Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 15

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

OR on the Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox theological differences article

Editor Esoglou took 5 different sources and cherry picked what they said to merge them together to make it appears as though they are opposed to the theology that some of them actually teach. 1.Diff [1]

1. John Dresko

Fr. John Dresko

2. Church Holy Cross paper on asceticism

Orthodox Asceticism)

3. Metropolitian Alfeyev

"^[1]

4. Church website in England.

ROCOR Diocese of Great Britain and Ireland

5. Aristotle Papanikolaou

Please note none of these sources say what the editor is attributing to them. None of these sources specifically say the Orthodox teaching on hell is that Hell is separation from God. The last source actually when speaking directly to that question states what is considered the Orthodox position (which is Hell and Heaven are the condition of a person in the presences of God).

Regarding specific conditions of after-life existence and eschatology, Orthodox thinkers are generally reticent; yet two basic shared teachings can be singled out. First, they widely hold that immediately following a human being's physical death, his or her surviving spiritual dimension experiences a foretaste of either heaven or hell. (Those theological symbols, heaven and hell, are not crudely understood as spatial destinations but rather refer to the experience of God's presence according to two different modes.) Thinking Through Faith: New Perspectives from Orthodox Christian Scholars page 195 By Aristotle Papanikolaou, Elizabeth H. Prodromou [2] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When are graphs and tables OR?

This issue keeps cropping up over in the edit war-zone of I/P articles and I wanted another opinion on the issue. When are editor made graphs and tables not OR? The example in question is here. There's no direct link to these figures compiled in the same manner by an outside source. It appears to be the work of an editor who has culled information from separate sources to create the table. The problem is compounded by some sources not giving straight numbers but instead a list of incidents, some that would be included in the table and others that would not.

So, NOR/N wizards, when can editors make graphs and tables of existing information? Does it violate Synthesis if it comes from multiple sources but not if from a single source? Or is it straight up OR to rearrange statistics/data in any manner not done by an outside source? Many thanks, Sol (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What is being discussed is a list or table (not a graph). Ask yourself this... if the same information were to be presented in sentence/paragraph structure (with the same citations) would it be acceptable, or would it form a synthesis? Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit I'm not great at synthesis detection but that's part of why I'm unsure about original tables/graphs etc. They function as a sort of primary source but one that's been filtered and arranged by an unknown factor, obviating commentary from secondary sources that might put it in perspective and inviting the reader to accept any embedded conclusions as their personal judgment on the facts. Arranging data in a novel manner sounds ok at first, just like arranging facts to make an encyclopedia, but it's more akin to selectively quoting a person, potentially using their words to say what you want. You can't recombine multiple sources to make up a quote and claim good faith; if you can't find a quote matching what you've put in the article then it shouldn't be there. It's a subtle manipulation that avoids the usual editorial oversights. I can't tell you if it would be synthesis in text form, I don't know what supporting information the author would have used to put it in context. I know when I see the current table my conclusion is immediate: Palestinians do a lot of bad things and are threatening. I'll respond for you by recombining existing data "What is being discussed in this paragraph is not acceptable as it is a form of synthesis." ;) Pardon the cheekiness but I felt the need to blow off some seriousness. Sol (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The particular table indicated certainly looks like synthesis to me. There is no guarantee the data from the different sources is compatible and there is no reason to suppose it is in any way exhaustive. The table implies the figures are disjunctive and exhaustive but are 'rocket attacks' and 'border attacks' really separate? Are suicides and hijackings separate? The table should be removed and the items treated separately to remove the implication of compatibility between the numbers. Dmcq (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Original Research by editor Esoglou on the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences article.

Talk:Roman_Catholic–Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences#Intervention_by_Andrew_Lancaster The Editor Esoglou is attempting to force into the above article the idea that there is agreement between the two theologies of the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church based not on Roman Catholic official sources and directly against Eastern Orthodox representatives, sources. The editor Esoglou continually does not like what sources (Orthodox theologians) have said about the differences between the churches and continues to wiki hound and edit war and go against consensus in order to deny or discredit or under mine what the sources posted in the article say. Please look at the Talk:Roman_Catholic–Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences#Orthodox_Church_of_America section for example.

The Editor Esoglou is doing this not by posting Roman Catholic sources or any sources information but by creating counter sources in misrepresenting Orthodox sources. Also Esoglou is wiki hounding by misusing source tagging requests and also not listening to corrects pointed out to by editors to the article other than just me. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I find curious the claim that I am trying in the [[section mentioned to argue for identity of views between RCC and EOC, when I am only discussing different EOC views on the basis of EOC sources exclusively, and it is the complainant who wants the discussion to be about RCC-EOC relations and with RCC citations. Esoglou (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing you posted has anything to do with your created apologies for the Roman Catholic church from synthesising other peoples work and there by putting words into their mouths that they do not say and that you admit you can not find them saying. Thats on the talkpage to the article in question. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Judaization of Jerusalem

There is a dispute as to whether or not certain material is synthesis at the article Judaization of Jerusalem. The material in question is in this diff. AMuseo argues that it is "inappropriate" to have an article on Judaization efforts by the Israeli government and not include what he feels is important material related to religious freedom. Two users, Tiamut and myself, argue that sources must relate that material to the topic of the article. Is it OR to include material that sources do not relate to the topic of the article? nableezy - 15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it uses a term "Judaization" that has both religious and ethnic implications. The editiors then define the article to exclude the religious implications of the term. it seems misleading to call an article Judazaiton and then excluse information on the religious rights of Christians and Muslims under Israeli rule. The editors have resisted attempts on the talk page to change the title to something that would have exclusively ethno-national )but not religious) implications. But, with the title as it stands, it does seem to OR to argue that no information on the rights of religious minorities may be included.AMuseo (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Demographics of Lebanon

Resolved

Hi, I've been having a content dispute with Humaliwalay, who keeps inserting that 25-49% of Lebanon's population is Shi'a. Before their addition, the article stated that approximately 28% of Lebanon's population was Shi'a, cited to this 2008 State Department report, which states that "the most recent demographic study conducted by Statistics Lebanon, a Beirut-based research firm, showed 28 percent of the population is Sunni Muslim, 28 percent Shi'a Muslim, 22 percent Maronite Christian, 8 percent Greek Orthodox, 5 percent Druze, and 4 percent Greek Catholic." To support their addition, they cite this report by the Pew Research Center, which gives a range of "1-2 million" Shi'a in Lebanon. Humaliwalay is combining that range with Lebanon's total estimated population of only 4 million, to create the 25-49% figure. First, that seems like pure synthesis to me. Second, right below the chart that gives the 1-2 million range, the Pew report itself states that "The figures for Shias are generally given in a range because of the limitations of the secondary-source data... Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding." I view the information as synthesized, and I see no reason to include it, as it is less accurate and older than the State Department's estimates. Thoughts? ← George^talk 05:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is synthesis, they shouldn't be combining things that way to give the impression that someone actually reported such a figure. If they had actually taken the bother read the Pew report properly rather than just taking the figures rounded to a million they would have seen another reference to 45-55% of the muslim population being Shi'a which agrees much more closely with your figure, plus their figures are from a report of 2005 - why didn't they look that up?. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your feedback. ← George^talk 21:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Judaism and violence

Several editors have expressed concern that the entire article may be WP:SYTH violation. I invite others to look over it and make comments on it. Two ANI threads and a RFC have been the result of this dispute. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is SYNTH. Topical articles are difficult to write, and require sources that actually substantiate the topic being relevant. In this case it is not sources which mention Judaism in connection with violence, but sources which explicitly and specifically cover as their topic the reasons why Judaism causes violence and/or the reasons why Judaism restrains violence. Only one RS is present in the article which actually covers the topic of the article, "Reuven Firestone (2004), "Judaism on Violence and Reconciliation: An examination of key sources" in Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Fordham Univ Press, 2004". Blank and rewrite from Firestone (2004) and equivalent academic reliable sources which specifically deal with this topic as their topic. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with that analysis its also worth mentioning the ANI were due to claims of Tedious Editing and POV pushing of some one who claimed the article as being WP:SYTH. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This same argument has been presented in multiple venues, by some of the same editors, but that's not really relevant here. FWIW, I disagree that the article violates WP:SYNTH, as I see it as essentially a summary style article, and, more importantly, I do not see a conclusion being reached in the form of "A and B, therefore C", which is the essences of synthesis. It is a collection of subtopics with a common theme, but the subtopics I've looked over seem appropriately sourced. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It violates basic sourcing requirements. Wikipedia is not meant to write articles on topics that don't have a preexistence outside of Wikipedia. "Judaism and violence" is not found in any sources, hence it doesn't mean anything but what the three English words strung together might suggest. As a safeguard against the downside of editors pontificating about whatever they feel like pontificating about, Wikipedia has put in place a requirement for verification in the form of reliable sources. This is standard operating procedure at Wikipedia: if you wish to create an article, you must demonstrate that the topic of that article is found in sources. This is embodied in such policy language as, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it," found at WP:VERIFY. I find the same sentiment expressed at WP:RELIABLE: "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The proper place for such an argument is at AfD to be sure. Collect (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, discussion here should be limited to questions about issues of original research. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Um no what is tthis for discussing whether it is OR. I came here seeking outside opinion because this is where you come to get such thingsThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn wrote, "It is a collection of subtopics with a common theme, but the subtopics I've looked over seem appropriately sourced." I think we've found an essential editorial disagreement (regardless of content issues). Some editors believe that a collection of subtopics which relate to a common theme must have their relation to the theme established in an RS whose subject is the theme. To illustrate for article "A", subtopics b, c, and d must be related to A in a RS, the RS1 saying A(b, c, d), or RS1 saying A(b, d) RS2 saying A(c). For other editors a collection of subtopics may be inserted in a theme article, if the subtopics are perceived by editors to be relevant, and if an RS establishes the general topic as encyclopedia. To illustrate, for the second group of editors RS1(A) RS2(b) RS3 (c, d). These different opinions on SYNTH/OR appear to be a fundamental editorial difference, much like deletionism versus inclusionism. As I appear to be making this realisation for the first time, if someone wants to take this meta for an essay, I would like the positions to be called explicitism and implicitism on the SYNTH/OR issue. As an explicitist, I see the only RS that explicitly supports the topic to be Firestone (2004), and any sub-topic content not included in the topic by Firestone (2004) would be included on a SYNTH/OR basis. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

One approach is conservative. The other approach is liberal. One approach strengthens Wikipedia's core reliance on sources as a prerequisite to article-writing. The other approach loosens article-writing's tether to sources. One makes editors functionaries. The other glorifies editors as activists. One approach makes Wikipedia a reflection of what already exists outside of Wikipedia. The other approach allows Wikipedia to break new ground and "…advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Bus stop (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, yes, there's a fundamental difference, but it's not so clear cut as you are describing it, and I would suggest the core difference relates more to lumpers and splitters than anything else. But this discussion doesn't belong here. ResidentAnthropologist is after a narrow opinion regarding a particular article, I suggest we respect that. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(Bus stop): I would have agreed with your description of the two positions if you hadn't chosen to make that spurious political battleground analogy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(Saddhiyama): Do you mean my reference to conservative and liberal? I didn't intend that politically, I meant conservative and liberal Wiki-centrically. I should have been more clear about that. Bus stop (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

All the article does is provide a pseudo-academic veneer for an article about Jews behaving badly, while pointing out, like the person who says some of his best friends are Jews, that non-violence co-exists in Jewish tradition. TFD (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

All the article does is provide a veneer of sourcing. When the proponents of the article argue that it is well-sourced, they are referring to the sub-components having sources provided, and that may well be. But Judaism & violence is not a topic anchored in any source whatsoever—there is no source for the ostensible topic of the article. The article topic is just a few common English words strung together. And that undefined phrase is serving as an excuse for what in essence is a discussion forum masquerading as an article. Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces point is valid. there is scope on Wikipedia for specific topics, such as War in Jewish thought, or Capital punishment in Jewish law, Violence in the Bible, Jewish pacifism, and so forth. Specific, knowable topics. But to take a 3,000 year old tradition and link it with a enormous concept like violence can only be OR. it is just too big to make sense of.AMuseo (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree that these sort of huge, encompassing topics are just silly. Any time an article is linking two things, it should be clear (from the article and the sources supporting it) that there is a link (real or imagined) between the two subjects. These articles that just list examples of things that share two traits and hint at drawn relationships that reliable sources don't discuss are pure OR. ← George^talk 22:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian drive-by shooting

Resolved

I believe that the article Palestinian drive-by shooting is largely filled with improper synthesis of published material and have tagged the article and opened a section on the talk page to discuss it. The tag has been edit-warred out of the article but what I feel is synthesis remains. Could editors who understand the rules on synthesis please comment at Talk:Palestinian drive-by shooting#synthesis? Thank you, nableezy - 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the synthesis problems you were originally concerned with have been addressed, with the addition of numerous sources, some of them directly discussing the topic of Palestinian drive-by shooting as a topic, and the others highlighting notable instances of Palestinian drive-by shootings. As compared to the parent article, Drive-by shooting, this article is much better sourced and contains far less, if any, synthesis. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Heraldry

A question has come up here about the creation of a coat of arms which is then presented in an article as "the coat of arms" of the subject, how much artistic license is acceptable in that creation, and what might be regarded as original research. Since this is not a subject I'm at all familiar with, and so far I'm the only one talking to the editor who uploaded the coat of arms, I'd appreciate some comments on that thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Coats of arms are based on blazons, written descriptions of the arms, so there are wide variations in artistic interpretation even with the same blazon. A good example of this is the Royal Arms of the British monarchs, one artist interpreted the blazon here, while another artist came up with this here. So long as the requirements of the blazon are met, it is the coat of arms of the subject, and any drawing based on a written description is not original research. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have conceded that the main part of the drawing is a depiction of the written description, but the coat of arms as presented has three small shields at the bottom with images on them, which Xanderliptak describes as "allusions" to Roosevelt's life. The reference Xanderliptak has provided contains no indication that those "allusions" are part of the coat of arms, and he's been unable to provide a reference that does. He also has evaded answering my question about whether the "allusions" have any historical basis, or if they were added to the coat of arms by him. It is the allusions which seem to me to be potentially original research, as they do not appear to be supported by a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I think it would be best if discussion was centralized on the article talk page, since I also posted notices about the issue on WP:AN and on the Heraldry Project talk page. No particular reason to have three discussion when one will do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay I added my comment there. I think they should just use the bookplate, it is perfectly adequate without some editor here thinking they are better. Also adding bits to adorn designs in heraldry has come up before and it is synthesis, it is implyig something that is not in the source. It should not be done, the design should be be simple and not adorned in a misleading fashion. Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Is the lead for this article properly supported by the source or does it present an original interpretation? The source itself does not use the term "Communist/communist", let alone define or even refer to "Communist/communist terrorism". (The source itself is considered reliable.)

WP Article: "Communist terrorism, state and dissident, is terrorism committed by various movements that claimed adherence to the doctrines of Karl Marx, both during the revolutionary struggle and also in the consolidation of power after victory".

Source: "Marxist socialism was pragmatic and revolutionary. It was action oriented and was adopted by many revolutionary leaders and movements throughout the 20th century. For example, Vladimie Ilich Lenin in Russia, Mao Zedong in China, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and Fidel Castro in Cuba all based their revolutionary doctrines on Marx's precepts. Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory."[3]

TFD (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see the real source of the term is Karl Kautsky with 'Terrorism and Communism' which is sourced in the article. I not altogether sure the title is a good one or the topic is very well defined but it's not definitely bad. Dmcq (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The basic question here is whether or nor Gus Martin was referring to communists in the context of his discussion on page 218 of his book when he states "Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory". What revolutions was Gus Martin referring to? Gus Martin certainly uses term "communist" several times in the preceding paragraphs on page 218 when he discusses Marxist ideology, the context seems quite clear to whom he is referring to as the adherents of "marxist socialism" and that these adherents resorted to terrorism in both the revolutionary and power consolidation phases. i.e communists. But evidently TFD thinks I am not conveying what Gus Martin is actually saying correctly. --Martin (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The lede is a literary mess. It vacillates, fails to introduce the subject of the article in the first sentence, and fails to identify social revolutionary terror as distinct from modern "terrorism".

"Martin" is not an adequate citation. Martin is not given in full elsewhere.

Archipelago isn't reliable, it is a literary work.

Radzinsky is quote pecking from an inappropriate work.

"The Black Book Of Communism" is improperly cited. It is a work containing solely authored chapters, with chapters of varying quality.

The topic of this article exists. The coverage is currently weak (Finland? Hungary 1919? Germany 1917?). The lede implies, originally, that revolutionary terror, and the terrorisation of civilians to foment revolution, are the same. (But they should both be under this article. What about the title "Terror in Communist movements", which covers revolutionary terror and terrorism?) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Do the sources group together Joseph Stalin, a Communist who consolidated power using terror, with Lee Harvey Oswald, a communist who killed a U.S. president? Is it the same thing, "Communist/communist terrorism"? Or should Stalin be grouped with other despots, while Oswald is grouped with other sociopathic assassins? TFD (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The best sources are single society case studies, or political inquiries into theory of revolutionary terror. AFAIK, no academic literature links revolutionary terror with modern terrorism. YMMV. If anything, they link modern terrorism with propaganda by the deed. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The word "terrorisme" appeared in late XVIII without any connection to Communism and denoted what we currently call "state terror". Individual terrorism initially was used by non-Communist revolutionary (initially by Narodnaya Volya and then by Socialist-Revolutionary Party) or by nationalists (e.g. assassination of arch-duke Ferdinand) and was condemned by Communists. Then Communists, as well as other totalitarian societies used state terror to maintain their power. After, or in parallel with that some Communist states organised, or tried to organise acts of sabotage against their opponent states (and these states acted in similar vein). Communist states also organised killings of their political opponents (and some non-Comminist states did the same). Finally some ultra-leftist groups, as well as some rightist or nationalist groups performed a series of terrorist acts against civilian to reach their political goals.

In connection to that, could anyone explain me how some of these tangentially related historical events can be combined in the article named "Communist terrorism" and what is the ground for their grouping according to that trait?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming there's at least one scholarly monograph in the article's bibliography that explicitly draws these connections? If not, AFD for SYN/OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if one monograph would be sufficient. However, AfD would be incorrect, because such a phenomenon as Communist (or leftist) terrorism did exist. What is needed to do is to narrow the article's scope to describe this phenomenon proper.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The book cited by TFD above [4], and which he asserts is reliable, is extensively cited in TFD's other favourite book, has a good coverage of communist terrorism so I'm not sure why Fifelfoo thinks it is not an adequate citation. --Martin (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean a work who's citation isn't mentioned here, or in the article? For those of us who are slow, and can't convert books links into full citations without actually going to books, pulling out the metadata which is poorly presented for human reading, and then conducting a publisher search

Gus Martin, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues Sage 2009.
Unknown articles and authors In Organizational and Psychological Aspects of Terrorism Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism Ankara, Turkey, (ed.) Amsterdam, IOS Press, 2008. IOS Press is Scientific, Technical and Medical academic press.

