to ur site. please whitelist the domain it is doing my company harm as when people search for us in the search engines its showing ur comments of spamming.

the site is www.cruisedealership.com

Best Regards, Thomas DeSimone Owner CruiseDealership

Please see the detailed chronology of this matter at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Unlist request of cruisedealership.com. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Map/primary source debate for Circumcision article

There is a discussion at Talk:Circumcision about the possible inclusion of a sentence describing the prevalence of circumcision in Eurasia. The sentence in question uses a World Health Organisation map showing prevalence of circumcision by country and religion data from Islam by country. The resulting sentence is: "Excluding majority Muslim countries and Israel, prevalence in Latin America[5] and Eurasia[1] is generally less than 20%[6] with the notable exceptions of..." One point of view is that this constitutes original synthesis, that this map is essentially a primary source as defined by Wikipedia, which we should not attempt to analyse, and that we should instead cite verifiable, albeit less concise interpretations from published sources instead. Another point of view is that: 1) this map, whose origin was from a larger document, is a secondary not primary source, being itself a synthesis of a large number of individual studies; 2) the sentence in question is therefore a prose rendering of secondary source information that happens to be presented in graphical form; and 3) is acceptable because there is no dispute about the accuracy of the sentence and that to the extent it may formally transgress WP:SYN this would be permissable under WP:IAR. Johncoz (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone involved in the discussion (and who worked with Johncoz to prepare the above summary), I thought I'd further explain some of the issues here.
  • To clarify, there are two distinct issues:
    • The first issue is Synthesis. The question here is whether one can take data from a) the colour-coded map, and b) Wikipedia's article Islam by country, and from both create c) an assertion about the prevalence of circumcision that divides a continent into majority Muslim countries and non-majority Muslim countries. (I commented here on the difficulty in verifying this statement, and Johncoz kindly responded here, including a link to a table which he created. My concern is that we can't cite this table, since it is not published in a reliable source, and I feel very uncomfortable about bypassing the principle of verifiability.)
    • The second issue is presented as Primary vs secondary source, but would perhaps be better stated as "data" source vs "interpretation" source. In effect, the question here is at what point does a descriptive summary of a colour-coded map become interpretation or analysis? As with the synthesis issue, there are some differences of opinion here, and it would be helpful to get some more opinions.
  • Since it may be helpful to examine the text along with the sources, the sentence in question may be found in the first paragraph of "Prevalence of circumcision" here. Jakew (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
We have several problems here... first lets deal with the map... A map (or any other image) is a very poor source, and probably should not be used as a source at all. Maps and other images should illustrate what is in sources, not act as sources themselves. Since the map in question is based upon a larger document, why not cite that larger document instead? (I would assume that all the information depicted on the map is mentioned in the larger source).
Then we have to deal with using another wikipedia article as a source... One Wikipedia article is not considered a reliable source for another article (see WP:RS and WP:V).
Finally we have the syntesis issue... it is clearly OR. The statement needs to be cited to a reliable secondary source that draws the same conclusions as stated in the article. Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Blueboar, thank you for your response. Re the map, the larger document does summarise the map, but (apparently) the WHO decided to present detailed per-country estimates in the form of a colour-coded map rather than in a table or in prose. My belief is that we should treat it as we would a table. For example, if China is listed as <20%, we can state that, but we shouldn't interpret or try to generalise from the data as a whole. Do you think that's reasonable? Jakew (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I assume you misspoke... surely the map summarizes the larger document and not the other way around. If the document states that China has <20%, I see nothing wrong with saying that in an article... but cite the larger document and not the just map. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No, Jake did not misspeak – that's the problem. From the map, prevalence levels (they are in three bands), can be positively identified for 81 countries. The text only refers to about a dozen of these. The authors have synthesised many sources to deduce these prevalence levels but chose to present their results in graphical rather than textual or tabular format. Johncoz (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... that is strange. OK, I will take a step back here... If the map is published by the WHO, then it is not OR for us to bluntly state what is shown on the map. (note... I think there may be gounds for questioning whether the map is reliable... but that is a slightly different issue). Avoid any analysis or synthesis with other information such as the religion by country article. Blueboar (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The kind of synthesis is not permitted, per WP:SYNTH. If a map makes straightforward statements that are simply reproduced, that's one thing, but combining it in this complex way with other sources is original research. