Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Wikipedia is fundamentally built on research that has been collected and organized from reliable sources, as described in content policies such as this one. If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a ...
The issue with our list here as you said, it multifold. Perhaps the no original research board is the wrong place to discuss this, The problem with making the lists rules more "strict" for weight can be expanded on similarly as this article does for film. They note that best-of lists, with various rules applied to them "negate the function of ...
If there is no published information that discusses a topic, then Wikipedia is not the place to discuss that topic. If an article does not have reliable sources, the information in the article is non-verifiable. Because verifiability is a non-negotiable requirement for an article, an article lacking reliable sources should be deleted.
[d] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. [e] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences ...
The definition of original research in the policy is: material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.. This definition is clarified in a footnote: By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no ...
Still a lack of references. «Labour power … is a key concept used by Karl Marx…». Marxism demands new developments in a changing world, based on Marxist concepts. But Wikipedia in not the place for personal research (Wikipedia:No original research). The parts about the theory of Marx himself need more references.
The wikipedia article on Jinn mentions two scholars who say this (ibn Taymiyya and ibn Hazm), and I want to add two more (Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen). Ok, I'll weigh in. Disclaimer: I know very little of the tenets of Islam. I have looked at Wikipedia:No original research, and have observed how it's applied.
The article makes no claims which are SYNTH, and this is now procedure for the sake of procedure. I was accused of SYNTH and OR for this Talk page post contains no OR or SYN, and is not even in the article for any such claim to be made. As the premise is faulty, this is not a "counter argument" of any kind or sort, and immediately follows the ...