Is Martin 2009 a tertiary textbook, if so, is it aimed at undergraduates or post-graduates? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not quite understand your point. It was fully cited in the article, using the citebook template, until TFD removed it. It was linked here with a URL for convenience in this thread. Is it really that burdensome to your index finger to click through the link to discover the information you need? If Martin is a tertiary textbook, it doesn't appear to be an issue for the Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism which extensively cites Martin in their book Organizational and Psychological Aspects of Terrorism. --Martin (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, namely, how concretely Martin's book combines together the facts listed above (including the facts that Communists invented neither individual terrorism nor state terror, as well as the fact that individual terror was condemned by most Communists). Are you sure that the word "Communist" is not just an adjective here (i.e. "Communist terrorism is a terrorism committed by Communists") and, therefore, the words "Communist terrorism" define any separate single phenomenon?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Power Rangers: Samurai and Samurai Sentai Shinkenger

User:Ryulong says this info: "As with all previous Power Rangers series, Samurai uses the costumes from one of the many Super Sentai Series; Power Rangers: Samurai uses said items from 2009's Samurai Sentai Shinkenger." in the Power Rangers: Samurai article and this info "Its costumes will be used for the American series Power Rangers: Samurai." in the Samurai Sentai Shinkenger‎ article are original research because "By visually comparing the costumes in Shinkenger and the costumes in PR Samurai and saying that they are identical, it is still considered original research to say that the former is the basis for the latter. You don't get to say "Shinkenger" on that page until the ending credits roll on PRS episode 1."[5] I think that info is not original research as the Power Rangers website[6] and a news article from Variety about Power Rangers: Samurai[7] have images that clearly show the Shinkenger‎ costumes. What do you think is this info original research or not? Powergate92Talk 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As there is no official statement from Saban Capital Group (yet) concerning the origin of the costumes, etc. of the characters of Power Rangers: Samurai, it is most certainly considered original research or synthesis to say that based on visual comparisons between (for example) this image and this image that Power Rangers: Samurai uses all of the trappings of Samurai Sentai Shinkenger. I believe that the only time we can say this is for certain is when the ending credits roll on the first episode of the new Power Rangers, and have that say in big block letters "BASED ON [something resembling the name "Shinkenger"] from TOEI COMPANY From the Japanese series originated by SABURO HATTE/YATSUDE". They may be identical, but we here at Wikipedia can't say that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The bandai website also now has an image for Power Rangers: Samurai that shows Shinkenger and the villain from Samurai Sentai Shinkenger, Doukoku[8]. Powergate92Talk 23:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter how many things from Shinkenger you can identify in the new Power Rangers press material. If they don't say "Shinkenger", then we can't either.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolute bullshit! That is NOT original research. And the actors are confirmed by the way, their photos are on powerrangers.com now. Digifiend (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly is original research. Yes, it's very obviously Shinkenger. But making that conclusion by yourself is considered WP:OR. And the same goes for the actors. There are no names outside of the fandom.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, can you quote what part of WP:No original research says using images as sources for that info is original research? Powergate92Talk 03:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Powergate92, the fact that you are using images as sources is not the issue (images aren't WP:Reliable sources anyway). The original research you are performing is that you are stating that Samurai Sentai Shinkenger is the basis of various elements of Power Rangers: Samurai. This is because you have pre-existing knowledge of the existence of Shinkenger. You cannot analyze two images and say that they are related. That is a violation of WP:RS and WP:SYN. And the actors' names Digifiend are also an issue of WP:RS. If there had been no obsessive following of the casting process by fansites like Rangerboard and Henshin Justice, then we wouldn't have the names that you think are confirmed. The only confirmation we will get for any of these facts will be in the airing of the first episode at the latest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's called synthesis. You are making a connection that reliable sources do not actually make. In other words, you're saying that because you saw it in a picture and have interpreted as such, that means it's true. That's not appropriate. Sorry. --13² 05:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur - looking at images and coming to conclusions other than the ones that a reliable source made the photos for or points out is original research. If a photo of some rock group at Ayers rock on a particular day shows a helicopter in the background then we're not allowed to say there was a helicoper there on that day without some reliable source pointing it out. All we can say is that the group was there. Dmcq (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this news article would be a reliable enough source for the info? It showed up in a Google News search[9] and it doe's say "The series will be adapted from the 2009 Super Sentai Series, SAMURAI SENTAI SHINKENGER." Powergate92Talk 05:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What about "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue"? I know it's not a policy, but still, the costumes look identical and assuming that they didn't come from Shinkenger would sound ridiculous. NotARealWord (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NotARealWord, WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue says "there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious and generally accepted." It's obvious that Power Rangers: Samurai‎ uses the costumes from Samurai Sentai Shinkenger. Powergate92Talk 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, only the costumes they've shown would count. Maybe the statement should be more specific like "the cor five rangers' costumes were taken from Samurai Sentai Shinkenger", since we don't yet know what else is taken from Shinkenger. It's likely that they'll use othercostumes and hours of footage, but it's not impossible for Saban not to. So, only the costumes officially revealed. NotARealWord (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying "the sky is blue is one thing". Making comparisons between two possibly related images is another. I am not making an assumptions that the costumes are not from Shinkenger. I am merely stating there is nothing that explicitly states that they are. In the ending credits of every episode of every Power Rangers show, they mention the original Japanese series. We can wait for Saban to credit Shinkenger in the ending credits to add this information to the English Wikipedia. Just because it's obvious and true does not mean the information is verifiable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue says "there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious and generally accepted." It's obvious that Power Rangers: Samurai‎ uses the costumes from Samurai Sentai Shinkenger and that fact is accepted by everyone but you. Powergate92Talk 02:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not denying it. I am saying we don't have anything verifiable to back up the statement. WP:BLUE is not policy and has no bearing here. We can't say anything about Power Rangers: Samurai and Samurai Sentai Shinkenger in the same sentence without a reliable source to back it up. Yours and NotARealWord's comparisons are still WP:OR.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Powergate92, that blog posting is not a reliable source. It's a blog posting made over a month ago. We don't know who their sources are, as they could very well be working off of the same non-reliable sources that the fandom has because they know Shinkenger existed and they know who the actors are. None of this information has been officially stated by Saban.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"The sky is blue" thing would only apply to the costumes they've shown. Only that bit is patently obvious. NotARealWord (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Obvious to you and I but not to everyone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Obvious to anybody who had any more than a passing glimpse (or maybe even that is enough) of Shinkenger. NotARealWord (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's still not enough to ignore all of our policies on content verifiability.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There's now an official promo for Power Rangers on MarVista Entertainment website[10] that shows footage from Samurai Sentai Shinkenger‎ when talking about Power Rangers: Samurai. Powergate92Talk 22:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Until the WORD "Shinkenger" appears in regards to Power Rangers: Samurai, it's still all original research.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If we can't put in "the costumes came from Shinkenger" regardless of the stuff shown on the Power Rangers website, then the stuff in thast promo is also not enough. The footage is no more obvious then the costumes. NotARealWord (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what's being said here is that even though the suits are the same as those in Shinkenger and footage from it has been used in promos, that's not proof that any actual footage will be used in the series itself. There is a possibility, however small, that all footage for the series will be put together by Saban itself. Until the actual series comes along, uses Shinkenger footage, and then credits it, there's no absolute proof that footage will be used. ComputerBox (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over Youtube video content and claim of original research

I am currently in a dispute over at Ergun Caner, where I linked to a Youtube video which shows the subject of the article reciting the Shahada incorrectly, while appearing in an expert capacity. I added an edit remarking that he recited it incorrectly.

Given that Caner has presented himself as an expert on Islam, and there has been considerable controversy over whether he has been honest about his past, I think this is highly relevant.

Does any of this count as original research? As I see it, I'm not advancing a position the video itself does not advance - all I'm stating is the fact that he got this phrase wrong, and explaining what the phrase is. Any help would be much appreciated. 90.209.80.240 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If some source outside has pointed out the problem then it's not original research. If you looked at the video and spotted the problem yourself it is original research. I think about the maximum you could do under WP:Common sense is come to some consensus about cutting down what you say about the video so it doesn't say he actually did it or says he says he did it without stating it as actually having being done, but saying he did it wrong because you looked at the video and think it is wrong is original research. Dmcq (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that is definitely original research. You need a third-party reliable source stating that Caner recited the Shahada incorrectly. First Light (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sipuleucel-T

Requesting additional eyes on Sipuleucel-T as a new user appears deadset on including WP:SYN content regarding the pricing of the drug by pulling in Medicare rules rather than the existing third party sourcing specificly identifying the cost of this treatment. This edit[11] may also indicate that the user has a potential conflict of interest re: cancer treatment articles. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Figure captions in Senkaku Island/Diaoyutai article

Hi experienced wikipedia editors,

I would like to seek your opinions on whether or not a recent edit of mine has violated the "no original research" code of conduct.

Before I start, I present you with a couple of references:

- A discussion in which this is debated

- Disputed figure caption that has been reverted by another user

My argument:

(1) The first sentence of the first disputed caption, was partially reverted. The kept part was "It refers to the islets as the "Senkaku islands in Okinawa"" and the removed part was "without identifying the rightful owner of these islands." It was claimed that the latter is an instance of original research and my view is that it is not. The reason being the removed section is an observation that is equally objective as the kept section. As well, the figure itself had no citation so my stance is that the figure and its entire caption should either be removed or that the entire sentence be kept.

(2) In both captions I appended a sentence that stated the sovereignty status of the referred territories at the referred time. Others claim that it's an instance of synthesis. In some sense one can hypothetically accuse the same of any text with numerous independent facts from different sources by simply citing some arbitrary form of synthesis. I disagree with their views in my case on the grounds that the information provided is simply a general background and did nothing to contradict or alter the point of the previous sentences. At the same time, the information on sovereignty status is crucial because without it may misrepresent the actual contents of the figure. For example, the line about sovereignty status in the second figure will prevent readers from falsely assuming that the Okinawa belonged to Japan at the time when it was in fact in U.S. possession at the time. If we allow that line to be removed, then we run the risk of misleading the readers which may lead to a case of indirect POV pushing. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your additions just give appropriate context to the captions, and are not original research to advance a position. You should back up these well-known facts with sources, though. For example, a source may say that Joseph Stalin was born in Georgia, even though that is an anachronism; Georgia was not independent and so Stalin's infobox says he was born in the Russian Empire. (Ideally, there is an extended discussion of Georgia's status in the main text) Without your additions, the captions subtly suggest that "part of Japanese empire" = "part of Japan", which is not accepted by most people, not least by the Chinese newspaper. Quigley (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this here. Here's a concise logic of my arguments: (1) The figure also does not state the population of the Senkaku islands, the name of the ruler of Japan at the time, or the distance between Tokyo and Milan. That is, there are a million and a half things the picture doesn't state; choosing one of them on your own, particularly to advance a point, is a form of original research. (2) This is exactly the definition of synthesis. One source (the picture) names the location, a second source defines the sovreignty of the islands according to that one source. Combining them together draws a conclusion; that's synthesis. This is exactly analogous to the situation described on the policy page about the UN's mission and the number of wars. To be clear, I would not at all oppose the addition of a third source (probably in the article proper rather than the picture caption, which is not the place to put extended claims) that explicitly made the connection.

In response to Quigley, any time you find yourself putting to sources right next to one another, or adding information not explicitly in a source, in order to "provide context," there's a very good chance that you're engaging either in generic original research or, more specifically, synthesis. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. There is a great difference between the U.N. example and this scenario. In the example's case, the two facts have the potential to contradict each other. In my case, the second facts don't - The letter claimed China called addressed the island as part of a Japanese territory and the sovereignty clarification said Japan had possession of this and surrounding territories at that particular time.

However, an issue can arise for those who want to use this particular figure to opine on something that was not implied in the original letter... namely that the islands has always belonged to Japan because a Chinese official addressed it as part of a Japanese province during some time in history. While that second fact in my case still does not in any way directly interfere with this view, it would certainly serve to dispel illusions such as... the letter was written before Japan annexed the entire overseas territory of China. Since pro-Japanese arguments that utilize this letter are quite apparently just some messy patchwork of simple logical fallacies, I am not at all surprised if some would try to somehow throw this clarification out of the window.

As for why this piece of information was added instead of the distance between Tokyo and Milan, it's really just a matter of relevance which can be subjective. If you feel the need to state there are some 4230989 people living in some place at that time, then go ahead although other editors would dispute the addition. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Qwryxian has made some good points. For the moment I don't have anything to add to that. John Smith's (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the first one is not a SYN case, but it's an unnecessary explanation. Once you read the whole Renminribao article, it is clear what China thought about the US administration of Okinawa and other islands including Senkaku and China didn't think the senkaku Islands as their territories. Here is the text of the article. Oda Mari (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing full text. It just renders the alleged WP:SYN void for that particular caption, since the article already addressed that the question of sovereignty of the islands at that time. After reading the article a little bit, it appears that the author of the article also did not think those islands belong to Japan either and that the Americans and Japanese conspired to made the Okinawa island chain an extension to the American military power. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese, unfortunately. I'm confused. The article Oda Mari linked to appears to be from 2005. Is that a reprint of the 1953 article, or is a commentary about the 1953 article? In other words, are you saying the 1953 article states that, according to the Japanese author, the Chinese explicitly indicated that Senkaku were a part of Japan? If so, then you are correct that there is no SYN here. The second part still appears to be SYN, unless the author also addressed that. If neither is SYN, then I recommend that we take the whole picture out and instead just deal with this in the text, because the picture doesn't help our understanding, and we need a fuller explanation we can't fit in the caption. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd presume it is no longer meaningful to argue about WP:SYN for this article because there's apparently more to it than the circled part. The article that Oda Mari linked was written in simplified Chinese. It apparently copied and pasted the entire text of the original 1953 article. The second part of the reverted caption was also addressed because the author of the 1953 article was railing about U.S.-imperialism and that the occupation of the Ryuku islands were all a conspiracy of Japan and U.S.

Anyhow, there's definitely something wrong about the original figure because it only presented a portion of the facts which could've easily been used to push a particular POV. In some sense, the other figure suffers from a similar issue although the entire context of the situation was left out in that case. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism (again)

Could editors please comment on this posting by an editor at Talk:Communist terrorism, "Quoting passages from Marx and other leading Communists showing that they advocate terrorism does not constitute "original research" by any accepted standard". TFD (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In the discipline of history and politics, textual analysis constitutes original research by scholars. In terms of wikipedia, close reading of PRIMARY sources, such as Marx's own works, to produce a SYNTHETIC view, "that Marx advocates terrorism" is Original Research. Wikipedians as editors of the encyclopaedia are unable to conduct time scoped and corpus level analysis to draw the scholarly opinion, as this would be original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes by themselves may be presumed to stand on their own two feet. Interpretation beyond what is clearly stated should be done by a secondary source, but quotations are one case where "primary sources" are fully proper. IOW, if John Doe wrote "It is necessary to flog all gum chewers" then that statement is fully proper in a WP article. It is only if one writes "John Doe was opposed to gum chewing" that any faint tint of OR appears. Scholarly analysis is not needed for simple quotations. Collect (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism is one of several Wikipedia articles created by anti-Communists to support their views. None of these articles with unencyclopedic titles should be in Wikipedia, but a small number of devoted editors have defeated any attempt to remove them. If these people can band together to achieve their aims, cannot we band together to defeat their aims?

The real and undeniable evils committed by various communist governments should be reported, objectively, in the articles on those governments. But Wikipedia is no place for articles such as Communist terrorism or, for that matter, Capitalist terrorism, Christian terrorism, or Moslem terrorism. Every nation, political philosophy, and religion has, from time to time, engaged in terrorism. Should we have, in addition to the article on Vikings, an article on Scandinavian Terrorism?