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In reply to Johncoz, I'd like to point out that while the text refers to relatively few countries, it does make a number of general statements which could be used. For example, the following is verifiable from the WHO's document: "The prevalence in low in Latin America. Circumcision is nearly universal in the Middle East and in Central Asia, but is generally low elsewhere in Asia. In Europe, circumcision is generally associated with religion or immigration." Jakew (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have some questions. Are the maps to be shown in the articles, in close proximity to the text? This would allow the reader see the data, provide backup in interpreting the sentence in question, and allow the reader to make his own decision, particularly if that reader can read a map (and specific reference is made to it). Is there any difference of opinion surrounding the sources of data used to make either of the maps, any areas of grey between the editors?
For the sake of transparency, I should also note that these views are from a retired map-type professional. I can read a map well and easily and consider maps, particularly in this case, the best avenue to present these facts.
If there are no disputes of the data on the maps, then there is no WP:SYN, since the presentation of data, be they words or graphics, is not trying to advance a particular position; they are only attempting to advance (state) the facts. An NPOV presentation of the facts with these two maps (individually) is relatively easy, since the two sets of facts (numbers and countries) speak for themselves if undisputed. Admittedly, there is some synthesis of data to get it into the map format, but this is not linked, blue SYN. I don’t think that this is in dispute.
The ‘prevalence’ map, imo is a secondary source and may be used because it is within a larger document and ‘nobody misspoke’, as noted above. The ‘Islamic map’ may be seen somewhat similarly, if the editors can agree that it has been sufficiently vetted with WP:V for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Another question of SYN, comes from the ‘overlay’ of these two maps (like the referenced table may have attempted to do in a different graphical way, but is (apparently) is not allowable). Again, this not a violation of SYN, since it only presents the facts (i.e. fact ‘a’ (country, number, variable ‘a’), plus fact ‘b’ (country, number, variable ‘b’), provides a data set that allows fact ‘c’ to become apparent. This is not advancing a position; it is advancing (presenting) the facts. Acceptance of this allows ‘the numbers to speak for themselves’, which is encyclopedic.
I believe the sentence in question is well stated based on the neutral facts, but also note an instance of non parallel construction. Assuming (I haven’t read the article) that the article includes Abrahamic religious references, it might be more neutral to restate the initial phrase as, ‘Excluding majority Jewish and Muslim countries….[as is]. This is based on the following facts a) Israel is the only Jewish majority country, b) it is placed in historical sequence, c) it tends to unify, not to divide and d) leaves it on religious, not political basis. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Casual Observer: As the author of the sentence in question, allow me to clarify several points.
  • There is no current dispute among editors about the accuracy of sentence as a reflection of the WHO data. There had been concerns earlier of possible errors, but the WHO map was translated into tabular form and reconciled with the religious demographics of all Eurasian countries for the purpose of eliminating the possibility of error.
  • The issue therefore boils down to whether the sentence violates WP:SYN by linking two independent data sets.
  • The section in question is part of a 200-word summary in the main Circumcision article of the sub-article Prevalence of circumcision.
  • Needless to say I concur with your analysis, but am the first to admit that the situation is far from straightforward.
Johncoz (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me summarise the problem, as I see it.
  1. The sources are a) a World Health Organisation map, and b) Islam by country. As Blueboar points out, the latter cannot be cited as a source, so if we consider the underlying sources we have a) the WHO map, and b) the (approx) 275 sources cited in Islam by country.
  2. From these (approx) 276 sources, we synthesise a table showing, per country, the prevalence of circumcision and the prevalence of Muslim religion. Hypothetically, we could propose to present this table as an article, and whether such an article would constitute WP:SYN is an interesting question itself. (Nobody has suggested that we do so.)
  3. We then analyse this table, stratifying by "Muslim > 50%", and make generalisations about each strata. No secondary source is cited for this interpretation.
  4. Nor can the reader verify the information from the table itself, because even if we presented it as an article, and even if we allowed ourselves to analyse the data in that table, we couldn't cite that article as a source.
To my mind, the question here is that if this doesn't violate WP:NOR and WP:V, what does? Jakew (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While WP:SYN is an admitted issue, I do not believe WP:V is. If a reader were to take a blank map of Eurasia and some coloured pencils and use the sentence (with its link to Islam by country) they would end up with an exact replica of the WHO map, and indeed could not end up with anything else, unless they made a mistake. The point of producing the table was to prove exactly that. (The fact the Islam table is constituted from 275 sources is irrelevant; the WHO document has 191.)

