User talk:KyndFellow

Request for Comment: Sex tourism

As an editor involved in this dispute, you are invited to enter a statement in the RfC under Talk:Sex_tourism. — edgarde 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding original research.

In answer to your question, yes, participant observation is original research. The exception is if that participants' observations have been published in a reputable source. Additionally, I'll two sections of the wikipedia:no original research policy. First, "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." I think you may be making this mistake, which is indeed a common one, in the Sex tourism dispute. The second is "An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

• It introduces a theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."

If people think you're doing one of those, the original research charge gets leveled. The Literate Engineer 17:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to get started on publishing your original research, Academic Publishing Wiki might be a good place. There's even a peer-review process. — edgarde 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Advocate

Hi, I'm Fred-Chess and I'll be your advocate for Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/KyndFellow. I'll read through the discussions and get back to you. / Fred-Chess 09:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've skimmed through the discussion Sex tourism. I think I have been able to figure out what the discussion is about -- that's a good first step....

I think edgarde has been acting commendable in his discussions, calm and sensible, and he has worked with best intentions.

I think you will find it problematic to add a link to Sly Traveler on article Sex tourism. External links is like less is more. See Wikipedia:External links , second paragraph: "External links should be used sparingly and kept to a minimum.". In practice this may mean two-three maybe four external links.

Fred-Chess 09:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)