In reference to the specific use of "terror" by Marx, there is a difference between "terror" and what "terrorism" has come to mean today -- the organized killing of civilians with no immediate tactical goal. This is why scholarly analyis is needed, even for simple quotes, especially for quotes in another language, at another time.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. This is not AfD. 2. The argument that it is only nasty anti-communists who add articles is a tad absurd. 3. sourcing issues are dissed on article talk pages. 4. The word "Terrorismus" in German, strangely enough, is translated as "terrorism." German has another word "Terror" for "terro." German and English are not all that different. 5. The question here posed is not answered by any such claims of nasty groups of editors at all. Collect (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement that anti-communists add articles is not logically equivalent to the statement that only anti-communists add articles. The question here is whether anti-communists are using Wikipedia to publish their original research. It seems clear to me that they are. And nobody called anti-communists "nasty". That's your contribution to the discussion. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never understood why anti-Communists use exaggeration and dishonesty when discussing Communism. For example they claim that water fluoridation is part of a Communist plot, that Eisenhower was a Communist agent and that the local PTA is run by Communists. This type of writing undermines their message, because normal people wonder if anti-Communist literature is dishonest and paranoid then perhaps Communism is not as bad as they say. TFD (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. Most (but not all) of the communist or former communist regimes have failed and led to wide-spread suffering. So in that sense, it's not unreasonable to suspect it may be a bad system. On the other hand, one can also legitimately lay the blame on the prominent communist leaders that were in power. Stalin and Mao, for example, are some of the most ruthless dictators in history who also happen to be powerful enough to set the tone of communism when it first rose to prominence after the Russian Civil War. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But in order to persuade people that Communism is bad, should we make up things we know not to be true, such as the claim that water fluoridation is part of a Communist plot, that Eisenhower was a Communist agent and that the local PTA is run by Communists? In the long run, does this not backfire? TFD (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Guess I was off on a tangent. Yes, making up stories about anything is bad. And of course, we are kind of seeing similar kinds of stories being told these days. Instead of having the communists as the bad guys, we have Taliban and Al Qaeda Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

original research examples

hi i was pointed here. i am in the middle of a discussion at the page for Paraprosdokian, where i think that all of the examples listed count as original research since there are no citations showing that they are actually examples of what the article was about. isnt that what original research is? the writer has to decide if they are truly examples for themselves and this causes a lot of problems where people remove and add only because of what they think not because of anything verifiable. please tell me if im wrong in how i see original research thanks. Aisha9152 (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a valid point, although that's a strict interpretation. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear football photo

This article of "A briefcase alleged to be the nuclear football"--i.e., a briefcase that some Wikipedia editor(s) think is the nuclear football. To me this seems like original research, but it keeps getting added back so other opinions would be useful.Prezbo (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A briefcase that the person who put the photo in said was a nuclear briefcase. I don't think this is covered by the original research policy, I'm not sure exactly what policy covers a dispute by people saying they want more proof that a photo is correct but without any grounds that I can see for doubting them. The images as far as I can see are included for illustrative purposes rather than as an integral part of the text. Dmcq (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that you don't think this is original research, or you think the evidence that it's the nuclear football is adequate? The grounds for doubting this would be that the nuclear football isn't publicly identified and there might be other reasons for military personnel to be carrying a briefcase in the president's vicinity. Everything is "covered by the original research policy."Prezbo (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think both that this problem is not covered by the original research policy and that the evidence is that it is the nuclear football. The photo is identified in commons as the nuclear briefcase and I see no reason to doubt that. You should have better arguments against illustrative photos than you gave. Exactly how many people walk near the American president carrying briefcases like this? Do you think the whole idea of a nuclear briefcase is made up? Wikipedia customarily allows photos for illustrative purposes which haven't appeared in reliable sources and if anything the appropriate policy against that would be verifiability. You're not going to get very far with trying to remove nine tenths of the illustrations on Wikipedia on the grounds of verifiability though, the major ground you could use is that they are wrong, bad or doubtful and I don't think you have shown that. I believe there should be something to cover this area explicitly and there may be one but I don't know what it is. Dmcq (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought all "material" on this project should be verifible by reliable sources? What if there was a picture that said breifcase with President's dildo in it or whatever? That would be ok? As far as 9/10ths of the photos not being "verified", that says more about the problems with this project that should be improved, not a defense. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)ps, I just read article, the caption says "alledged", so never mind :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, can we know from the photo and caption associated with the uploaded file that this person and case are anywhere near the president or his entourage? I do not know what policy obtains on this issue, but it seems to me a problem if we're just assuming that a photo of a general nature is that specific--one would think that a photo would be available showing a president being followed a member of the military carrying a case. But then I would also suggest that the image does not add much, if anything to the article since it is so general. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Who alleged it's the nuclear football? The person who took the picture? A newspaper? A prominent blogger? We just don't know. Kansan (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism (Berlin)

Isaiah Berlin wrote the following in Karl Marx:

Still comparatively unknown in England, [Marx] had grown abroad into a figure of vast fame and notoriety, regarded by some as the instigator of every revolutionary movement in Europe, the fanatical dictator of a world movement pledged to subvert the moral order, the peace, happiness and prosperity of mankind. By these he was represented as the evil genius of the working class, plotting to sap and destroy the peace and morality of civilized society, systematically exploiting the worst passions of the mob, creating grievances where none existed, pouring vinegar in the malcontents' wounds, exacerbating their relations with their employers in order to create the universal chaos in which everyone would lose, and so finally all would be made level at last, the rich and the poor, the bad and the good, the industrious and the idle, the just and the unjust. Others saw in him the most indefatigable and devoted strategist and tactician of labouring classes everywhere, the infallible authority on all theoretical questions, the creator of an irresistible movement designed to overthrow the prevailing rule of injustice and inequality by persuasion or by violence. To them he appeared as an angry and indomitable modern Moses, the leader and saviour of all the insulted and the oppressed, with the milder and more conventional Engels at his side, an Aaron ready to expound his words to the benighted, half-comprehending masses of the proletariat.

Some editors believe that Berlin was saying there are only two ways to view Marx. My reading of this is that he was saying that the influence of Marx was exaggerated, both by his supporters and by detractors. Does anyone have any other ideas about how to read this? TFD (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

He appears to be referring to a specific historical period, presumably during Marx's lifetime, hence "Still comparatively unknown in England, [Marx] had grown abroad into a figure of vast fame and notoriety.". The quotation refers to this particular period, which is presumably specified in the book. It doesn't look as though it can be used to imply that Marx's influence "was exaggerated" beyond this particular historical moment. Paul B (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over "forfeit" vs. "lost"

A dispute has arisen over the use of the word "forfeit" as opposed to "lost". It occurred at 2004 European Open (snooker) over the sentence "White lost the frame after three consecutive misses with a red ball in sight". In snooker if a player makes three consecutive misses (and the cue ball is in sight of a red), he automatically loses the frame. The source says that White made three of those misses and consequently lost the frame; the rules are here. Armbrust changed the wording from "forfeit" to "lost", saying that he lost, not forfeited (see here). I reverted explaining that he both lost and forfeited the frame. Discussion went to Armbrust's talk page where I asked if he would agree on "forced to forfeit", but he didn't as there were no reliable sources saying that he forfeited. My position is that "forfeited" is just a dictionary word and we don't need a source to say that when that word accurately describes what happened in the source. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is NOR fetishism gone mad. This debate may seem petty, but it's a matter of principle. Yes, surely 'forfeit' is better, and on principle it should be used over 'lost'. If we insist that every word has to be literally sourced, the project with become stuck in fast-drying concrete and editorial effectiveness will vanish. Paul B (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking generally, one "forfeits" a match in pretty much any sport, certainly individual competition, when they are unable to continue, for example, for physical reasons, or on a matter of procedure where they are found to have violated rules. The example here of losing a frame in snooker is no different from automatically losing a frame in pool by inadvertently sinking the 8-ball (assuming that is applicable to the specific game being played)—that is simply losing the frame. Speaking personally, applying the word "forfeit" while logically correct and perhaps more accurate in the absence of context is, in the context of sports, a misapplication of the word in this case as there was neither physical impediment nor transgression of rules. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To bolster what Vecrumba's saying, and to disagree strongly about this being an issue of "NOR fetishism" and even more strongly against misuse of forfeit: The difference between loss and forfeit is not a snooker issue, or even a cue sports matter more generally, at all, but basic and very simple sports terminology, with a quite clear difference. A forfeit is something that you do voluntarily (by declaration, e.g., conceding mid-game because you have to leave your match to deal with an emergency), by default (e.g., because you didn't show up for your game), or by referee declaration (e.g., because you punched your opponent in the face). Forfeits are part of the rules around a game or other contest for its smooth operation, but are not part of the rules of a competition proper. The three consecutive misses rule in snooker, analogous to the three consecutive fouls rule in nine-ball (one probably derives from the other, though which way I'm not sure), is an on-the-table rule of of the game and its play, not an off-table rule about the game and conducting it. Your opponent winning because of a rule of of the game-play, such as the rule in question here, is your loss, not forfeit. A three-miss violation, like its pool counterpart, is especially obviously a loss because either your opponent craftily put you in a position to fail by that rule, or you are less than maximally competent and put yourself there. Either way, that is 100% game play, and 0% competition administration, ergo a loss by definition, and cannot possibly be a forfeit. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism 2

On Talk:Communist terrorism one editor is saying the following is synth, i should like some outside opinions. The Red Brigades was a marxist/leninist urban terrorist group (sic) and most lethal of all communist organizations It is being said that this does not describe them as Communist/communist terrorists and as such it cant be used to have the Red Brigades in the article mark (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It can be used to say it was communist since the source specifically states that it was a communist organization, but the communist terrorists description would probably be considered synthesis since it's not explicitly stated in the source. When using words like terrorist, I think it should be explicitly stated, word for word, letter by letter, otherwise it shouldn't be included. The fact that this source uses "terrorist" earlier in the source does make it more complicated, but since it's not in conjunction with "communist" it shouldn't be used in that fashion. I would just leave the wording as-is and describe it using the same terms the source does. --13² 15:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think i may not have been clear enough, it is being said this source can`t be used to have the red brigades in the article as it does not describe them as a communist terrorist group. His exact words being Again please find a source that calls them Communist/communist terrorists the source does that, does policy actually mean it has to have the two words together? I mean look at the line The Red Brigades was a marxist/leninist urban terrorist group marxisim/leninism is communism after all mark (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The 1992 book begins "this book examines a particular strain of terrorist group that is found primarily in Western Europe - the 'fighting communist organization' or FCO. For almost a quarter of a century, FCOs have caused politicfal and security problems in Western Europe." The authors were writing about a group of organizations active in the 1970s and 1980s. If we could show that the concept of FCOs had been accepted in the typology of terrorism, then we could write an article called "Fighting communist organizations". Since it has not been accepted, the best we could do is create an article about the book. What we cannot do is change the terminology and then decide to include groups such as the Soviet government that the authors would not have considered to fit into their category. That is why editors should read sources and let them drive article content rather than develop their own theories and seek sources that support them. TFD (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The 1992 book begins "this book examines a particular strain of terrorist group that is found primarily in Western Europe - the 'fighting communist organization' or FCO and still you say this book does not describe the red brigades as a communist terrorist group? mark (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Or Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations 39 hits in that book for red brigades mark (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you recommending that we use the typology in the book and if so then we should change the name to FCOs? TFD (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not mark (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard. We have to discuss it on the WP:NPOVN. The mark's source is reliable, however, other reliable sources exist that call these terrorist groups leftist but not Communist. Since all Communists are leftists, whereas not all leftists are Communists, the story about these terrorist groups belongs to the more general article, namely leftist terrorism, which, for some unexplained reason is currently just a redirect page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

History shows the move - presumably as a result of some discussion (lots of archives). Ask RD232, I suppose. Collect (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversies of Jersey Shore

Resolved

– Article looks great. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not really sure if I am in the right place, but the whole "topic" of this article appears to be in violation of some type of Wikipedia policy - WP:POVFORK doesnt quite cover it and I am not sure WP:OR does either - or am I way off base and this is a completely appropriate topic. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it just a spinoff article from Jersey_Shore_(TV_series)#Controversy per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style) although maybe the section and the main 'Controversies' article need a new title per Wikipedia:Criticism ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I did notice someone on the talk page complaining that some items in the article didn't have a sourced controversy even if they had the potential to be controversial. If there is no evidence of a controversy for these they should of course be removed as original research. Dmcq (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

...and everything has to comply with WP:BLP or it needs to go. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India

Resolved

– Wrong noticeboard. Reboot discussion at WP:NPOVN. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR has been alleged at Famine in India as shown in this diff [12]. The actual content that's the target of the OR allegation can be seen in this diff [13]. The Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen and European Journal of Development Research Prize winner Olivier Rubin have been used as the sources. A direct like to Google Books or web sites has been provided for easy access and verification. A discussion between the editors can be seen in several sections of the talk page [14]. Is this OR? Zuggernaut (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you see an OR issue. I think there may be a weight issue in removing a conflicting view in the diff - cutting down two views to one because it is a bit long looks wrong to me. That the English is not of the best is a reason to improve the English nothing more if the content is okay. Dmcq (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Extinction Event Section

The following section is in a edit conflict beween myself and Martin. Is it original research to subtract ICS dates selectively to show repeating interval sets. Is this paragragh original research?

Geologic Chronology

The International Commission on Stratigraphy International Stratigraphic Chart Period dating includes a interleaved sixth period 417Ma interval between Holocene - Silurian (0-416), Oligocene - Ordovician (28-444), start* Maastrichtian [4] - Cambrian (71*-488), and Jurassic - Vendian Ediacaran-Varangian(146-563) unconstrained date. The Carboniferous 417Ma interval pair (703Ma-ago) extends further into Precambrian eons. Carboniferous 286Ma-ago date is circa 1961 thru 1982 [1] geologic dating and is within the Karoo Ice Age. The Cryogenian (or Sturtian-Varangian) Ice Age 800 to 600 million years ago is equivalently constrained at 417 M-years earlier. The Phanerozoic pattern includes the Planetary Equidistant Rupture [2] extending across the Proterozoic, through the Archaean and into Hadean starting at the 4.5Ba ago Moon-forming impact. Hyperthermophile life spawned upward from that event and frequent ocean boiling stages 4.3Ba-ago. The physical environment bounded life on Earth. Starting with CO2-dominated biosphere into the present and Pre-Cambrian global oxygenic Eukaryote plant life photosynthesis[3]. The ISC documents evolution of Eucarya, a unintended compendium of PER and 417Ma Period intervals. 'Physical perturbations break incumbancies, removing dominant life forms, opening opportunities for previous minor groups' [ref 3, p240]. Understandably, major extinction events are common to Period transitions, that represent an environmental biotic evolution process.

Reference: [1] Snelling 1985 Chronology of the Geologic Record; Boston, Blackwell Scientific Publications. ISBN 0-632-01285-4.

[2] 1991 Kevet, Radan 1991 Complete Periodical Geological Time Table, GeoJournal 24.4 417-420 Kluwer Academic Press.

[3] Rothschild, Adrian 2003, Evolution on Planet Earth, The Impact of the Physical Environment. Academic Press ISBN 0-12-598655-6.

[4] Barrera, Eniqueta, Geology, vol. 22, Issue 10, p.877, Global environmental changes preceding the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary: Early-late Maastrichtian transition.(unstable temperature 4 to 7Ma before the KT event).

Morbas (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw on the talk page of Extinction event a perfectly civil and constructive debate about a chart of the events. For someone like me who is only slightly acquainted with geology and palaeontology, the chart would be very useful. Simple arithmetic and tabulation is not usually considered original research. Make sure that you are not slanting the data in any way to make a point. Expect that scientists will be pernickety about details and presentation. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou...I need two more positive votes before I dare put the above paragraph back into the article... Morbas (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor arguing that he can use a book describing Welsh law to make a claim for dynastic succession

At History of Plaid Cymru an editor has added material claiming that Burke's peerage links the Anwyl of Tywyn Family with the now extince House of Aberffraw. His sources do not make this claim. and in fact 3 of the 4 don't even mention the family. His justification is that "I dispute. Burke's Peerage links the direct familial decendents of Owain Gwynedd living today. This is important in the discussion of a restored monarchy in Wales. Source 2 A History of Wales gives more info on the Aberffraw family, their history for Wales, and buttresses Owain Gwynedd and decendents. Source 3 details the laws of succession before the Edwardian Conquest of Wales." (There are 4 sources). One of his references says "^ Lewis, Hurbert; The Ancient Laws of Wales, 1889. Chapter VIII: Royal Succession; Rules to Marriage; Alienation pgs 192–200. According to Hurbert Lewis, though not explicitly codified as such by Hywel Dda, the edling, or Heir apparent, was by convention and custom the eldest son of the prince and entitled to inheirit the position and title as "head of the family" from the father. Effectively primogeniture with local variations. However, all sons were provided for out of the lands of the father and in certin circumstances so too were daughters. Additionally, sons could claim materinal patromony through their mother in certin circumstances." -- no mention of this family at all - at Talk:Anwyl of Tywyn Family where similar claims have been made about the current head of the Anwyl family, he has just said "who is and is not considered a prince/(petty) king is detailed by Herbert Lewis in "The Ancient Laws of Wales" 1889. Chapter VIII: Royal Succession; Rules to Marriage; Alienation pgs 192–200. According to Hurbert Lewis, though not explicitly codified as such by Hywel Dda, the edling, or Heir apparent, was by convention and custom the eldest son of the prince and entitled to inheirit the position and title as "head of the family" from the father. Effectively primogeniture with local variations. However, all sons were provided for out of the lands of the father and in certin circumstances so too were daughters. Additionally, sons could claim materinal patromony through their mother in certin circumstances. By this application, the senior legitimate claimet/pretender to the throne of Gwynedd and Wales is the Anwyl of Tywyn family. My response is that sources much make the specific claim, and despite being asked a number of times neither of the two editors making this claim has brought forward any sources making the claim. (There's another issue in that none of this mentions the history of Plaid Cymru, it's just an argument being added to the article that a certain family should be king if Wales had its own king, but with no sources). Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

They need to go and convince somebody to write it in a reliable source first. Currently it is just their own original research and very obviously so. 18:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No “original research” is being attempted. Good faith edits to illustrate the familial decent from Owain Gwynedd of the “House of Aberffraw” (a term interchangeable with House of Gwynedd, Line of Gwynedd, Line of Rhodri the Great, ect used by historians such as John Davies and John Edward Lloyd, both eminent historians of impeccable credentials, both who cite Herbert Lewis and his extensive research in the matter.) Burkes Peerage reveals the familial relation between that dynastic line to the Anwyl of Tywyn line, and the Anwyl’s connection with the senior royal family of Wales (Davies, Lloyd, others too). Because of their historic connection, mention of the Welsh succession practices is appropriate in the article. No attempt at “original research” is being attempted, but the desire to correctly identify that family in context. At best, further clarification needs to be made (various authors concerned on multiple pages, (“too many cooks in the kitchen” as it were), rather then a rush to judgment. Further time needs to be given for concerned authors to strike the desired tone meeting wiki standards. I am not the only editor involved here, only the most recent Mr Weller wishes to engage with. I have implored him to let myself and others meet discuss with other uninterested (in the subject matter).♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In Mr Weller’s criticism of the research, he cites that the authors do not mention the Anwyl family by direct name. But this is a misunderstanding (I hope) on his part regarding the decent of the various branches of the family (ies). Clearly Davies and Lloyd do not mention Anwyl, a name for that branch of the family, by name because at the time of discussion of the text that particular branch had yet to fork off of the main branch of the family. But it does not … erase their decent or placement thereof as head of that family regarding their familial heritage or significant thereof. Except for Burkes Peerage, no other source has documented this branch of the family in great detail (that is available in England, or online. Such studies may be revealed in the Uni of Wales however)♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect to Mr. Weller, I believe he is "jumping the gun" and now allowing the various authors to revise said articles in question. I cordially ask for Mr. Weller to remove himself from the discussion for a bit so that said authors may go about the revisions. Of cores, I ask this as a gentleman’s agreement, knowing such restraint on his part would be unenforceable by us, the editors concerned. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim is original research Drachenfyre, not just here but also on the Anwyl article. It seems to be linked to romantic attempt to establish a Welsh Royal Family which is very dubious, even if there is a descent from a cadet branch. --Snowded ^TALK 18:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Drachenfyre, please understand that Original research does not mean the material is "wrong". It simply means that the material has not been published before (ie that Wikipedia is the "first place of publication" for the material). You need to publish your research elsewhere... and if it becomes generally accepted, it can then be included in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

nod* you all have me at a disadvantage as at the moment I must make an appointment here. But I understand your points. For the history of Plaid page, at present with the most recent reversion there I can be happy. But I wish to further this conversation for the importance of linking the Anwyl of Tywyn family with the House of Aberffraw. But at the moment I must depart and can not continue. Thank you Snowded, and everyone for your comments. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 19:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem... we will be here when you get back. The answer, however, will be the same. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly synthesis of published material to advance a position not directly taken in that material. He's wanting to take a formula for determining succession from one source, and applying it to a genealogy found in other material, in order to say that the Anwyl of Tywyn family are the heirs to the House of Aberffraw. In order to include that claim at all it would have to appear directly in a reliable source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Alas - all I can think of os The Short Reign of Pippin IV. Collect (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. He now says he will "email Sion Jobbins" and suggest he publish something on this, presumably at the online journal Cambria Magazine. I'm not sure that would be a RS for a BLP, which this concerns. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be bad faith to presume that he might be seeking to cement some sort of legitimacy for a patent of nobility for himself or his folk? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Gäp

(an article abour a Tatar cryptolect)

Hi all, This page looks like it may be based on original research - the only supplied link leads to a unrelated page.