As for the main issue, the principal question, it seems to me, is does the sentence distort the information in either data set, either unintentionally or to advance a position? I would argue it does not - it exactly represents the prevalence in Eurasia as graphically presented by WHO in the map. Johncoz (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Johncoz, I'm not talking about verifying that the statement is true. I'm talking about Wikipedia's definition of verifiability: "that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Hence, to my mind, the fact that a table (or colouring pencils) is needed is itself evidence of non-verifiability.
The reason why I mention the number of sources is that although the WHO map is a published document, we cannot cite Wikipedia's Islam by country article. (This would be different if a reliable source had published a global overview of Islam by country.) Hypothetically, if one were to make such a statement, we would thus have to cite the sources cited in that article instead.
I would disagree that the issue is whether the sentence distorts the information. We don't - and shouldn't - make an exception for "correct" original research, since that would require us to determine whether OR is accurate or not. We don't have any processes in place for enabling that to occur. Instead, we do not include any original research, and instead summarise statements in reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jake, if you read back over my last contribution you will see that we are singing from the same hymn book on verifiability. I identified the question as, "does the sentence distort the information in either data set?" In other words, is it an accurate representation of the info in the source, not is it accurate in the sense of being "true". (As a matter of fact, I believe the WHO is in error in relation to a number of countries, such as Slovenia and Malaysia, but that's not the issue). The test is whether the sentence is an accurate portrayal of the source, not of the real world. The coloured pencils provide a verification of this verifiability, but are not required to understand the meaning of the sentence. Johncoz (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the meaning of the sentence is perfectly clear, Johncoz. The trouble lies in enabling the reader to verify it. I think that "verifiability" (in the Wikipedia sense) carries the expectation that a published source has performed the analysis, rather than that the reader could verify it by performing his own research. Put another way, verifiability means that you can verify something without performing OR (including SYN). Jakew (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Reflecting on this discussion it now seems unlikely that a consensus can be built in favour of the current construction. I will accordingly submit a redraft of the passage to Talk:Circumcision. For the purposes of this noticeboard the matter can be considered resolved. Johncoz (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Weird question

