User talk:Sandegud

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sandegud, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! E8 (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religiosity and R&D Spending Plot

Greetings Sandegud,

I deleted your addition plot on the religion and science page because it was original research WP:Original research which is prohibited in Wikipedia. All 3 sources you used also do not make the point you put on the caption. In wikipedia, you must find verifiable and reliable sources (WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable) that explicitly makes the claims you made in order to be allowed to be posted in Wikipedia.

There are issues with your assumptions on the captions too. There have been direct measures of religiosity and perceptions of science by countries before and they all show that countries with high religiosity have stronger faith in science and that countries with lower religiosity have less faith in science (Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart (2011). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (2nd ed.) Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–68.). Also "Among Wealthy Nations U.S. Stands Alone in Its Embrace of Religion". Pew Research Center. 2002. notes that many wealthy countries tend to have low religiosity as does Norris and Inglehart 2011 and that high religiosity is found among countries with less wealth. Trends like this can easily explain your plot in that wealthy countries tend to have more revenues which can be spent on R&D than less wealthy countries.

R&D is a luxury not a necessity. Poorer countries tend to use their revenues on creating stable economies, industries, and reducing poverty, not on R&D. Though according to UNESCO 2010 many developing countries are spending much more on R&D than before. Other relevant studies on science perceptions can be found in The Culture of science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge. 2011. One of the research articles, "Religious Belief and Attitudes about Science in the United States" by Keeter, Scott; Smith, Gregory; Masci, David may be of interest as it shows that American are very religious and that they have more favorable attitudes towards science than Europe, Russia, and Japan (all of which have much lower religiosity). Other articles in the collection talk about issues in using economic dimensions to measure perceptions of science.--Ramos1990 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ramos1990

First, do not stalk me. I don't think you subscribed to the Russian version of the article before I added this image.

Second, it is not an original research, its only an outcome of Routine calculations.

Third, I don't make ANY claims or assumptions. Sandegud (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Sandegud, I am not stalking you as you do not have much on record here in the English Wikipedia, but I do see the image page which does show which pages the image is used on.

Sorry, but the image you have is NOT "routine calculations" which is involves just basic arithmetic. WP:CALC says "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." The image description you made says "Importance of religion and research and development (R&D) spending (% of GDP PPP). Incut - individual countries, main diagram - median value in each category. Sources of data: Importance of religion ( Gallup Poll 2009), R&D spending1, R&D spending2 Importance of religion - percent who say that religion is an important part of their daily lives." Median is statistics, not basic arithmetic, and is used in statistical analysis. Also, This is not just compiling of information since on the caption you wrote : "An example of a scientific argument in favor of the idea of conflict: religiosity is negatively correlated with financial support of science". Thinking R&D funding reflects a country's view of science is indeed an assumption and a claim. Its also false, R&D spending itself is not a good measure on support of science support since only governments and companies, which are an extremely small sectors of any society, are not representative of the views of the majorities of the people, not even their employees. Its a long shot to link R&D spending to reflecting level of support for science for any nation. Correlation does not equate to causation necessarily. Another assumption and claim is that you interpret this as being a "scientific argument in favor of the idea of conflict". Says who? None of the 3 sources says any of this!

Your addition does not meet the criteria for "routine calculations". These calculations are not "obvious", nor do they reflect sources as none of them argue the point you claimed in the caption, and no citation is provided for the graph or caption. What you have is clearly WP:OR. No source was cited that even contained this plot. Therefore, you cannot use this plot or caption unless you have a source that specifically says and uses this plot. You cannot go beyond what the sources say and you cannot provide your own analysis on Wikipedia. I mean no harm. I just want you to follow wikipedia protocol. Just provide sources and say what they say. Please do not extrapolate beyond what the sources claim.

For your information, a more appropriate plot which is sourced by academic researchers, and actually contradicts your caption conclusion, can be found in [1] as Figure 3.3 from Norris and Inglehart's book. The source actually says "What we can do is to rule out the Weberian argument, discussed in Chapter 1, that belief in science and technology has undermined faith in the magical and metaphysical. If the adoption of a rational worldview had played this role then we might expect that those societies with the most positive attitudes towards science would also prove the most skeptical when it came to religious beliefs. Instead, as clearly shown in Figure 3.3, societies with greater faith in science also often have stronger religious beliefs. Far from a negative relationship, as we might expect from Weberian theory, in fact there is a positive one. The public in many Muslim societies apparently see no apparent contradictions between believing that scientific advances hold great promise for human progress and that they have faith in common tenants of spiritual beliefs, such as the existence of heaven and hell. Indeed the more secular postindustrial societies, exemplified by the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark, prove most skeptical towards the impact of science and technology, and this is in accordance with the countries where there have been the strongest public disquiet expressed about certain contemporary scientific developments such as the use of genetically modified food, biotechnological cloning and nuclear power. Interestingly, again the United States displays distinctive attitudes compared with similar European nations, showing greater faith in both God and scientific progress." Their data was pooled from 20 years of World Value Survey which makes their conclusions more reliable on this issue. Other academic sources, that study science perceptions of the public, mentioned before (The Culture of Science) also contradict your caption summary in many of the academic articles found there. Secular Europe been decreasing in pro-science attitudes overall. --Ramos1990 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yandex Zen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Forum, Desktop and Android. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected! --Sandegud (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Yandex Launcher

added links pointing to Theme, Feed, MTS, Content, Android and Bing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested for a Talk page discussion

There is a discussion going on re improving the bitcoin article, and how the blockchain ought to be referred to with respect to bitcoin, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bitcoin#Bitcoin_is_not_the_blockchain.3B_it_is_a_blockchain

As a previous commenter on that Talk page, would invite you to consider weighing in on this conversation so that we might see if a consensus is possible. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sandegud. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]