I have just the put OR template.

Regards, Borovi4ok

I have actually tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax. The one "reference" is a dead link, the page makes a particular point of calling an ethnic area a "high crime area," and the one example sentence given is about crime. I believe this is an attack page disguised as linguistics. As I mentioned on the article's discussion page, the fact that there is no corresponding article in ru.wiki makes me especially suspicious. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I took off my speedy given that the article was created 3 years ago...I still can't find any sources, though, so I switched it to an AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism 3

Does the text correctly reflect the source?

Source: "This deterministic view of history was to leave its mark on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and would be exploited by Marxist-leaning totalitarian regimes to legitimize their actions, including the use of terror".[15]

Text: "The deterministic view of history in Marxism came to be utilized by Marxist regimes to justify terrorism".

TFD (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like proper paraphrase to me. Unless your cavil is that "Marxist leaning totalitarian" != "Marxist? Any closer parallel construction would verge on plagiarism, which no one would think proper. Would your cavil be that you would prefer "government use of terror" instead of the simple "terrorism"? And none of this remotely approaches "original research" which is the focus of this particular noticeboard. Collect (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You appear to not have understood the meanings of the two sentences. The source refers to a style of governing while the text refers to groups committing acts of terrorism, e.g., blowing up buildings. TFD (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are meaning it should be state terrorism rather than just terrorism. I'm not sure that this would be a reasonable change, it refers to regimes, but they didn't restrict it to their own citizens and also such a change might imply that that when they weren't part of a regime they didn't practice terrorism. SO I lean towards saying the paraphrase is okay. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You impute a meaning which is not apparent in the paraphrase. The initial sentence definitely refers to actions by regimes, and not acts by independent groups. If neither cavil was appropriate, then there is no doubt that the paraphrase is accurate, and required by WP to avoid plagiarism. In any case, it is decidely not OR. Collect (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad paraphrase, rewrite to clarify the nature of the terror meant in the original text. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nagualism (Carlos Castaneda)

I stumbled across Nagualism (Carlos Castaneda) today, and I think it's pretty much all OR. Question is, what to do about it? I'm tempted to bring it to AFD, but thought I'd stop here first for some guidance. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree that what is there is mostly OR. The article should be cut down to what other sources think is interesting. The list of stuff by Carlos Castaneda can form a list of works by him but shouldn't be used as source for the article. Dmcq (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like no outside source was used even though there is a couple in the external section. It sholud all be thrown away and the article started from scratch I think. Dmcq (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the external links don't really treat Nagualism, a couple mention that Castaneda was a nagual, but nothing more. I took a peek at google, didn't find much. If there are no sources covering Castaneda's version of Nagualism, shouldn't the article be deleted instead of reduced to a stub? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Original scientific works

I don't know if this has been covered before, but are original scientific works considered as a primary or secondary source on the topic they discuss? For example, would Adam Smith's foundational work on economics, The Wealth of Nations, be considered a primary source or secondary source on the topic of economics? What about Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species be a primary or secondary source in regard to the theory of evolution? What about Albert Enstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory? --Martin (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A similar question was discussed in July (either here or on the policy talk page). My point was that primary sources in the field of natural sciences are raw data, researcher's observations etc, and in history they are archival documents. Accordingly, the research articles (where a scholar discusses these data or documents) should be treated as secondary sources. Although this point was supported by some users, other argued that research articles are frequently primary sources if the author discusses his own observations. From memory, we didn't come to a strict criterion, according to which primary and secondary sources are discriminated. The same article may be a primary or secondary source depending on the context it is being used.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense Paul. Thanks for the pointer, I'll check the archives for July to better understand the issues. --Martin (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter? The policy does allow the use of Primary sources, after all... we just need to be careful when using them to use them appropriately. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these should be considered as (important) primary sources, and used with appropriate caution. One would not, for example, want to present Darwin's erroneous mechanism for heritability (Lamarckism) as being an accurate description of modern, mainstream scientific thought. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it depends. Darwin did not know anything about genetics and the role of populations. But Einstein's writings are very much up today and were never seriously challenged.Biophys (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Economics should not be considered a scientific discipline, and, moreover, Wealth of the Nations was part of the discourse of 17-19th century political economy, a discourse commonly seen as having a reduced importance, even in contemporary political economy. For economics, it is superceeded, for economic history, it is a primary source. For the economic history of political economists prior to Smith, it is a secondary source, though probably deserving of attribution when used. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What about a source written by a famous scientist in which he comments on some material of another famous scientist? It may be primary in relation to his own work, but is it not secondary as regards verification of matters to do with the other scientist's work. For example, Maxwell writes an equation for electromagnetic force in a paper in 1861. Some say that that paper cannot be used as evidence that Maxwell derived such a force equation. However, what happens if say Heaviside writes a paper in 1889 and derives an electromagnetic force equation and then comments that it is the same as Maxwell's electromagnetic force? Is Heaviside's paper then a secondary source that verifies that Maxwell wrote such a force equation? Here is the exact case in point. See section 5 in this web link On the Electromagnetic Effects due to the Motion of Electrification through a Dielectric. Heaviside derives a magnetic force equation and then states that it is Maxwell's electromagnetic force. Can this be used as a secondary source to verify the fact that Maxwell wrote such an electromagnetic force equation? That force equation appears in Maxwell's own papers in 1861 and 1864 but some say that the original Maxwell papers cannot be used to verify the fact that Maxwell wrote that force equation. But what about the 1889 Heaviside paper? Is it then a secondary source in relation to what Maxwell wrote? David Tombe (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Some say that that paper cannot be used as evidence...". We need not "evidence" but sources. Just tell that Maxwell wrote such a force equation in such year and give a reference to his paper. This is fine per policy and no one would probably object. But everything of importance about famous scientists could be probably found in books.Biophys (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, Thanks for your response. I think that everybody is now pretty well agreed that it is one and the same equation. The problem is that I don't think that there are any secondary sources in existence which draw attention to this fact. Modern physics seems to teach the idea that the Lorentz force originated with Lorentz in the 1890's as an additional electromagnetic equation which compliments Maxwell's equations. And that idea seems to be pretty well ingrained in the scientific community. It is only in recent times, with easy access to on-line copies of Maxwell's original papers that people have started to notice that the Lorentz force equation was already around since at least 1861. See my response below to TFD. David Tombe (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not look at the substance of the dispute. It is fine to tell with supporting refs that equation was first proposed by Maxwell. But it still will be called "Lorentz force" per every physics textbook, or at least this is my understanding of policies. There are other historical cases like this. For example, Cherenkov effect has been theoretically predicted by someone else. Biophys (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, Thanks for your reply. And yes, we would still be calling it the Lorentz force even though everybody now knows that the name is a misnomer. The problem at the article in question has now been largely solved because the facts have now been generally accepted. David Tombe (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Unambiguous information in primary sources

In Maxwell's 1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force, equation (77) is identical to the Lorentz force equation albeit that it is written in cartesian coordinates and split into x, y, and z components. Equation (77) can be found on page 342 which is on page 31 of the pdf file. This same equation appears again in the list of eight original Maxwell's equations in his 1864/65 paper [16]. It can be found at page 484 of the original paper on the supplied web link (page 26 of the pdf file). I have never known anybody, apart from one person, who has ever doubted that this equation corresponds mathematically to the Lorentz force equation. I have even read papers in which it has been transcribed into modern vector format, but I don't have any to hand right now.

I read that primary sources are acceptable where the information is unambiguous. Are these two original Maxwell papers satisfactory for the purpose of verifying the fact that Maxwell produced an equation in 1861 which is mathematically identical to the Lorentz force equation? David Tombe (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In order to assist with this enquiry, I should point out that the matter has also been raised at WT:PHYS and one editor there has already expressed his point of view that the two equations are one and the same equation. However, he has also expressed concern that the use of these primary Maxwell sources for the pupose of verification may be in breach of the policy on primary sources. This is the issue which now needs to be clarified. David Tombe (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No you need a secondary source that has made this observation. Here is a link to a search that may help you find a source. TFD (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Existence of equivalency of equations is a matter of individually verifiable fact (the phrase at college was "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer") and is not a question of "primary" or "secondary" source (that sort of argument means one could not cite Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" as it is a primary source, for gosh sakes). Restating an equation is either correct, or it is not correct (one of the few cases where POV does not enter into the discussion at all!) Collect (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In general Collect is right. However, in this case both equations are already published in primary sources, so any source claiming they are equivalent is of necessity a secondary source (unless the source never read the two equations and derived them independently, which is highly unlikely). Also, for purposes of Wikipedia, only trivial judgments should be made by editors as to whether two equations are equivalent. Due to the need to clean up vandalism, and the fact that those who do this clean up do not necessarily have university degrees in mathematics, any statement of equivalency that requires sophisticated mathematics to prove should appear in a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, here are links to the two sets of equations: Maxwell's equations#Maxwell's On Physical Lines of Force (1861), Lorentz transformation#Lorentz transformation for frames in standard configuration. Do you think that it is "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer" that they are the same? TFD (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Look up the use of "del(ta)" in calculus and the use of matrices as a means of calculating "del cross H" - t-shirts used to have Maxwell's equations on them :) . Collect (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I once saw somebody walking along the street with the Lorentz transformations on their T-shirt, and I even recall spotting an E= mc^2 once, but I have never seen anybody going around advertising for Maxwell's equations. That's news to me. David Tombe (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Try [17] dates the Hillel version to 1977 (with Biblical references). They date to Senior House in 1963, which accords with my memory. The equations are often called "Maxwell-Lorentz equations" by the way. [18] is on point and atstes that Tolman showed Maxwell's equations lead to Lorentz' force law (which is further than the claim at issue). Collect (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the original source is used only to say that a factoid (math expression) occurs in the original source, an observation that can be verified mechanically by a robot and involves no thought process or evaluation. It is a statement about the source, not an interpretation of the source. Likewise, references to later works are observations that the same math expression occur there, and as these sources refer back to the first one, there appears to be no interpretation involved in saying that the later sources draw from the earlier. The objections from editors here appear to be directed at resistance to D Tombe, not to the facts. Brews ohare (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, Nobody is talking about the Lorentz transformations. We are talking about equation (D) in the original 8 Maxwell's equations, and the fact that it is the same as the Lorentz force equation. That fact has been generally agreed already. The issue is whether or not a primary Maxwell source can be used as illustration to verify this fact. This equation appears in both Maxwell's 1861 paper as equation (77) and in the 1864/65 paper as equation (D). And everybody knows exactly what the modern Lorentz force equation looks like, and anybody with any knowledge of EM will know that the Lorentz force equation corresponds to equation (77)/equation (D) in all important details. The Lorentz transformations on the other hand is a different topic. The Lorentz transformations lead to a relativistic form of the Lorentz force equation when applied to the 4 Heaviside versions of Maxwell's equations. David Tombe (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please present the equations from Maxwell and Lorentz, so that we may see if, as Collect says, it is "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer" that they are the same thing. TFD (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the article Free energy suppression, Tom Bearden claims that "the key to over-unity systems was present in the original form of Maxwell's Equations... he claims that part of the equations were deliberately suppressed in their vectorization by... Lorentz.... Bearden claims this was orchestrated by industrialist J.P. Morgan, in order to protect his oil interests." Is this part of the issue here? TFD (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, The modern form of the Lorentz force looks like this,

\mathbf {F} =q\left(\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {B} -{\frac {\partial \mathbf {A} }{\partial t}}-\nabla \psi \right)

It has now been generally agreed amongst the physics editors that this is one and the same equation as equation (77) in Maxwell's 1861 paper, and also equation (D) of the original eight Maxwell's equations in the 1864/65 paper. And so that you can see it for yourself, I have now found a German web link which highlights the matter clearly. Have a look at equation (D) in this web link. It shows it in three forms. The form in the final column is identical to the form which I have just printed above. [19]. And I've found another here. This time look at equation 1.4 [20]. The first column shows it in the manner that it appears in Maxwell's original papers. The only difference is that it is expanded into the three x, y, and z, cartesian coordinates, whereas the modern version is in the modern vector notation.

As regards Tom Bearden's claims, I have never understood exactly what he is saying has been removed from the original Maxwell's equations content wise. At one point, I believe that Maxwell attempted to write his equations in quaternion format. I believe that Tom Bearden is saying that the quaternion format contained physics which has now been removed from modern electromagnetism. Everybody knows that the aether has been removed from the original Maxwell's equations, but I don't think that this is the point which Tom Bearden is making. Certainly the modern forms no longer include the Lorentz force equation which was in the original eight. But nevertheless, the Lorentz force equation is still front page in the textbooks alongside Maxwell's equations. It certainly hasn't been suppressed as such, but there does seem to have been some kind of veil drawn over its original origins. It sits beside the modern Maxwell's equations as being an extra equation of electromagnetism that is not catered for by Maxwell's equations, yet the primary sources clearly show that it was one of Maxwell's original equations. David Tombe (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is beginning to sound like a controversy best dealt with by reference to History and Philosophy of Science academic works. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Government licensing body reports: original research?

Suppose you have a person who works in a profession that requires a government license in order to legally practice the profession in that person's location. (If it matters, assume we're talking about the United States.)

If the government licensing body maintains a website where you can look up licenses and determine their status, is that original research?
If you run such a search, and you come back with a hit that is positively the person you're asking about, and it indicates that the person was subject to an unspecified disciplinary action, is that original research?
If the licensing body requires you to mail in a request, with or without a fee, to obtain the details on the disciplinary action in question, is that original research?
Presuming that we still haven't reached original research, given that the detailed report on a professional's disciplinary licensing action says something along the lines of "Respondent X violated law Y by act Z", can that fact be reported in a biography of a living person without being original research? (I know there are a ton of pitfalls here; the question is: is there any conceivable manner in which the information could be used without violating WP:OR?)
Is there any reason to believe that such a report from a government licensing body would not qualify as a reliable source?

// ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

None of this is original research because there is positive proof that the research was done by the licensing authority, not by the Wikipedia editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The website of the licensing body might well count as a primary source. If you can provide the context then people may be able to give more detailed advice. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My main worry would be whether anyone thought this was worth noting about the person as opposed to just being in a register, not sure what policy that comes under. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This issue has come up before regarding court judgments and opinions. Unless a decision has been published in a newspaper or legal journal then it lacks notability. TFD (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone else has written about the incident, using any online resource is definitely OR at best. Stating that any law has been violated is absolutely SYN at that point, as editors are not supposed to draw any inferences not already drawn by others, and attributed specifically to the person drawing the inference. And do not even considering sending in money for a copy of an incident report - that is OR by any standards, and grossly improper in any WP:BLP. Granted, this has been "bent" in the past, but it ought not have been. Collect (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the New York Times website is no good, because it is an online resource, and the New York Times is no good either, because you paid for it? A licensing authority is somebody else. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reportage on the NYT website is fine, nor is the "you paid for it" a valid cavil - the issue is paying for an official document not available through reporting by a second party (e.g. court filings) for which WP expressly states that they ought not be used. Is this clear? Collect (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that I cannot write to the U.S. Government Printing Office and request any data from them on paper, because (a) I might have to pay postage and handling, and (b) I didn't obtain the GPO data from a third party? A "court filing" is not the same thing as an administrative record from an executive-branch agency. For that matter, a "court filing" is not the same thing as a "court document." A filing is a submission by one of the parties in an undecided court case. Those are obviously right out, as they are arguments, not arbitrated statements of fact. However, Wikipedia definitely allows the use and citation of court decisions. If we don't allow court decisions, we'll have to utterly gut every law-related article we have. If we don't allow court decisions that someone had to pay for, we'll have to do the same: there's a lot of articles out there that depend on cites that were obtained from Lexis-Nexus, for example. So: how is the result of an administrative process that has the force of law and no right of appeal any different from a court case? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is exactly an "original research" problem, because I think it's actually "unverifiable". The report-by-mail is not properly published. (The information on the website is.) A report-by-mail is much closer to "I'll forward you a copy of the e-mail message" or "you can call the police, and they'll confirm it."

BTW, I have just discovered WP:Published, which may interest some editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Written works, videos, photos, etc., copies of which are offered for sale to the general pubic are published. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Legally, you're probably right. But for Wikipedia's purposes, I'm not at all convinced that is the case. If so, then every government document that could be procured through a Freedom of Information Act request is already "published". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, anything that a member of the public can obtain via a FOIA request would be considered "published", per common sense: by law, it must be made available to the public upon demand, without alteration other than redactions required by law. It makes no sense to say it's unverifiable: any U.S. citizen can make the same FOIA request and get the same documents. That's the very definition of "verifiable." To say otherwise would be like saying that I can't cite a book I happen to own, because no one else has access to my personal copy of the book to verify the citation. Honestly, a public record is untrustworthy because one was sent a copy by a government worker under a legally mandated process that requires fidelity to the original...? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not normally information that you buy but unprocessed data. You can't drag in a primary source like that without some very good reason from a secondary source. Dmcq (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Metaswitch company name

Hopefully a simple one.

The truth: the company known as Metaswitch Networks is commonly known as Metaswitch. If you look through journals and articles discussing the company or the company's own website, this is quite rapidly obvious. However, I can't find a source that explicitly says "Metaswitch Networks, commonly Metaswitch", and I'm wary that just putting it in the article based on it being what everyone else does falls afoul of WP:SYN.

Options I can see:

Just put it in the article unattributed, in the knowledge that it's very unlikely anyone will challenge the statement.
Put it in the article but flagged as requiring a source (this is my current solution, but it doesn't feel right as a long-term option).
Something else.

Any advice?

I don't think it's particularly relevant here, but for avoidance of doubt: I'm an employee of Metaswitch; the article talk page and my user page have more COI details.