Here's a question for you all that seems to have arisen in some discussions with other editors. Suppose I'm reading a book and the description of a fictional character says he's 6ft tall (or maybe it says he's "about 6ft tall"). Is it original research if (for some reason) I put in the article that this fictional character is (about) 1.82m tall? (Which is approximately correct for the conversion, it's really 1.8288m.) Or how about if this is not about a fictional character, but about a real person (and I have some reliable source that says he's 6ft tall, or whatever)? Yeah, I know it's an odd question, but situations like this have really started to come up and it's claimed to be synthesis to do this. (Obviously it would be synthesis if you translated something like "he's 15 'hands' tall" into "he's 6ft tall" if there's no real-world equivalent of 'hand' and some unit of length given in the book.) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unit conversion and other, simple mathematical operations are not original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was certainly my conclusion too, but your mileage may vary.  ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To me, this sort of things seems no different than discretion over word choice or sentence structure. If a source claims that John gave X to Bob, can I say that Bob received X from John? Calling unit conversions original research is rediculous in almost all cases, with possibly a rare exception where the original unit is unusually ambiguous. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not original research, but it's a dilemma, because "about 6 feet" is not the same thing as "about 1.82 meters". The former is a round number, while the latter sounds like a fairly exacting measurement. Given that anyone who reads wikipedia is theoretically educated and would know what a "foot" is, even if they don't use that in measuring, I don't see what the need would be for making such an exacting conversion. Also, consider this, that "about 6 feet" is not just about pure measurement, it's a cultural subtlety about a man's stature. That subtlety is lost in the cold and clinical metric system. (Which is just one of many reasons we Americans don't care for the metric system, but that's another story.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you loose the cultural subtlety if you say "he was about 6 feet (1.82m) tall" Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
How about 'about 1.8m tall' rather than 1.82.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Or even "(just under 2m tall)"... we are giving an aproximation after all. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not so weird. It shouldn't be a problem with original research, because you're doing a simple conversion of units. Actually neither would "hands", which is a unit of measure for the height of horses. However, you do have a problem with significant figures, going from one to three like that. Lots of people who are only 1.75m tall round up to 6 feet, you know. But I agree with the cultural subtlety about 6 feet being in the high-middle range of height and for that reason the height should be kept in English units. That song Cherry Pie by Warrant just wouldn't be as interesting in the metric system. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Need Help w/ "No Specialist Knowledge"

I am new to the whole Wiki thing so please bear with me. I got here from Google a few weeks ago. I am a current airline pilot. I did a little editing at 2008_Hewa_Bora_Airways_crash and one of my edits was rejected. I read the policy, support the revert, and admit that I screwed up. From there I started following the links around in the Wikipedia policies and reading, and the OR policy confuses me. If I understand it properly, it says I am not allowed to post anything that does not come from a reliable mass-media source and would not be easily apparent to a person with no specialist knowledge if they read/saw that same source. This would indicate to me that the entirety of my editing is original research, since it draws upon my specialist knowledge as a pilot. For example, the average individual does not know what a thrust reverser is, so even though I can clearly see the deployed reversers in the video cited by the article, and I know that means the crew tried to abort above V1, the average person has no clue what V1 or thrust reversers are, so I can't talk about that since the video did not specifically point that out. This by extension means the whole comment on past-V1 aborting is unsourced, and I have to put back the original comment. Did I get that right? If so, I'll go revert myself out. I hate doing it because the original statement was just plain wrong, but the rules are the rules.

--98.214.105.54 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The main idea is that we're an encyclopedia, so we don't publish our own facts or opinions. However, I think that sometimes "original research" is overused in editing discussions, and sometimes the "original research" problem can be solved by phrasing something in a slightly different way. For instance, nobody would object if you were captioning a photograph of a cat and wrote the word "cat". For a thrust reverser, it might help if we had a page on thrust reversers and your caption "with thrust reverers deployed" wikilinked to it, then people could say "aha, that's what those are". While you cannot make the assertion, "because they had the thrust reversers deployed they must have been doing X", you can work on the page about thrust reversers to explain what they're used for, and interested persons can click through to it. Also if you see something that you think is false or unlikely, even if sourced, you can go to the talk page and suggest it be removed, or add qualifiers such as "the pop-culture magazine P said X". But please I would rather have more experts editing our pages, it just takes a little while to get used to the principles. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Also consider the fact that, as a pilot, you are quite likely to know which industry sources are reliable. See if any of these sources talk about the crash in question, and see if they mention the Thrust Reversers, V1, etc. Then you can add the information you want to add by citing it to reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Although you would not "have to put back the original comment" if it is also unsourced OR, as it is also not allowable. Better no statement on the crash from either perspective, than an OR comment which is also wrong. Faith (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Any major work will have to wait until I get back home and can get more reference material, but I think I should be able to clean up my mess here.

