User talk:Gracesyl

Welcome!

Hello, Gracesyl, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright/plagiarism

Hello, I received a notification that you had closely paraphrased from content that had previously been published elsewhere to your article. This is seen as a copyright issue and plagiarism, even if you were to include the original source as a citation. Always be careful when writing article content - a good way to avoid doing this is to take notes while reading and write your article from those notes.

Unless the material is explicitly marked as falling into the public domain or was released under a compatible Creative Commons license, it should be assumed that the content is copyrighted in a way that would prohibit it from being used verbatim elsewhere. It's always best to write things in your own words, as this can help prevent issues like this from arising. I would like for you to review the module on plagiarism and copyright, thanks. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Response

Hi! I wanted to respond on your talk page. You did mark some of the content with quotation marks, however there was much of it that was so closely paraphrased that it also posed an issue.

Here is the original content:

The Church can be sanguine about the autonomy of science (and technology) because what is truly scientific “does not override moral laws” and “can never conflict with the faith,” because both faith and reason “derive from the same God.” In this regard, the Church does not create any barriers to truth. The Church’s rejection of illicit ways of pursuing knowledge should not be confused with impeding the search for truth itself.

Here's what you added:

The Church can be optimistic about the autonomy of science and advance technology because true science “does not override moral laws” and “can never conflict with the faith,” because both faith and reason “derive from the same God.” With this stance, the Church does not create any barriers to truth of science and technology. However, the Church’s rejection of illicit ways of pursuing knowledge should not be confused with impeding the search for truth itself.

This takes some portions verbatim and the material that is different is just closely paraphrased by changing or adding one or two words. I've italicized what was directly taken.

Now I do want to caution you on one part - if you were to use the entire original content as a quote that would potentially pose some issues as far as fair use goes. There would need to be context for the quote to be added, as well as something to help show that the quote is major enough to be added - that is, that rephrasing it in our own words would be detrimental to the article. For this what I would recommend is to take notes on the main parts of the material, which are as follows:

• The Church believes that science and technology doesn't clash with the Church's belief system.
• This is because they believe that the drive for truth and creation comes from the same God that created their faith.
• However while the Church is fine with people seeking out new information and knowledge, it does not condone any attempts that use methods deemed immoral.
• Essentially, they're not anti-science and technology, they just don't want it to come about via methods that they see as going against nature and moral laws.

You can then use these notes to write out content from, since the notes shouldn't be taken verbatim. Definitely feel free to use my notes! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft response

Hi! I saw your message on my talk page. I took at look at your sandbox. Offhand the section needs more sourcing before it can be moved live. One of the two sources is WikiQuote, which can't be used as a source at all. The reason for this is that anyone can edit and add content, so the site doesn't have the editorial oversight needed to be seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia.

It's also written as original research, meaning that it's your own interpretation or response to the topic. Keep in mind that we can only summarize what has been explicitly stated in reliable sources as opposed to creating new work that's based on sourcing that doesn't actually make the claims. I did some quick searching through JSTOR and the following looks like they could be useful reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. There were some others things that came up here. Something to keep in mind though, is that you should make sure that the content you're adding isn't already in the article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Response 2

Hi! I saw that you moved your work live, so I reviewed what was live. As far as the science and church article goes, generally the work is good - my only notes would be that some of the material is still unsourced and that some of the material needed to be edited to remove point of view statements like "it is important". I did remove the Galileo quote since that was cited to Wikiquote and was followed up by a reflective-type statement. It would need an independent source to show that the quote makes the claims that were in the article.

With the other article, the content is good - I made some tweaks for style but by large the edits here are well done. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)