—me_and 18:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a problem leaving it unattributed, but if you wish to attribute, use their home page--they reference to themselves using both, and I think using this primary source for a non-controversial item would be ok. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the tag. me_and 11:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Southern California Chinatowns debate and AfD

One editor has persisted in retrenching unsourced and highly OR/synth materials to this page, which doesn't really have a reason to exist distinct from List of Chinatowns in the United States#California. It obsesses over modern "suburban Chinatowns" including directories of their businesses, though admitting "none of these are called Chinatown"....historical Chinatowns in Southern California (on the list page) are passed over entirely....there has been an edit war of sorts, stopping just shy of 3RR, as user:DocOfSoc keeps on reverting deletions of unsourced/OR material "so they can be used as a resource for the Chinatown, Los Angeles page" (in other words, to flesh that page out with original research). On the LA page and the related Monterey Park, California page, there were hosts of citations from wiki-clones, i.e. using wiki material to cite wiki content, though I've replaced those with fact templates (when I perhaps should have deleted the content outright). NB also the AfD at Chinatown patterns in North America, which overlaps with the Chinatown list pages and teh main Chinatown page, and also with Chinatowns in Canada and the United States. Part of the big problem, as with Koreatown, is the OR extension of the meaning of Chinatown to allegedly inclucde anywhere that has Chinese stores and/or residents.....I decided to come here after looking over the burgeoning content on the Southern California page, and am troubled by the idea that rank OR/synth/uncited material would be preserved solely as a "resource" to expand another article. Somewhere between confabulation and conflation and also sins of omission (e.g. of San Luis Obispo's and Calico's historical Chinatowns, among others), this page is one of many ethnic-vanity pages needed deletion or serious editing/pruning.Skookum1 (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Weston Price and possible coatracking/synth

Would like some second opinions over on the biography article on Weston Price. (No, this has nothing to do with Quackwatch or Barrett). Background: Price is a dentist that did research in the 1920s that supported the extraction of infected teeth over performing root canals (also called endodontic therapy) because of this research supported a theory that mouth infections could cause systemic diseases like rheumatoid arthritis called focal infection theory. His experiments and this theory later fell out of favor in the 1940s. Recently a couple of anti-root canals books [21] [22] have been published that resurrected Price's research against root canal as a source. I found a textbook on root canals (Ingle's Endodontics) and added some information with regards to Price and root canal from both historical and modern perspectives (diff) sourced mainly to that textbook. The textbook clearly state that the dental and medical communities reject "focal infection theory" as it related to root canals.

Other editors are now trying to add information to this biography article saying that "focal infection theory" may not be totally discredited; however the information they're trying to add does not mention Price or root canals. This seems to me a clear cut case of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, as it appears to be trying to discuss the theory in general, when the article only speaks about it in the context of root canals and Price. I note again, none of the sources for this additional information even mention Price once. Outside opinions appreciated. Yobol (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The real problem is that no cause-effect relationship has been proven. On the other hand the Ingle's book (likely the best source) is Yes and No about everything else. They say Price's work was disproven or fell out of favor or whatever, then they talk about correlating infections to certain diseases without using the phrase Focal Infection Theory. So basically they're supporting the notion that it isn't completely dead, even though they claim uninformed patients are being duped. So Ingle's is almost trying to have it both ways. I don't think it's evenly split, the disproven side is somewhat stronger, yet FIT isn't dead. So there we have it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 00:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Today, the medical and dental professions agree that there is no relationship between endodontically treated teeth and the degenerative changes implicated in the theory of focal infection. However, recent publications have resurrected the focal infection theory based on the poorly designed and outdated studies by Rosenow and Price. This body of research has been evaluated and disproved. Unfortunately, uninformed patients may receive this outdated information and believe it to be credible new findings." This is a direct quote from the textbook. No one's having it both ways except people pushing for inclusion of material suggesting that focal infection theory hasn't been totally discredited into this article. The quote is about focal infection theory and endodontically (root-canal) teeth and Price. The extra information deals neither with Price nor root canals but other aspects of focal infection theory. It is clearly OR.Yobol (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Yobol is adding general information about focal infection theory, and about the unfortunate medical results of focal infection theory (needless extractions) but claiming that because it is contained in the same section of the same book that discusses Weston Price's experiments this more general information is somehow immune from the OR claims he makes about other general information on focal infections. There are two historical facts that need to be taken into account here. 1) Focal infection theory was mainstream at the time Price conducted his studies and 2) Weston Price is almost never mentioned in connection to focal infection theory, unless the contemporary fringe works that cite him are also being discussed. Google "focal infection theory" in Google books and see for yourself. Price's very dated research has unfortunately become the focus of fringe theorists and those who want to debunk them, but we should not get caught up in this. A dispassionate view of Price in his proper historical context is needed here. It would have been enough to simply mention that Price did research that furthered focal infection theory. I'm not sure any of the balancing materials about the parts of focal infection theory that were not completely discarded would be needed if Yobol wasn't trying to dwell on negative information about Price.Griswaldo (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand Gris, and agree with what you are saying. Price had lots of experience, it appears to me, with endodontic dentistry BEFORE he began to question it. He related it to FIT later. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 03:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Where have I added information about focal infection theory outside the context of Price and endodontics? Yobol (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, we don't add information that violates WP:OR just to "balance" things out. We already have a dispassionate view of Price - that coming from the WP:RS that I summarized in the article. If you have another view from a WP:RS by all means bring it up, but you can't just add WP:OR material in there just because you don't like that negative material is in the article. Yobol (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate where you're coming from on this now. I guess I'd like to see a more general description of Price's research. I'm getting the sense that the only reason he's even mentioned in the endodontics text has to do with the recent fringe revival of his theories. Other endodontics books don't include him in their narrative of focal infection and extraction hysteria, especially books published more than 10 years ago. I think that's an interesting clue. Either way, let's see if we can't find something about his focal infection research that isn't just about extraction hysteria to see the extent of it. Sound reasonable?Griswaldo (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If there are more general description of Price's work, I'd be more than happy to include it, as long as it's sourced properly. I would daresay that it is likely that this endodontics book included a description of Price because of the new fringe books. That's bad in that it might provide a skewed perspective (though we have other sources like Grossman that mention Price too, so no indication yet that it is skewed)...it's also good in the sense that when fringe topics come out, there often isn't any authoritative publications to use discussing them, which is why everyone was arguing about sites like Quackwatch. Now that we do have this source, I think the best thing we should do now is to accurately summarize what it says, and as new sources and information is found, to include it. We should not, however, try to "balance" it out with material that is really not appropriate for the biographic article on Price as that is clearly OR - we are using the source to synthesize the material for us, we don't do it ourselves. Yobol (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten large sections of this for tone and balance. I think this should resolve most of the problems. if there are disagreements, let me know and we'll work something out. --Ludwigs2 03:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated.Yobol (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that Ingle's book is a reliable source as it via People's Medical Publishing House out of China whose reliability is unknown to us and it is both supported and contradicted by other reliable sources both past and present:

"Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders" ("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951)
"His books on Focal Infection are masterpieces. But the work for which he will always be remembered has to do with Human Nutrition." ((1951) Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7 American Academy of Nutrition pg 32)
"Much of the clinical evidence supporting the focal infection theory is of the case-report type." (Burket, Lester William (1971) "Oral medicine; diagnosis and treatment") ((1951) Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7 American Academy of Nutrition pg 32)
"Grossman believes that foci of infection, where in the mouth or elsewhere, should be removed (...) Elimination of such foci does not, however, necessarily mean surgical removal since infection may also be eliminated by destruction with antiseptics or antibiotics" (E.R. Squibb & Sons (1956) Dental infections: treatment and prophylaxis; Page 46)
"The allergic condition called angioneurotic edema may be related to food allergy, hypersensitivity, local or focal infection, and endocrine or emotional disturbances." (United States. Dept. of the Army (1971) Dental specialist: Sept. 20, 1971: Part 1 - Page 5-14)
"It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)
"...in spite of lack of scientific evidence the dental focal infection theory never died (O'Reilly (2000) "A history of Oral sepsis as a cause of disease" Periodentel 2000 23:13-18; Pallashe TJ (2000) "The focal infection theory: appraisal and reappraisal" California Dental Association Journal 28: 194-200) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar Preben; Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich (2009) Textbook of Endodontology Wiley page 135-136)
"This is why the dental and medical communities are cautiously reconsidering the biological plausibility of the 'focal infection' theory." (Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) "Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology", Wiley; Page 33)
(2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) provides an insane amount of references on focal infection from 1989 to the then present.

Yobol seems to have overlooked the fact that Ingle's book is by the USA branch of People's Medical Publishing House. They also put out books on borderline practices like Acupuncture, Moxibustion & Tuina(Traditional Chinese Medicine on the USA site) This coupled with conflicts with books by the American Academy of Nutrition, Southern California State Dental Association, US Army, Wiley, and Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, as well as apparent total ignorance of all focal infection research from 1986 to 2007 I cannot regard Ingle's as a reliable source and am restoring the material to the way it was.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 09:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, you never responded about your saying that Ingle's is not longer a reliable source. Could you please? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're surprised the Chinese division of the medical publishing house publishes Chinese medicine books? This makes them unreliable how, exactly? Yobol (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the publishing of TRADITIONAL Chinese medicine books. TCM has things like Chinese food therapy and Chinese herbal medicine as well as the better known Acupuncture. Right now there is little Western research to check on the scientific validity of the claims made by these and some other branches of TCM and some of the substances used have been found to contain dangerous toxins like arsenic and mercury either intentionally or via poor quality control.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be taken to the article talk page, as it is not a WP:OR issue. Yobol (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If People's Medical Publishing House doesn't meet WP:RS requirements then it is most certainly is an WP:OR issue. WP:BURDEN is quite clear on this. Besides we have sources by known reliable publishers such as Wiley, Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, and the Journal of the California Dental Association and they all say the Ingels book is wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce I'm beginning to change my mind a bit on this to be honest. There is a difference between endodontic and periodontal areas of the mouth, obviously. The aspects of focal infection theory that caused extraction hysteria and were discredited appear to have dealt with endodontics and not periodontology. Yet all the recent "cautious" but "mainstream" research in the area appears to be vis-a-vis periodontology and not endodontics (e.g. research focusing on periodontal disease and plaque as foci of infection instead of the dental pulp). The exception to this is the fringe stuff that advocates against root canal therapy (endodontics). This is the area in which Price's research seems to have been resurrected as well. I do think the entire history of focal infection theory could be sorted out a bit better at Focal infection theory, and Price's exact connection to it could be sorted out a bit better in the Price entry, but for now I'm not sure your entire chunk of text on focal infection theory belongs in the entry anymore. Does anyone have access to Price's publications on this or a better summary than what is found in the endodontics book?Griswaldo (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but the material so far is somewhat confused in clarifying this matter. I'lll have to back and look but I don't think Henderson (2009) (one of our most recent reliable source) makes this distinction. In any case we need to clarify that Price's work and that of today or differena animals.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to know if Price's theories and research extended beyond the tooth pulp itself. His conclusions weren't only about "endodontically treated" teeth, which caused me a bit of confusion at first, but as his research is presented in the endodontics book it does appear to only relate to the pulp, and not external infections and other periodontal diseases. My worry is that only the areas of research that relate to the current fringe revival are being addressed in that source, and therefore presenting a less than full picture of Price's entire body of focal infection research and conclusions. I'm just not sure at this point though.Griswaldo (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree it would be nice, but we are limited by what we have right now. Every source we have (3 - Baumgartner, Grossman, and a review by Pallasch that I have but didn't add due to it not having any new info as Baumgartner) talks about Price and focal infection only in the setting of endodontics. If we don't have sources saying anything else about Price, we should not add it. As an aside, the more different sources you have to bring in to the discussion that don't mention the topic of the article, the clearer and clearer it gets that it is OR. Yobol (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A valid concern but take a good look at the case study in Bergenholtz (2009) on page 137. It is cases like that that give what Price and his contemporaries views validity in the modern world.

On a related note Garg, Nisha; Amit Garg (2007) Textbook of endodontics Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 2 give a little historical overview of endodontics: Pre Science (1776-1826), Age of Discovery (1826-1876), Dark Age (1876-1926), Renaissance (1926-1976), and Innovation (1977-present).

Schroeder, André (1981) Endodontics--science and practice pg 271-274 looks like it may give some more details as it has a section entitled "Endodontics and Focal Infection"

Cugadasan, V (1980) "Oral Sepsis and Focal Infection" Singapore Medical Journal Dec;21(6):763-5 is another source of information.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Yobol? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? He's probably not spending 24/7 on Wikipedia ... nothing wrong with that.Griswaldo (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Why the tone? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

/rolls eyes.Yobol (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my question was meant harmlessly, just hadn't seen you. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well so was my response. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues as I tried to explain on the talk page is there doesn't seem to be a clear and definite difference in terms of functional concept between the focal infection 100 years ago and what is being suggested now.

"In the gastro intestinal tract the esophagus, stomach and intestine are seldom subject to focal infection, but two appendages of the tract arc frequently involved, namely, the gall-bladder and appendix." 1910 The Journal of the Indiana State Medical Association: Volume 3 Page 54.

"Goiter, appendicitis, gall-bladder infection, and skin eruptions, such as herpes zoster and acne, bronchial asthma, and the anemias, are all included among those conditions where foci of infection are often suspect as being the most important etiologic factor" ((1918 The Surgical clinics of Chicago Volume 2, Issue 6; Page 1146)

"All focal infection is not of dental origin, but a sufficiently large percentage is to demand a careful study of the mouth and teeth in all cases of the mouth and teeth in all cases of systemic infection, for in these cases all foci should be removed." (1918) Dental summary: Volume 38; Page 437)

"The hypothesis which assumes the causative connection between the primary focus and the secondary lesion is called the "focal infection theory." (Stillman, Paul Roscoe (1922) A Textbook of clinical periodontia; Page 111)

"One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps. I cannot support the statement in the "critically appraised" report on dental foci of infection that "later laboratory workers were unable to confirm the bacteriologic findings of Rosenow on which the concept of 'elective localization'" ((1952) Southern California State Dental Association journal)

"It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

Other than how primarily a role it plays in disease there doesn't seem to be that much difference from the focal infection theory of 1910 and the one of 2007 or if there is the reliable source material is doing a really bad job explaining it to us layman editors.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, the difference is pretty obvious. No one doubts that a tooth infection can spread to other parts of the body and cause more serious problems. However, old-style FIT tended to imply the reverse, that many more serious illnesses trace their roots back to dental infections. Price's argument is really as follows: (a) modern nutrition issues cause tooth problems, (b) tooth problems lie at the root of more serious health problems, therefore (c) more serious health problems can be avoided by improving nutrition and removing teeth before infection sets in. It's that last step that is no longer a valid theory in medicine or dentistry; no one thinks that we can create significant improvements in the health of individuals merely by treating periodontal disease correctly. It's not that it's a bad theory, it's just that modern research and evidence (currently) weighs against it. --Ludwigs2 19:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh Ludwigs2, you do realize the 1910 and 1918 The Surgical clinics of Chicago articles above talked about focal infections that were NOT tooth related, right? Furthermore the Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS, MS; Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal" Journal of the California Dental Association article that is used to reference much of the focal infection theory expressly and directly states that the focus of infection "Can occur anywhere in the body". In addition to teeth he states that other sources of possible focui of infection included tonsils, the oral cavity in general, sinuses, prostate, appendix, bladder, gall bladder, and kidney.

Pallasch also points to an "orgy" of tonsillectomies as well as tooth extractions being part of the whole over zealousness with focal infection theory. Focal infection as a main cause of disease fell out of favor thanks to studies done in 1939 and 1940. However, Pallasch makes it crystal clear that what is going on is a "resurgence of the focal infection theory of disease". Not "a" but "the" ie this is at its core the focal infection theory of days gone by:

"That oral microorganisms/oral disease could be responsible for some forms of systemic diseases is attractive as it would give dentistry greater professional participation in the health care process, would stimulate basic and clinical research in this area, and encourage the public to take better care of their mouths. It is always wise to resist generalizations from limited data (particularly via the media), and the profession should be well aware of the consequences of encouraging patient treatment without documented benefit."

Pallasch's article is a clear warning to his fellow professionals that they have been down this road before and also warns "The dental profession should refrain from the temptations to gain economically from the focal infection theory, to justify dental treatment solely on the basis of prevention of systemic disease, or to use this theory to criticize another practitioner’s efforts. What we need now is sound science not jubilation that focal infection is the savior of dental practice."--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Transitive synthesis

Resolved

I originally asked this at WT:NOR, but this may be a more appropriate venue, I'm not sure.

Is there any sort of transitive rule of synthesis? For instance, if source #1 says that A is B, and source #2 says that B is C, is it synthesis to say that A is C? For a more concrete example, if source #1 says that "all mammals are warm blooded", and source #2 says that "all cats are mammals", would it be considered synthesis to say that "cats are warm blooded"? A bit confused as to whether these types of transitive scenarios were meant to be excluded as synthesis. ← George^talk

Resolved over the WT:NOR. Thanks. ← George^talk 07:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Source conformity check

I think this is a simple matter of checking 12 sentences to see whether the current or proposed version better conforms to the sources. However, I have dealt with one editor who steadfastly affirms the opposite version to mine, and several editors in various fora who have declined to read the sources. I have now lined up current, proposed, and source versions, with links, to make it as easy as possible. There is an unparalleled high heat-light ratio, but I hope the primary issues are boiled down at that link. Please chip in, thank you. JJB 12:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I confess to being the self-same editor who steadfastly affirms the opposite of what John believes. At one point he had something like 20 sentences tagged, one after another, but we've managed to get him to cut back a bit. I'd welcome anyone who wants to come and check out the sources that currently bother him - just about every sentence in one entire section of the article. (And when that's done I guess he'll move on to the next section, and then the next...). The latest posts on the Talk page are here, but to find the references you'll need to go to the article itself, here.PiCo (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why PiCo is guessing about my next behavior: I have steadfastly stuck with attempting to correct one edit set of PiCo's that is now 5 weeks old, and have not expressed an interest in moving to another section of this article. I don't understand why PiCo is providing new links, because my first link above already indicates where all the source links and quotes are. JJB 05:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry JJ, I'll stop trying to predict your behaviour. For everyone else: John is sincere, he really does believe that the sources quoted in the article don't back up what the article says. So I support his coming here for third-party input. I do, however, rather doubt that many of you are going to be be willing to go through all 12 sentences that are currently causing him distress. To makle it easier, can I suggest we take them one by one? I'll paste in the first sentence that John has problems with, and the source it's based on, and you can look at it and say "yes" or "no" as you see fit. Number 1: "This Israel, identified as a people, was probably located in the northern part of the central highlands." (A word of explanation: the sentence is talking about a reference to an entity named as "Israel" in a 13th century BC inscription from Egypt - hence the phrase "this Israel". The inscription doesn't say exactly where "this Israel" was. John is querying our statement that it was most probably in "the northern part of the central highlands" of modern Palestine/Israel. See page 38 of the source: Niels Peter Lemche, "The Israelites in History and Tradition" (Westminster John Knox, 1998) pp.35-8) So, does the source say northern part of central highlands, yes or no? Answers please on a postcard, or else put them here... PiCo (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, you did not take my hint above about not confusing the matter with new links, but, instead, for the second time, you changed my question and directed users elsewhere than my links. My question is not yes-or-no but current-or-proposed. And my question is certainly not "does the source use the phrase 'northern part'", which would be out of context because of course it does. Point 7 here is the full question and source context, plus one source sentence that came up later on the page. The short version is that Lemche is vague and you are drawing an unsourced conclusion he does not state unequivocally; when he finally uses the passive voice by mentioning "an Israel placed in the northern part" he is not saying he, let alone a majority of scholarship, is doing the placing; in fact he says earlier the placing was done only by Gösta Ahlström.