98.214.105.54 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Internal consistency of the Bible

Resolved. listed for AfD

I'm looking for clarification and opinions regarding the majority (or at least the "meat") of Internal consistency of the Bible. The article includes two very, very large tables which make the article bloated beyond the recommended size, and seem to consist of primarily OR and WP:SYN. I've been working for several days to remove the opinions and replace them with cited quotes or paraphrases, but I think there is an overall problem with OR and SYN. Most of the questions that existed on the charts (before my edits) were uncited, biased, and leading toward a desired reader response (WP:PEACOCK) bits of OR. The compiling of verses against other verses is still OR and SYN violating. I feel it makes them impossible to reconcile and retain because they are fundamentally flawed from the foundation, beyond reasonal editing because it's like changing the paint colour on a house with a crumbling foundation. Example: If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left. If a man wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well. (Matt 5:38) vs. Whoever strikes another man and kills him must be put to death... When anyone reviles his father and his mother, he must be put to death. Since he has reviled his father and his mother, let his blood be on his own head...But when injury ensues, you are to give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn... If anyone injures and disfigures a fellow-country man, it must be done to him as he has done... You must show no mercy... Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones (Exodus 21:12 23-25; Leviticus 20:9 24:19; Deuteronomy 19:21 and Psalm 137:9 ). Uncited, it is unverifiable, and the product of various verses in the second part is an uncited SYN, making it a WP:SYN violation as well as OR. --Faith (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The tables can now be found here for review, as I have been WP:BOLD and removed them for the reasons stated above. Faith (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
On first glance, the entire "Response" column has to go, as 1) It's an analysis of the relation/consistencies/inconsistencies between the other columns, 2) it's therefore Synthesis, and 3) it's not sourced to any independent, reliable source that would actually provide such an analysis. It can be verified that certain verses say certain things in certain translations, but what would the purpose of such a table be? I can see a section of prose stating something like "For example, the Sermon on the Mount is described in Matthew in a particular way, while the account found in Luke Verse such&such differs in several specific ways such as...[ref]" The critical element is that it's not an indiscriminate list, and it draws analysis from a reliable source able to provide such analysis. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree for unsourced responses, but not for sourced responses which specifically provide analysis for the verses highlighted in the question, e.g., John 5:31-33 v John 8:14 is specifically discussed by Scofield Reference Notes 1917 in relation to each other, or the examples on the first chart specifically addressed in the ref "Addition Does Not a Contradiction Make", so neither would be OR/SYN as they directly reference the verses. However, determination still has to be made whether the questions are OR/SYN (or if not, do they come from a WP:V and WP:RS?), and if they are OR/SYN, does that negate the chart before RS responses can even be taken into consideration (i.e., no response is needed if the question is considered invalid)? I believe they are OR/SYN, so I think we are looking at this from different angles, but in agreement in conclusion. I also agree "it's not an indiscriminate list" applies here as well. Faith (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I find these tables extremely confusing. It is very unclear who is posing questions, and who is responding. My impression is that this is not only OR (in many cases it seems to be Wikipedians' analysis of the primary sources) but very non-NPOV treatment of criticism of the Christian Bible (presented as "questions" along with primary source material), and "answers" from a Christian perspective. If some sources criticise perceived inconsistencies and other sources reply to these criticisms, then a table may be a reasonable way to present these viewpoints, but the analysis (criticism/response) must be attributable to a secondary source. Jakew (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm puzzled with a situation in which a site such as http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20020224.htm is ok, but a secular humanist site has been removed simply because it is secular humanist and FaithF doesn't think secular humanists can be a reliable source for Biblical scholarship if I understand the edit summary made when it was removed.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you are implying I think "http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20020224.htm" is an acceptable source? How did you reach that determination? Did I add the citation? No. Have I edited the section it is located in at all yet? I don't believe I have. If the article wasn't such a complete piece of crap full of policy violations, perhaps its cleanup would be an easier job, where all the garbage could be wiped out in a single pass. As it stands, I'm attempting to work from where I felt the worst examples of policy violation were located, removing uncited material & OR/SYN, then will move toward the smaller violations such as single examples of poor citations. I began with the charts, which are a complete mess (and had the secular source you mention), and also edited the introduction somewhat as it is the beginning of the article presenting the face of the discussion. I was trying to determine, firstly, if