So, my original question 7 (which you renumber as 1) is: I would change "This Israel, identified as a people, was probably located in the northern part of the central highlands" to more exact "This Israel, identified as a people, tribe, coalition, or territory, was located in the northern part of the central highlands by Gösta Ahlström" (or simply "... was probably located in the central highlands") because source Lemche pp. 37-8 seems to disagree with the "northern part" proposal and present a western- or full-central proposal. To echo something you said last month, I would prefer you sit back and allow editors to review my links as I requested them, so that my questions can be answered rather than questions I didn't ask. But it may be too late. JJB 09:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a genius for cluttering a page up. Ok, if anyone is interested in reading this far, please help John out in whatever way you think best. PiCo (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Having read the section in the Lemche book, I can see no signs of "disagreement" between him and others over the details of "northern" versus "central" or whatever. The phrase "an Israel placed in the northern part of the central highlands" in the Lemche book is given without any of the sort of implied hedging that JJB seems to be reading into it. (Disclaimer: I know very little about the geography of those places, and have a hard time even parsing descriptions such as "at the western border of the central highlands, at the southeastern extension of what what would in the Iron Age be situated at the southwestern border of the kingdom of Israel", but whatever that means, I don't see any alternative being presented between a "northern central highlands" versus a "western- or full-central proposal" as JJB says above). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Future Perfect at Sunrise. I disagree, but will take your comment at face value and will propose a resolution on this point that respects your concerns: I will simply quote the sentence in which you see no hedging. However, even though this is my first comment to you on WP, I must take a rather extraordinary step and inform you that on the remaining 11 points, for reasons I do not wish to list, I do not see myself as able to accept you as a neutral third-party dispute-resolution agent. I believe that dispute-resolution procedure allows me to take reasonable steps to ensure "agreement that can be acceptable to everyone", and I believe rejecting this particular resolution path (having you continue as verifier), when it is first offered as an implicit possibility, would be an appropriate protection of my interests. Given your stated "know[ing] very little" about this geography, please do me a kindness and allow my request, while other board editors comment on the remaining points. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 17:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you ask for outside opinion on a noticeboard, you don't normally get to decide who is going to provide that outside opinion to you. And this process is not about "protecting" anybody's "interests". Of course you are free to listen or not listen to anything people say here. But whatever – I don't intend to get involved in the content issue further. I only provided a minor, neutral piece of assessment of a technical issue of sourcing. I will be watching the situation from an outside perspective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion 8

The second challenge (aka point 8) is I would delete "At the same time the highlands, previously unpopulated, were beginning to fill with villages" as not found in source McNutt pp. 69-70; McNutt says the villages were previously populated. This was recognized as faulty and changed to "almost unpopulated", but that still does not fully address the issue. McNutt does not speak of a previously unpopulated land; she speaks of villagers, who left archaeological remains, and others, who did not, so she does not comment on nonvillage population; her only relevant comment seems to be that a majority of villages were not previously occupied. The WP:BURDEN is on the maintainer, and this sentence is not in source pp. 69-70 as claimed. Comments? JJB 17:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the more relevant passage in the book is on page 47, in the chapter 2 of which the passage in 69-70 is said to be merely a summary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. McNutt says 'sparsely settled' on p. 47. And that by the end of Iron Age I, more than 300 sites were occupied (compared to 25 earlier) plus new settlements in marginal areas. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, your declining to accept my polite request has been noted. Doug, I don't mind your quoting Levy for a twentysomething number, or citing something to McNutt p. 47, but please advance the issue by making the edit yourself as to what you see so I can interact with it, or proposing that I do so, or confirming your agreement with my handling of point 7, or something. Thanks. JJB 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Given pages 47-48 of McNutt, all that needs to be done is to change the page reference. I'll do that. (By the way, when McNutt says that some villages were on sites that had been occupied "in previous periods", those periods were very previous indeed - Middle Bronze, c.1550 BC).PiCo (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You saw "Middle Bronze" on pp. 47-8? (Blink.) Anyway, as promised I interacted with it and put what I see on pp. 47-8 myself. However, it's not that helpful for you and Doug to keep commenting here, because I really was seeking input from editors not involved with me; you've had 5 weeks to say all these things at talk, and you still have a list of issues there you can respond to in place, and you haven't. But please let me know what you think and I may be able to move on to the next one. JJB 07:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the fact that there was a Middle Bronze collapse before the Late Bronze collapse isn't on page 47, it's just one of those things that you know if you're across the subject. But McNutt does cover it - see p.xiv for a table listing the archaeological ages, footnote 67 on page 229 for an outline of the waves of expansion and collapse right across the three Bronze ages, and then read pages 53-63 for a review of the major "models" that attempt to explain the evidence. PiCo (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion 10-11

Outside editors can still get the first crack if they act now on the verification check at Discussion 10-11! I am sorry to say that this board has so far generated zero editors who were not previously involved with me. Its only consolation has been that every new board at least seems to ratchet some recalcitrant editor a bit forward in advancing the discussion. Okay, I just need to find about seven more boards. Anyone? Anyone? JJB 05:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in Afghanistan

All sources (including The World Factbook, Library of Congress Country Studies, Encyclopedia Britannica, Center for Applied Linguistics, etc.) state that the Tajik ethnic group in Afghanistan is 25-27%. [23] [24] [25] User:Tajik believes this is wrong and wants to raise it to 37-38% [26] by using opinion polls in which between around 1,000 to 6,000 invdividuals were selected and asked questions relating to how things are since the start of the latest US-led war in their country. [27] [28] Among many questions, one question at the end was asked the 1,000-6,000 volunteers to state their ethnicity and User:Tajik wants to use the result of that opinion poll to reflect as the total ethnic percentages of Afghanistan's 28 million people, although the survey was conducted in the city of Kabul, which has higher % of Tajiks than other places of the country. I believe User:Tajik's edits regarding this is original research or original synthesis because I've looked everywhere online but cannot find a single source mentioning Tajiks over 27%. We've also had a discussion on this topic at Talk:Afghanistan#Ethnic groups. I want to know if I'm right on this, and need an advice on what shall be done, thanks.--Jrkso (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Jrkso is making false claims in here. I did not say that I do "not accept" the sourced numbers. I only added two recent representative polls in which the collective questioned (some 1000-3000 individuals) more or less reflect the other numbers. There is nothing wrong about that. Unlike the guesses (which are not even guesses by experts), the representative surveys are directly from Afghanistan and they are very recent. I did NOT delete any of his numbers, I only added the two surveys to the article. And the surveys were not conducted in Kabul only. Jrkso should actually read the surveys before criticizing! Tajik (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

--> As a side note: User:Jrkso is stubbornly restoring a fabricated and unscholarly claim in the article Afghanistan. It is a claim by one author, very obviously not an expert on the subject, in which he describes an alleged letter by Alexander the Great in which he describes "the Afghans" (Jrkso's interpretation) as "lions". This claim is not supported by any scholarly source. There is no sign of it in the authoritative standard reference work Encyclopaedia Iranica. And so far, Jrkso has failed to provide a single reliable source for this claim. He stubbornly claims that the author of that one book is reliable, although he is not even able to prove his claim that the author is an expert on the subject. I have not been able to find any other author or scholar who would support this claim. Very obviously, the letter is a pure fabrication by the author who happens to be Afghan and tries to make a point by inventing the story. The author is NOT an expert on Greek history, he is not even an expert on Afghanistan's history, and he certainly does not understand Greek. If I am wrong, then I want Jrkso to prove me wrong. Nonsense such as this alleged letter needs to be removed. And Jrkso needs to read and to understand Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Tajik (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Um... the 37-38% population numbers in question are cited to documents published by the Asia Foundation. So unless I am missing something, this would not be "Original Research" as we mean that term. The percentages did not originate with a Wikipedia editor... they originated with the Asia Foundation. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, the 37-38% represents the 6,000 people who took the survey. The Asia Foundation who published the results, is not claiming that Afghanistan's 28 million population is 37-38% Tajik. If that is not W:OR then it's original synthesis.--Jrkso (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! The two representative surveys listed are:

"A survey of the Afghan people – Afghanistan in 2006"; conducted by The Asia Foundation, technical assistance by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS; India) and Afghan Center for Socio-economic and Opinion Research (ACSOR), Kabul, 2006, PDF
ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD poll – Afghanistan: Where Things Stand, February 9, 2009, pp. 38–40; by BBC, ABC News, and ARD.

I have tried to explain to him that this is not WP:OR. In fact, it is OR on his part when he stubbornly deletes these sources. But he either does not understand or he does not want to understand. Most of his edits are very problematic, anyway.

And, once again, I am asking Jrkso to tell us who Abdul Sabahuddin is, whom Jrkso is citing, what qualifications he has, if he is an expert on Greek history and language, and why he considers this dubious author a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources?! Tajik (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, his deleting is not an OR issue either. What you have is a WP:NPOV dispute... Suggest you both read that policy if you have not done so... and then raise the issue at WP:NPOV/N if you continue to have a dispute. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason I'm opposing the surveys is not only because it's dubious and representing just 6,000 Afghans out of the 28 million, it's also because of the fact that other editors who are non-Tajiks (possibly Pashtuns and Hazaras) come and change the numbers very often and someone has to be always busy fixing this. It's alot better that we just use the more accepted figures (CIA World Factbook, Library of Congress, Britannica, etc) and stick to that. There are many reliable sources which state that the Pashtun ethnic group being 55-60% but we don't have that mentioned in the Afghanistan or Demography of Afghanistan articles.--Jrkso (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you please also take a look at Talk:Afghanistan#Selective_quoting_and_falsification_of_sources_by_User:Jrkso? Thank you. Tajik (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the two representative surveys mentioned above and they are not sources for the percentage of Tajiks in Afghanistan. They simply say what percentage of those surveyed said they were Tajik. That it was a wide survey does not mean it was representative of the proportions in the country/. If there is some question about Afghans being lions that is another matter and should not be dragged into this discussion. The figures in the surveys should be scaled to the population to render the surveys more accurate as per stratified sampling - I'm surprised they have not done this. Dmcq (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I explicitly mentioned in my edit that the previous numbers (Factbook, Britannica, etc.) which are not based on actual surveys or official population-numbers, are being reflected in the two surveys. The surveys do not prove the other numbers wrong, nor are they superior, they are a fine addition and show the percentage of the ethnic groups in a certain collective. The fact that the number of Tajiks is higher by ca. 10% is not surprising. The concept of ethnicity in Afghanistan is very complex, and "Tajik" is only an analytical expressions used by others to define Persian-speaking, sedentary, and mostly urban Afghans with no tribal society. So anyone who moves into a larger town, adopts the local Persian dialect and looses any affinities to a tribal past is - by definition - a "Tajik" (that is also the definition given by German Afghanistan-expert Conrad Schetter in "II. Strukturen und Lebenswelten - Stammesstrukturen und ethnische Gruppen", Wegweiser zur Geschichte. Afghanistan, Vol. 3, ed. Bernhard Chiari, Paderborn, 2009, ISBN 978-3-506-76761-5, pp. 123-131; Schetter puts the number of Pashtuns at 40-50% and that of Tajiks at 25-35%, based on previous numbers from 1985 and depending on how the terms "Tajik" and "Pashtun" are defined). Tajik (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the Asia Foundation figures for instance. I see they do weigh the figures - but they don't say how they got the population figures for each province to weigh by. And they seem to have each province assigned an exact integer percentage weight into the total. However having looked at it again I get the feeling they may not be too badly out as all the little fudges wil tend to cancel if there isn't too much systematic bias and the areas that were left out of the survey probably wouldn't affect it too much. I'm tending to changing my mind a bit if it is presented with the caveat that it is an estimate from samples which have tried to be representative, it does look like there may not be anything better for the moment. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure but think you guys missed the point of my argument. Suppose 6,000 people are selected in the United States and asked many questions but in the end one question is to state their race, and 38% of the 6,000 volunteers turn out to be Hispanic Americans, can we use that result in Demography of the United_States#Race and ethnicity as a reliable source for a claim that make Hispanic Americans 38%? User:Tajik is doing this here with the Tajiks of Afghanistan. He is trying to make the 25-25% Tajiks become 37-38% by using these opinion polls which represent only 6,000 the people. The aim of the surveys was to find out if Afghans in general were happy or not with the situation in their country. As I mentioned at the top that from 1992 to 2010 all the major sources (The World Factbook, Library of Congress Country Studies, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc) claim that Tajiks are 25-27%. The reason why I believe this is W:OR is because the opion polls are to something else but Tajik is using it instead for his own personal research, which is reaching a conclusion that Tajiks are now 37-38%.--Jrkso (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Please feel free to add the numbers back to the article and write a short introduction sentence to it. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: Jrkso put his answers directly into the previous discussion, hence the chronology is lost. My answers are not directed at him, as it appears. He simply did not follow the rules of discussion. As for Jrkso's claims: I have already explained that I consider the two polls as additional sources, not as mere "facts". They are representative polls (as far as possible in Afghanistan), at least one of them conducted by very reliable institutions. Whatever the original purpose has been: the numbers reflect the previous numbers, they neither disprove nor replace the older ones. They are, so far, the most recent numbers we have from Afghanistan. All other numbers, be it the CIA Factbook or Britannica, are only guesses and are not based on any actual survey or official numbers. Jrkso's edits are notorious for being problematic. He has just been caught directly falsifying sources with the attempt to mislead the reader. See my comments on the talk page of Afghanistan. Regards. Tajik (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The total number of a population is almost totally irrelevant, all that matters is how big the sample is and how well it is selected. For 6000 people if the sampling was very good the standard deviation for a 40% result would be about 38 i.e. about 0.63%, three standard deviations would be 1.9%. This is almost certainly swamped by other problems in this survey but 10% difference would need quite a bit systematic bias which isn't apparent in their sampling, in fact their sampling per province and weighting should cut the problem down a bit. If such a survey was carried out in the United States the results might actually be more reliable than a national census if the people answering the census have some reason to answer wrong, the survey would be able to check the sample is answering right far better than the census would. Dmcq (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook, Library of Congress, and Britannica are not guesses. After the removal of the Taliban, since early 2002 to present, many agencies from the United States (including USAID [29], Naval Postgraduate School [30], UNHCR [31], UNDP, and others) went to work inside Afghanistan and began collecting complete population data for all the districts across the country (see Kabul Province#Demographics and administration, i.e. this sample). They visited all 34 provinces of the nation and nearly 400 districts which are within the provinces, and most villages. You can clearly see the sample is showing the percentage of each ethnic group for every district, and that is very easy to count, even I can do it in few hours. The job of these agencies is to provide the world with accurate and reliable information. They all agree and say Tajiks are 27% in Afghanistan.--Jrkso (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The sample you provided said nothing about the number or percentage of Tajiks. Dmcq (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now had a look at a number of those UNHCR reports and it is blindingly obvious they make up percentages of ethnic groups by sticking their fingers in the air. They are given as e.g. 100% or 30%. We should not indulge in original research so we have to just accept their figures as 'experts' but the surveys are also good sources and should also be shown - and are probably more accurate. Dmcq (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The UNHCR is one out of many. This provincial report from the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development shows you that many UN agencies are involved with this work. I was trying to explain above that the CIA rely on these sort of official district datas. CIA's 27% for the ethnic Tajik group is accurate "estimation", not precise numbers.--Jrkso (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What needs to be done here is to tell the reader that there is a difference of scholarly opinion, by clearly attributing who says what... something along the lines of: "The CIA Factbook, Library of Congress, and Britannica all agree that percentage of the Afghan population that are Tajiks is around 25%. However the Asia Foundation has conducted a survey that gives a Tajik population percentage closer to 37%" (exact wording may differ). The point being that we need to keep what we say neutral, while accurately reflecting what the sources say. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the numbers provided by the Encyclopaedia Iranica, partially based on official census numbers from the pre-1980's era, totally reflect the numbers of these two surveys. The number of Tajiks (with the addition of Qizilbash and Farsiwan) was at 34%, that of Pashtuns at ca. 40%. These numbers were mentioned in the article until recently. But User:Jrkso removed the Iranica numbers, claiming that "they are too old" (interestingly, he kept the Iranica numbers in the languages section, I guess because they partially support his views; that is Jrkso's well-known and notorious selective quoting). It seems that he is stubbornly trying to keep the number of Tajiks low. His Pashtun ethno-centric edits and biased views were already criticized by others in Talk:Afghanistan. Tajik (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I need to repeat myself... This simply is not an OR issue. This sounds like a neutrality issue, and if so, it should be discussed at the NPOV noticeboard... it may be that there are also some reliability issues (for those ask at WP:RSN)... but this simply isn't a case for this noticeboard... as there is no Original Research issue for us to discuss. Take it elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's more like this: "In 2006, the Asia Foundation has conducted an opinion poll in Kabul to find out how things stand in Afghanistan, they had randomely selected 6,226 Afghan citizens and it turned out that 37% of them were ethnic Tajiks. The survey did not include Uruzgan Province and Zabul Province because of security concern.". This is precisely what happend.[32]

“

This report presents the findings of the single-largest, comprehensive public opinion poll conducted in Afghanistan. The survey was conducted by The Asia Foundation between June and August, 2006 and consisted of a random, representative sample of 6226 in-person interviews with Afghan citizens 18 years of age and above resident in Afghanistan (see Appendix 1). The survey sample was divided first according to urban and rural characteristics of Afghanistan.1 The universe is divided into seven geographical regions consisting of 34 provinces out of which 32 provinces were covered in the survey. Uruzgan, representing 1.1 percent of the population of Afghanistan, and Zabul, representing 1.2 percent, were excluded from the sampling plan due to extreme security conditions during the fieldwork period of the survey. The margin of sampling error is 2.5 percent.