there were any redeeming qualities to the article to indicate its retention as a stand-alone article, or if after the garbage was removed, the article would wind up simply being a clearing house of bits from other articles. If you will note, I removed all manner of unsourced "Christian responses" from the charts with the same sharp knife as unsourced "Critics responses", then ultimately the charts themselves for the reasons listed (and now supported by others). A violation is a violation regardless of which side of the fence it sits. I don't like the lookinguntojesus.net ref either, but I have simply not gotten to that section yet. Perhaps, instead of slashing it about, you could have simply removed it if you feel so strongly about it, saving me the effort and aggravation. As for the "secular humanist site", don't attribute something to me I didn't say. My opinions on the matter can be found Talk:Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Is_Cline_really_a_reliable_source.3F where I discuss that particular source, asking if a secular humanist with no formal training in Theology can be a reliable source of Biblical scholarship. IMO, that source is a spam farm, no better than the Internet lists full of error and lacking any sort of fact checking or peer review that can be found in scholarly resources. YMMV. If you will note, my citations are coming from Wesley, Bible commentaries, etc., and if related to a specific denomination, from the official websites. Faith (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Doug was highlighting the fact that the lookingtojesus source was judged using different criteria than the secular humanist source, and not that anyone did or did not advocate its inclusion in the article. A source is reliable and independent, or it is not - we don't get to pick and choose, which is - I hope - the point that Doug was making, though that speaks more to NPOV than OR. Faith, please calm down - we're all on the same team, here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not a case of "calm down". Since I was named directly, I had the right to point out the error. Doug was not "highlighting the fact", because there was no fact to highlight; he was mistaken & I explained why he was mistaken. My subsequent removal of the source, after it was pointed out, should enforce that point. Faith (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I know you'd removed a lot of OR 'Christian responses', but I thought, wrongly and probably carelessly you had gotten to that section. If I hadn't been guilty about taking too long a break from mowing the lawn I probably would have removed the ref you think I should have removed. But, what you wrote in your edit summary was "fix ref; is a secular humanist a reliable source of Biblical scholarship?" which did not look like a question about a specific site or person to me but a general query on a point of principle, which I think it is and to which I responded. And again in general, I do not believe you need formal training in theology to be a reliable source of Biblical scholarship.
One big gap still is that it gives the impression that there is no such thing as an 'errant Christian'. Which of course is not true. But I'm glad you've gotten rid of a lot of the chaff.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
My point was not that you should have removed it exactly, but that it would have been better to remove it rather than jumping to a conclusion of why I hadn't done so (and that it would have taken less time to remove it than to complain about it here.) As I said, it's just something I hadn't gotten to yet because there were more important things, IMO, to edit first. I have yet to attack many of the smaller sections in the middle, simply adding 'citation needed' tags in the hope someone else will get to them first. That edit summary was constrained by space, and admittedly not worded to my best point, but my full point was made at nearly the same time in Talk. Faith (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the questions, let me ask this - who asked them? If we did, then we can't include them. But I have to believe that any independent and reliable source that does analyze the differences between verses and versions would describe the question that source answers, and the source could be used to cite the difference. The format here is misleading; instead of a question-answer format, it might be more prudent to move to prose. I'm envisioning something like a paragraph for each such discrepancy, such as "Biblical Scholar John Q. Example notes discrepancies between accounts of the Sermon on the Mount. the event is described in one gospel thus, and in a second gospel in these different ways. Dr. Example notes that, given known historical facts about the Roman Empire at the time, that the account in the second gospel is more consistant with known history. [ref]" and so on. The "questions" and "answers" both come from the same source. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Who knows who asked them? They are unsourced for the most part, unverifiable because they lack the citations (never mind misleading, out-of-context and full of errors). Despite what you "envision", we have to first deal with what is present, which do NOT in any stretch of the imagination meet the "independent and reliable source that does analyze the differences between verses and versions would describe the question that source answers, and the source could be used to cite the difference" criteria you outlined above. Faith (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That was sort of my point; if there isn't a source attached, they should probably be removed. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I'll wait for just a few more days, and if there isn't major bitching here or on the article talk page, I'll recommend the list page for deletion. Faith (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)