”

The survey is incomplete, misleading, and useless. The 2 missing provinces (Uruzgan Province and Zabul Province) are Pashtun and Hazara, no mention of Tajiks so yeah that's a big problem. User:Tajik wants to use this incomplete opinion poll because it shows his ethnic group (Tajik) at a very high number. Blueboar, you're right this may not be OR issue so we should take it to the next level. Thanks for your involvement.--Jrkso (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's your Pashtun ethno-centric view. Those two provinces (which, like all other provinces, have mixed populations) won't have any larger effect on the end result. Even if the populations of these 2 provinces were only Hazara and Pashtun (as you assert), the overall number of Tajiks, Uzbeks, and others would not drop significantly. It's because only REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE from EACH PROVINCE makes up the overall result. Everyone else seems to understand it, except the only Pashtun in here: you. Tajik (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you check the sources given for those 2 provinces at the "references" section, they all say Pashtuns with minority Hazara, that's according to USAID, Afghan government, and all other reliable sources. You can also see the Ethnolinguistic map, there are no Tajiks in that 2 provinces. You can see this map and easily locate these 2 province and it tells you that there are no Tajiks in these 2 provinces.--Jrkso (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Extrapolating a state's ethnic population composition from a survey which does not make the claim that the state's ethnic population composition is such-and-such is Original Research. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the survey says and that's not what is mentioned in the article. The numbers should be considered as additional information to other sources (Factbook, Britannica, etc. who do not have any systematic method or official numbers!). That's why I say: the numbers - which are a representative sample of some 6500 people from 32 of the 34 provinces ("margin of sampling error in this survey is 2.5 percent") - reflect the other numbers. And they are directly FROM Afghanistan (= NOT mere guesses and speculation as the Factbook or Britannica numbers). As far as comparison with REAL scholarly sources is concerned: the poll numbers are much closer to the numbers given in Encyclopaedia Iranica (though being pre-1980's numbers), the only scholarly standard reference work on the subject. Tajik (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Asia Foundation, Afghanistan in 2006: A survey of the Afghan people [report]. Kabul, Afghanistan: The Asia Foundation, 2006. purports to be in part to "provide[d] up-to-date demographic information on a very large sample size of the population across Afghanistan." It is not authored by a demographer (it officially states that the author is The Asia Foundation), it is not published in an academically reviewed mode (it is not actually _published_, but merely uttered or reported, as it lacks an ISBN/ISSN). As a self-published non-academic report by non-experts, it is not reliable for demographic claims. Seek demographic scholars and suitable experts who cite the report's demography as accurate. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Then which numbers are we to believe?! The CIA Factbook?! I am confused. Tajik (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at that provincial report cited by Jrkso and it provides no data relevant to this question. At least the previous UNHCR ones said something relevant even though they were obviously wild finger in the air guesses. There is no indication anywhere that I can see that the CIA figures are anything other than guesstimates Both the results from the surveys and the CIA figures should be included and I think the wording is adequate. The reason for including the cIA figures is that they are widely respected even if in this instance they look pretty unreliable. This is in line with showing both sides when there is a disagreement between reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is how I have included the numbers in the article. I mentioned both surveys, but also the number of the 6000+ individuals from the 32 provinces. I also mentioned in the first sentence that the Factbook numbers are reflected in these more recent poll numbers, i.e. they should be considered as additional information. The scholarly numbers of the Encyclopaedia Iranica were removed by Jrkso and I have not restored them so far. Tajik (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this WP:SYNT

I need a second opinion at Talk:Masonic Hall (Wickenburg, Arizona) ... the text of the article (without citations) reads:

The Masonic Hall in Wickenburg, Arizona was built in 1922. It served historically as a clubhouse. The building "is noteworthy as a rare local example of the concrete frame with brick infill method of construction." The building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986. At that time it was the location of Montgomery Ward department store. The Masonic group in Wickenburg was the Hassayampa Lodge No. 37, which merged with Peoria Lodge No. 31, located in Peoria on June 6, 2005.

The sentence in question is italicized above, and is cited to this website... there are other sources for other statements. Unfortunately, what we don't have (and I think need) is a source that explicitly links Hassayampa lodge to the historic building in any way. There is a source (not used at the moment) that shows that the lodge has met elsewhere in the town... so Hassayampa was certainly A Masonic group in Wickenberg (we don't know if it was The Masonic group).

My feeling is that it is a plausible assumption that Hassayampa met in the historic building at some point in its history... but we don't know this for sure, and it is equally plausible that some other lodge met in the historic building (some towns do have more than one lodge). So... the question is... does mentioning Hassayampa Lodge create an implied conclusion that Hassayampa was the lodge that met in the historic building... and would this be a WP:SYNT vio. or some other form of OR? Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

well, yeah, I think it clearly is synth, though it's not a particularly dramatic example of it. If I were editing this article I would either (1) delete the line entirely - we don't really need to know which masonic groups existed in Wickenberg, unless that's important for historical reasons (which it clearly isn't otherwise there would be better sourcing), (2) attribute it - "source X claims that Hassayampa lodge #37 was the lodge which used the temple". --Ludwigs2 15:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Ludwig. Unless we cite it, it would be us making the connection, and not someone else. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A later version of the article was:

The Masonic Hall in Wickenburg, Arizona was built in 1922. It served historically as a clubhouse.[1]
The building "is noteworthy as a rare local example of the concrete frame with brick infill method of construction."[2]
The building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986.[1] At that time it was the location of a Montgomery Ward department store.[2]
A Masonic group in Wickenburg was the Hassayampa Lodge No. 37, which merged with Peoria Lodge No. 31, located in Peoria on June 6, 2005.[3]

I feel that is fine. The last sentence appears a little disconnected, but it is accurate. There is no violation of Wikipedia policy, no Great Wrong here. I think it is well within the range of editor discretion. What was expressed at Talk:List of Masonic buildings#comments on North America section and Talk:Masonic Hall (Wickenburg, Arizona), instead, was an overblown concern by one or two editors that there was some big problem. This is in the context of one editor (Blueboar) raising many dozens or hundreds of minor questions or concerns about Masonic building factoids. In this case, I have pointed out to the editor that he could simply request and obtain the free NRHP nomination document that should be available, which would clarify about the Masonic group. It seems to me that Blueboar should not be given an infinite amount of attention over every minor question he can come up with, when a less disruptive and productive option (get the stupid document) is available to him. I am inclined to return the accurate statement to the article, and leave the further research for Blueboar to pursue if he wishes. Ludwigs and Jack Sebastian, don't you think that his getting a good source would be a better resolution? --doncram (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, WP:BURDEN states that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material not with the editor who challenges it. So, if you wish this material to remain in the article, you (as the editor who is adding and restoring it) must provide a source that directly links the lodge to the building. Until you find such a source, we can't say it in the article. This isn't some personal vendetta that I have... its Wikipeida policy. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Having been involved with the discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings#comments on North America section, I have examined all of the sources, and am horrified to learn that several shreds of evidence were assembled and embroidered to create that statement identifying the lodges that supposedly met in the building. There is no basis for that statement.

Additionally, however, I must note that I am very tired of having to go to several different talk pages and noticeboards to remain engaged in discussion of one incredibly trivial item. I believe that this particular sentence is now under discussion on at least 4 different talk pages and noticeboards -- and it's only the latest in a series of discussions of itty-bitty details related to Masonic buildings that have ended up being carried on all over Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not craft the sentence and I have believed that the source given supports the sentence. I believe that Blueboar believes the sentence is true and adequately supported, but he just objects to it being somewhat disconnected. We all would object to an unsupported statement saying something more directly connected, but not supported by a reference. I think this Noticeboard discussion is about whether there is Wikipedia policy violation for an article including a true sentence fully supported by a source. I don't believe that Blueboar or anyone has complained about the source. If the sentence isn't true or is not supported by a source, then I agree the sentence should probably be removed. Whether or not the sentence is true and supported should probably be discussed only at the talk page of the article. That is not what was raised here though.

When the same bit of synthesis is placed in multiple articles, you are going to get multiple discussions about it. I brought it here to help settle the matter. I hope it is settled. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was settled by the two comments by Ludwig and Jack Sebastian above, because as I explained I think they were lacking some information (including that Blueboar has the option to just get the source that probably exists and probably would resolve Blueboar's issue, which I don't happen to think is a valid issue). I asked above for Ludwig and Jack Sebastian to comment further. And others like Orlady can comment too. I appreciate Orlady's point that discussion of this minor issue has been split and multiplied. --doncram (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, I have explained this to you several times... and you simply refuse to listen. According to WP:BURDEN it is up to the person who wishes to add or keep material in an article to find a source for it, not the person who challenges the material. That means that if you want this sentence in the article, you have to obtain a source for it. And without a source that directly ties the lodge to the building, the sentence is synthetic. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The History of England

I'd like to hear views on whether or not Lord Macaulay's book, 'The History of England' [33] is a reliable source in relation to the Massacre of Glencoe. I have included here a link to the wikipedia article about this book. The wikipedia article states a view which I do not agree with. It claims that Lord Macaulay goes to considerable lengths to absolve King William III from any responsibility for the Glencoe Massacre. That is not my reading of the situation. Macaulay clearly condemns King William's role, and in particular the fact that he was guilty of "a great breach of duty" in shielding the Master of Stair from any punishment beyond dismissal from the secretaryship of Scotland. Macaulay of course blamed the Master of Stair for the atrocity, which is view held jointly by both the Whigs and the Tories.

The question centres around the role of the Campbells in the atrocity. Macaulay makes it clear that the plot was hatched up between the Master of Stair, Breadalbane, and Argyll, the latter two being senior members of the clan Campbell. The plan was executed by Glenlyon, who was a Campbell, in circumstances of revolting treachery of which even the Master of Stair did not contemplate.

As regards Macaulay's book, it is a history classic written in the 19th century, 160 years after the event. And even though it is a well known fact that William was Macaulay's hero, and that Macaulay was a Whig who supported the Williamite settlement, Macaulay nevetherless rebukes William's role in the affair, while pointing out that William had never intended the treacherous manner in which the plan was executed by Glenlyon.

As regards the article, Massacre of Glencoe, there is a gaping omission by virtue of which the Campbells have been completely erased from any culpability in the affair, even though Hamilton and Glenlyon were specifically chosen to carry out the plan, because it was necessary to choose people who would be eager to carry out the plan. For the same reason, Colonel Hill at Fortwilliam was dropped from the plan because he was considered by Livingstone to be too humane.

What I want to know is, if Macaulay's book makes it quite clear that the Campbells were heavily involved in the plan, can we use the book as a reliable source for the purpose of verification of this fact? David Tombe (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has editors dedicated to this task at WP:RS/N. Please take your question there, and note the instructions at the top of RS/N regarding process. Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Macaulay famously goes out of his way to acquit William III by an elaborate discussion of the word "extirpate". His is undeniably a notable view, which should be included because of its historical significance. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Paul here; Macaulay was an utter jackass of a human being, all too willing to dismiss a viewpoint differing from his own, but that was an element of character for men of those times. You don't have to agree with his reasoning, but that disagreement isn't tantamount to a roadblock to NOR. We allow original research on the part of those we cite, since they are notable. It is we who cannot engage in original research and fits of fancy and censorship. If you are deeply concerned with Macaulay's interpretations, counter them with other sources; there is a notable disparagement by Karl marx, who calls him a "systematic falsifier of history" - in other words, a complete liar. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis on Mad Men episodes article

I've been encountering an editor and an anon IP contributor who insist on adding in in-universe dates for various Man Men episodes. I've argued in discussion that since the episodes themselves are not dated (ie, July 3, 1963, etc.), any application of an editor's historical knowledge constitutes synthesis and original research. They are arguing that the knowledge is common and uncontested. Without citation as to these dates, we are being asked to reply upon one editor's Sherlocking of the episode to glean the date, which I don't think we allow. As well, I personally disagree with a number of these date insertions. I've pointedly asked that either of the users supply reliable sourcing of these dates, to resolve the problem; as yet, they have been unable to so so. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty clearly synthetic OR. If they want to publish analytical criticism of the in Universe material, let them find a RS fan magazine. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Fan magazines are a morass of crap, for the large part. Though this is clearly not the place to go into detail about it, where is the bar currently set at to be RS? The Midnight Star? The Harry Potter Fan Club? The Hair Club for Men? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I could use a bit of a hand here; I'm getting deluged by folk who have little understanding of synthesis and OR at the article, and its getting tiring reinventing the wheel for some of these folk. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no analytical criticism of "in Universe material." The policy under synthesis clearly states that sources must be juxtaposed such that they advance a new position (ie assert a POV) to constitute a synthesis, and the examples given are entirely dissimilar to the instance at hand, which involves the simple inclusion of uncontroversial dates based on clear and uncontested references.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not the editor or anon IP contributor referred to above, but I think Jack Sebastian is entirely wrong here. The "source" Jack is asking for is obviously the primary source itself: the TV episodes under discussion. It's also wrong to say the episodes aren't "dated." This is true only in the sense that the opening scene of the episode doesn't state specifically what day the episode starts. This, obviously, doesn't mean the primary source doesn't provide exact and verifiable knowledge of when the episode was supposed to take place. For example, when an episode ends on the day of the Nixon/Kennedy presidential election, we know that this episode ended on Wednesday November 9, 1960, etc. Aurelstein (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to Aurelstein before, common knowledge is not that common; we require explicit citations for explicit claims, and no reliably-sourced reference has been supplied, despite numerous requests for such.

Aurelstein points to one episode wherein the Nixon/Kennedy election was talked about in passing. However, the episode takes place over several days, wherein the election is but one, unrelated, non-important part (the episode was not about, nor revolved around the event in question).

How can I declare it as unimportant and not germane to the article? Simple: because no source has been cited that discusses it or dates the episode. The user above asks why we cannot use the primary source offered by the episodes as proof of the date, but seems unwilling to realize that at no point is the date ever mentioned. Aurelstein has been told the definition of synthesis as well as original research, but seems unable to grasp how this Sherlocking fits that bill. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jack, I know that you're now very invested in your position, but you have to really try to be a little bit more open-minded and reasonable. The example of the presidential election 1960 makes this very clear. It seems obvious from your above remarks that you are not very familiar with the primary sources. This very episode (Season 1, Episode 12) is called "Nixon v Kennedy". There is a good and detailed summary on this website: http://www.lippsisters.com/season-1-episode-list/episode-112-nixon-vs-kennedy. As mentioned there (and in other synposes), the episode opens on the election date. It depicts what happens in the office of Sterling Cooper that day, into the night and ends the next morning. We therefore know, exactly, that this episode takes place on November 8 and 9, 1960 (as also stated in the webpage I just cited). This is neither original research nor synthesis. Original research means you don't have sources, here we have primary sources and secondary sources. It is also not synthesis, it is simply explicit in the primary source, the episode itself. There is no justifiable reason for deleting this kind of information from Wikipedia. No "Sherlocking" is involved in this example. Aurelstein (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack, according to your reading of the synthesis policy, it would unacceptable to note "Peggy's dress is blue," because that would combine observation of the primary source synthesized with outside knowledge of what colors are. By your reading, if no one on the show explicitly says, "Peggy's dress is blue," inclusion of that information is inadmissible. The text of the synthesis policy and the examples given don't support that reading at all. Synthesis involves juxtaposing two sources "to advance a position." It does not bar the use of uncontroversial, universally agreed upon knowledge in drawing the most elementary inferences, the veracity of which no one could reasonably contest.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Aurelstein's comment: It isn't an investment in my position; its simply stating wiki policy. It isn't ever about me, so let's stay on target. First of all, your reference as to the "very good and detailed summary" comes from a blog (which we don't reply upon unless they are production set or director's blogs, etc.), self-described as such:

Basket of Kisses: The unofficial blog of AMC's Mad Men. Where all the cool kids meet & greet to talk about Don Draper, Janie Bryant, Christina Hendricks, Jon Hamm, Matthew Weiner, & subtexty things.

Obviously, we cannot use that blog as a reference, but I think its awesome that you're starting to seek out references for dates, even at this late date. Good for you. Keep it up. :)

Re Sylvain1972's comment: Actually, you are misunderstanding how I am applying our synthesis policy in this matter, as well as misapprehending the actual application of that policy. I apologize that, over the course of a week and almost a dozen posts, I haven't been able to adequately illustrate how our synthesis policy actually operates. I'll do it here again.

The observation that Peggy's dress is blue is a general, common observation. We can observe that they smoke and drink; what we cannot do is express a personal assessment as to what brand Peggy's blue dress is, or what brand of liquor or cigarettes they use. Doing so - in the absence of external verification (citation) is original research. In proposing that the episode takes place on a given date - again, without citation - is advancing a position based on the inadequate primary source material added to your personal knowledge of historical events. A blue dress is still blue whether you are from Lincoln Nebraska or Kuala Lumpur. That's common knowledge, and requires no citation because almost everyone knows what blue is. Not everyone knows who Noxon or Kennedy was, or their election (that's true even here in America). In plain fact, you are unable to either provide actual dates of the episodes from explicit mentioning of the dates within the episodes (which excludes the primary source as a reference point), or references about the episode from a reliable source. Not to sound harsh, but what you feel is completely obvious isn't. To accept on its face your assessments about when an episode takes place opens the door to all sorts of nonsense, like some clown asserting that Obama being a foreigner is utterly obvious, or that the Holocaust is a "total" fabrication. Extreme examples, yes, but it's a very slippery slope.

Simply find some reliable sources. If these are as vital as you both seem to think they are, the net should be teeming with them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No Jack, you are misunderstanding the policy and misapplying it. As I have stated repeatedly, citing the text of the actual policy in question, synthesis involves juxtaposing two sources "to advance a position." It does not bar the use of uncontroversial, universally agreed upon knowledge in drawing the most elementary inferences, the veracity of which no one could reasonably contest.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Jack your position isn't the wiki position. We're debating your interpretation of the policy. All of us disagree with your interpretation. As for my reference to that blog, you have completely misunderstood. It points to a methodological problem you seem to be having. This whole discussion has nothing to do with original research (and honestly this board is the wrong place to debate it). We're talking here about a work of art. In this case it's not a novel but a TV show but it would be the same for a novel. If you write the wiki-article on a novel that takes place during the battle of Waterloo, what's the best source for a statement that it takes place in 1815? Actually, the best source isn't some authoritative secondary source (although it may be easiest), the best source is the primary source. Here, we're talking about a TV show, and there is some, but limited secondary sourcing about it. But the best sources for what takes place in a TV show is the TV show itself. Now, to escape from this you have come up with the criterion that we can only cite the primary source if the dating is "explicitly" mentioned in the primary source and you seem to have some extremely rigid interpretation of an explicit mention is. But it's an absurd interpretation of the common sense rule of Wiki that sources must explicitly state what they're cited as a source for. Episode 1.12 is explicitly about the 1960 Presidential Election. The date of the baby's birth certificate is explicit in the episode. Rachel Menken says explicitly that Eichmann was arrested in Buenos Aires "last week". All of those are explicit in the sources and all can be used as reliable citations. Saying that the episode mentioned above takes place during the Presidential election 1960 is as obvious as saying that "Paris is the capital of France", to use an example given in the Wiki article on NOR. Neither statement should need a source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for both statements exist. Aurelstein (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Aurelstein, you keep trying to reframe the question. The matter before us regards original research and synthesis. We are an encyclopedia - we do not allow you to place your opinions or assessments about a topic within an article - it is one of the most basic principles of Wikipedia. For this reason, your categorization of Mad Men as a work of art actually works against you. In the same way that we are not allowed to assess how (or even who) the Mona Lisa was painted without citation, we are not allowed to assess or determine aspects of the series (ie. dates of each episode). That is a plain and simple fact, arrived at by even the most casual of interpretations of our policies.

The criterion I note - that you find so terribly stringent - is that in order to mention the dates that you think that the episode occurred during - require citation by a reliably-sourced reference. Everything in Wikipedia does. Additionally, as Mad Men's own production blog fails to mention these dates, it can be reasonably determined that the only ones who feel the dates of the episodes are important are but a small group of fans. Indeed, its the same three or four people that keep commenting about how this is all child's play and connecting the dots.
You point to a viewing within the episode of less than 1.3 seconds of a baby's birth certificate and expect us to consider this primary research. Find a citation; if this is all so very very important to an understanding of the article, then it should be out there. If it is not, please consider that you are asking us to provide undue weight to the date. As any regular viewer of the program would tell you, the background events hardly/barely/rarely determine the story within each episode.
You keep mentioning the JFK assassination and election; the former which - after many requests, someone was finally willing to roll up their sleeves and find. That is to be commended. Insisting that we trust your instincts and detective skills is absolutely not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This is preposterous. The duration of the disclosure of Gene's birth date in the primary source is of absolutely no relevance under policy. Nor is your assessment of whether or not it is important. Wikipedia policy our basis, not your whims. No further citation is needed.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you stating that you don;t need to cite extraordinary claims? Now that is preposterous.

Tell you what, Silvain, maybe be quiet for a while. You've stated your opinion - let's see how some more experienced folk react tot he problem without the rhetoric about how each other. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what Jack - I will not be silenced by you. What I am stating, which is quite clear, is that no citation of an outside source is needed for Gene's birth date when the primary source, ie the show itself, discloses the information explicitly. Whether the shot lasts for 1.3 seconds or ten minutes is totally irrelevant. You are not entitled to unilaterally add new stipulations to the policy.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

These topics and lists are a horrid morass of WP:NOR, but certainly guessing "in-universe" dates of events would be more egregious examples. The primary events portrayed in these shows clearly did not happen in reality, but rather are a work of fiction; therefore, one cannot take for granted that any events in these shows correspond exactly with actual history. Perhaps it's all some alternate history, who knows? Stick to what reliable, secondary sources say. There's been plenty written about Mad Men, go and use that material. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We can confirm that it is not an alternate history--we have numerous sources verifying that the producers intend for the show to track actual history very meticulously. There is no guesswork involved with the dates. WP:NOR states that sources may not be juxtaposed to advance a position which is arguable. But it is not contestable that the producers intend for the series to exist in a non-alternate history--we have that on record very clearly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for encapsulating the issue and the attendant solution, Jayjg. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we can hat this out; the editors in the article have begun adding references for those statements that can be added, and not adding those that cannot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternate successions of the English crown

Most of this appears to be original research. Phrases like "Her succession, under this theory, " make it obvious, as do footnotes 5 and 6. Sources 2, 3 and 4 also look unreliable. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

John Abbey

Hi, I'm having some trouble deciding whether this would be counted as original research or not;
There is a piece of text on the John Abbey article, "He was a apprentice for James and David Davis, and later for Hugh Russell after 1818." (ref) - This isn't very informative in it's current state and placement.
I would like to add extra information to this - "In his youth he was a apprentice for James and David Davis, and later for Hugh Russel after 1818, both reputable organ builders in their day." (bolded text ref) - would this count as original research, if not: how would I structure the inline citations. Thank you --George2001hi (Discussion) 22:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I add, both the sources include similar sentences but both lack information that the other includes

"In his youth he was employed in the factory of Davis and subsequently in that of Russell, both organ-builders of repute in their day" - (Fuller Maitland, J. A (editor). Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians; Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Company (1911))
"Abbey was apprenticed to James and David Davis, and then worked for Hugh Russell after 1818" (Bicknell, Stephen (1999). The History of the English Organ. Cambridge University Press). Once again thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 22:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Some Help, please. --George2001hi (Discussion) 16:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

George. Your suggested construct above does not seem to be original research or SYN as you are drawing no new conclusion not supported by sources. You are merely combining sourced information into a meaningful piece of prose. As for the citations, merely cite both works at the end of the sentence. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mike. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --George2001hi (Discussion) 18:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Original Research in "White Argentinian"

The basic problem the article White Argentine is that mixes different things. The main editor of the article, according to an interesting point of view, exposes his own personal research. In fact, he work also in the website that he used as a reference. He tried to did it on wikipedia in spanish, but the article was erased by them [34]. The author put together some things from the article Ethnography of Argentina with other part of Immigration to Argentina, to sustain his hypothesis of the existence of a different ethnic group born from the interweaving of different European ethnic groups in Argentina, called "White argentinian". In fact, put in the same group Arabs and Turks, with Germans and Anglo-saxons people, among others, according to ancient theory of physical anthropology, now lapsed. Adding a lot of unnecessary information about politics, music, culture and sports, which is the reproduction of articles about politics, music and sport in Argentina. However, would be different if the article was only about the term, more or less widespread, which brings together in an ambiguous way all Argentines with a some European origin. In this sense, it should be changed the whole article. In other words exist the "term" but don't exist the ethnic group, do you understand?. I know I don't write well in English. But, if you really want a list of the specific problems of your article, when I have a bit more free time, I will tell you. Otherwise, I just let this observations, hoping someday this article will be reviewed with common sense. Regards. G.--79.43.220.9 (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.239.210.248 (talk)

Hi, I am the "main editor of the article" that the unknown user writes about. I have certain things to explain:

1) The article is not my original research; it was created in June 2007, and I found it and first edited it in April 2010. Before I began to expand it, many other editors had already improved it. Check the article´s stroy if you don't believe me.

2) The "website he used as reference" is The Joshua Project; When I first found the site, they already had the ethnic group "Argentinians White" included in the list of Argentina's ethnic groups with a photograph taken by Howard Erickson. The profile of the group lacked a text on their history, way of life, etc; so I submitted one. That was my only contribution; the group and the photo were already there when I found the site. When I asked the source of the Argentinians White group, Mr. Duane Frasier -a member of the Project- answered this: "The source for this group is a list from decades back. This group is composed of Argentines of European descent". So the group is not my invention; it was named that way decades ago.

3) The grouping of all European/Caucasus/Middle Eastern ethnic people groups as "White people" is neither arbitrary nor lapsed. The US Census Bureau nowadays defines White people as "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." This definition is used to establish who is "White American" or who is not at this very moment. The same criteria of grouping European/Caucasus/Middle Eastern ethnic groups all together as White is used in the article White Latin American. All I did is to apply the same criteria to the White people born and residing in Argentina. If the article White Argentine is going to be questioned for this grouping, then all the other articles on White people should be questioned too: White Canadian, White Brazilian, European Australian, White Mexican, etc.

4) Due to the criticism of this unknown user, another editor and I agreed to add a new section about the usage of the term "White Argentine/Argentinian". This is now well explained and referenced in the correspondent section of the article.

5) The aim of the article is also to show the influence of the European immigrants and their descedants in Argentina's culture. That is why some sections were added. The Sports section is restricted to explain what ethnicity (colectividad in Spanish) brought such and such sport to Argentina (Example: the British brought football, Cycling was brought by the Italians), and to provide lists of sportmen of European/Middle Eastern descent. It is not my fault that I have so many people to name in those categories. The sections on Tango and Folklore also show European immigrant's influence on those genres, and lists of notable White Argentines. I admitted that the Rock section is too long, and I promised to make it shorter (See talk page).

6) The article Argentino blanco was erased in the Spanish Wikipedia for several reasons. First, it was the simple translation of an older version of the article "White Argentinian", and it was not even half as long and well referenced as it is now. Second, in Argentina nowadays there is such a current of "political correction", that anyone who uses the word "white" is immediately considered racist. I thought -and I still think- that English Wikipedia is different, that anyone can use the word White without being labelled as racist. Third, the consult for its deletion was in a technical draw when an Librarian came and arbitrarily deleted it before more users could express their opinions.--Pablozeta (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

here is the deletion request at that project, and as it can be seen there are mixed opinions for keeping or deleting, each one with its own plausible arguments. At this project, it would likely had been closed as keep by "No consensus". So I wouldn't take the deletion as a binding element, it does not represent a consensus from the comunity but just the opinion of an admin and a portion of users. MBelgrano (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yikes... there definitely are a lot of OR issues in that article (and some serious NPOV issues as well). This one is going to take a fair amount of work to clean up. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Heather Mac Donald -- Is there a gray area between primary and secondary sources?

I'm having a disagreement about an article I revamped about a controversial conservative commentator named Heather Mac Donald. Another editor is challenging my additions, claiming that when I quote Mac Donald, it's a primary source. Here's an example:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

“

Secular conservatism. Mac Donald identifies herself as a secular conservative, and argued in USA Today that conservative thinking is superior to liberalism by virtue of the ideas alone, and that religion should not affect the argument.^[2]

”

^ Cite error: The named reference Alfeyev was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Heather Mac Donald (2010-11-04). "Conservatism doesn't need God". USA Today. Retrieved 2010-11-04. ... It is a proven track record that makes conservative principles superior to liberalism, not the religious inclinations of their proponents.

What I'm wondering is: is this an instance of a strictly primary source? Consider that Heather Mac Donald is a commentator. USA Today is a newspaper. USA Today chose to print Mac Donald's views. It's not like Mac Donald wrote something on her own website and I'm quoting it. Rather, there's a reliable publication (a secondary source?) printing Mac Donald's views, saying, in effect, that her views (while controversial) are important, worthy of print, relevant to debate on this topic. If USA prints unreliable or boring commentators, it could lose circulation and respect. Isn't USA Today adding a little weight to the source here? But at the same time, I agree quoting Mac Donald is not a true secondary source -- it's not critic X said Y about Mac Donald (which we all agree is best). My question is: isn't this a case where the source is in that gray area between primary and secondary?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem from another angle. How can any of us write any biographies (particularly about commentators) without ever quoting what the article subject says? As a writer, I'm trying to describe Mac Donald. Why is she notable? Her views. What views are they? Well, what? Here I'm stuck -- if I'm forced to rely only on what other reviewers SAY are her views, I don't think that would be a reliable way to describe them. Why not quote her directly? I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a mix of her views, and views of others (ie real secondary sources), in a mix, and assume that the reader is intelligent enough to know which is which.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at current WP articles on commentators. George Will, Jim Cramer, Liz Cheney, Maureen Dowd, Bill Maher, Jonathan Alter, Charles Krauthammer. These are generally good articles. And they ALL have references quoting the commentator saying something. And not just sporadic references, but MANY references. George Will said this. Bill Maher said that. And I think the references are helpful. IF the "no primary sources" rule is strictly enforced, most of these articles would have to be gutted. What I'm saying is that the de facto standard, particularly regarding biographies on commentators, is that it's perfectly reasonable to include direct quotes when handled responsibly, that it requires judgment, while I agree that secondary sources are preferred.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a misstatement of the dispute. If one is merely quoting a source, then a primary source is sufficient. However if editors cannot analyze primary sources and draw conclusions from them. Further, the issue in dispute is whether large parts of the article, including entire sections, may be based exclusively on summaries of opinion columns written by the subject. My view is that NOR says that articles should be based on secondary sources, and that primary sources should be used only for illustrative quotes or details. An editor picking and choosing which of her numerous of printed columns or opinion pieces to summarize is a form of OR in itself. We should rely on secondary sources to indicate which of her opinions are noteworthy, and then we can use primary sources to flesh out our discussions of them. Will Beback talk 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To discuss how this policy applies to the Heather Mac Donald article, please continue the discussion at the No original research/Noticeboard. Thanks--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

First, "primary source" is not Wikijargon for "unreliable source". A primary source might well be the most authoritative source available for a given fact. (You might want to read Wikipedia:Party and person.)
Second, possession of an authoritative, reliable source for a given fact does not mean that the fact needs to be stuck in an article. We want a balanced article that gives appropriate WP:WEIGHT to each aspect, where "appropriate weight" is determined primarily by considering what other reliable sources write about the subject (not what the subject writes, and not what piques the interest of the Wikipedia editor). The fact that we have a source about a subject is not a good reason to stuff that fact into an article. (See WP:COATRACK.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, good points. You sound fair and you sound like you know what you're doing. So you're saying the Mac Donald article is basically a judgment call (ie what's important) not a matter of rules? Wondering if you would consider being the arbiter of my dispute with WillBeBack about the Mac Donald article? Like, what you say goes; I'm getting super-bored with this increasingly-trivial quarrel. Will Will Beback agree to WhatamIdoing being the arbiter?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

inventing a classification scheme for the beliefs of living people: OR or not?

We have a dispute at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, where editors believe that we can invent a new scheme to classify the beliefs of living people in such a way that it might not be synthesis/original research. Implied in the discussion is that we would still classify scientists by finding quotations and matching these quotations to category headings. It is suggested that scientists whose views span multiple categories could be resolved using a matrix system.

I have the view that inventing a new scheme to classify the beliefs of living people is pretty obviously contrary to WP:NOR and WP:BLP but other experienced editors think this might be OK.

Anyone willing to give their opinions? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If those categories are taken from a well established public position which said living people clearly disagree with, I don't see why this is either Original Research or a BLP violation. I'm happy to get input, but I would make the point that we haven't exactly exhausted the discussion at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming; Alex keeps re-asserting his position without any attempt to persuade other editors who have different views. --Merlinme (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This raises all sorts of red flags for me... I see a huge potential for classifying people by taking quotes out of context. For this reason, I would say it is a very bad idea. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This looks like a fine example of original research. Any scheme seems inherently doomed. It's subjective, non-repeatable, it provides a framework for selection bias when dealing with people's statements and encourages potentially faulty generalizations and categorizations of people's views. Is there a List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ? If there is going to be a list of sampled statements by scientists about the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming why even categorize the statements at all ? Do we do this for any other contentious topic ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

But what if the context is where they're saying why they disagree with the consensus position? My suggestion (which Alex has so far essentially refused to even talk about) is to make the category headings tighter and more explicitly based on the "consensus" position which they're supposed to be disagreeing with. If at that point there are felt to be insurmountable OR or synthesis problems, i.e. it is impossible to improve the current system to eliminate the synthesis problems, then we can talk about the way forward again. I am however reluctant to abandon (without even an attempt to improve) a classification system and article which have survived for several years, including several attempts to delete the article; it has survived because it is held to serve a purpose, i.e. to show what are the main arguments used against the consensus by reputable scientists. There is no equivalent list for consensus scientists simply because it would be enormous. --Merlinme (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have my position clear on the article talk page: the article should go. It is the result of "climate deniers and anti-evolutionists [who] put out those long, misleading lists of all the scientists who allegedly support their views".[35] Global warming is not a belief thing - a cultural, social, or political tradition to which you either belong or you don't (like belonging to a religion, a social class, or a political party).[36] This is a remnant of some ancient POV pushing and 'anti-AGW' advocacy, which are no longer part of the way we cover climate change on WP. If there are issues to cover we have articles that should and do cover them (scientific, political, economic, public opinion etc). Any relevant points made here and not covered elsewhere should be merged into those articles. We should not be using cherry-picked BLP quotes to try to persuade or to build up one side of a case. --Nigelj (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Beatrice of Portugal

Hello, I write here because I need a clarification about the use of sources (specially the primary ones) in the article Beatrice of Portugal. On September 27, I made a deletion of content [37] per WP: PRIMARY, and on October 9, I explained the reasons. The next day User:Jorge alo, restored it adding two sources that do not support the wording, because the wording of the article displays his own interpretation. Thus: [38]

He writes that Also her husband, King John I of Castile, as can be read in his testament, dating of 21 July of 1385, in Celorico da Beira, did not recognize his wife as the true monarch of Portugal. Nevertheless, such affirmation based on a primary source does not appear anywhere in the testament, and the source added, written by Oliveira Martins, explains merely a excerpt of the testament of John I of Castile, that which Jorge alo has indicated in the wiki in French,[39] but not in wiki in English, furthermore, such author, Oliveira Martins, does not refer to the pertinence of the testament, much less that John I of Castile did not recognize his wife (Beatrice) as queen.

He also writes that Also is truth that many Portuguese nobles have not recognized her, but John I of Castile as their real monarch, to that end Jorge alo put the example of the recognition of Lopo Gomes de Lira for John I of Castile, but the source added does not indicate that Lopo Gomes de Lira did not acknowledged Beatrice. That statement is a particular interpretation since Beatrice was approximately 10 years at that time, and she did not exercise any government, and that statement disregards that the source is a Portuguese Chronicle written by Fernão Lopes (supporter to João of Aviz) in the 15th century, where the context shows simply that some nobles sided with John I of Castile and other part of João of Aviz (without further speculations), and where it is explicitly written that Lopo Gomes de Lira mando pregonar que fazer menagem ao dito rei de Castella e a sua mulher (commanded to proclaim to pay homage to said King of Castile and his wife) which it is explicitly the opposite of what Jorge alo interprets particularly.

I could remove such edition and re-explain it to him, but in wikipedia in Spanish Jorge alo insisted on a edit warring resolved by an administrator [40] on the basis of his misuse of primary sources. To avoid a edit warring, I need an opinion more qualified about this issue of NOR, since in the wiki in french Jorge alo gave me all kinds of insults,[41] and there is no way of making him understand the policies of wikipedia. Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Is not there any opinion about this issue and what should I do? Trasamundo (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't claim to be an expert on this, but it seems that John is excercising hs rights as king through marriage. A similar case is Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany, who is referred to as the 'duke' even though his wife inherited the title (uncontested) or Charles of Blois who also made the claim through his wife (contested). I agree that it is OR to claim that this is some sort of problem. Clearly there is a complex question of when inheritance is obtained, and the meaning of the act of acclamation, but that should be explained in its context rather than the way it is presented here. Paul B (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that at the moment this is OR. We have clear interpretation (WP:SYN) based on a footnote to a primary source in Latin. We really need more detail on issues of inheritance law, the applicability of Jure uxoris, and cultural norms. Clearly there are complex issues about male primogeniture - when and whether the husband of a queen regnant becomes de facto king and can pass the crown to his son. We all know this stuff was meat and drink to medieval warlords, who were eternally claiming to have the 'true' rights to inherit according to various interpretations of precedence, Salic law and what-have-you. Obviously John would have wanted to pass his rule to his son if he predeceased his wife, so seems to have constructed an argument for inheritance to sustain it. How valid it was, I wouldn't know, but surely there are useful secondary sources on such a significant historical event. However, the passages you link to in French seem to be designed to exclude illegitimate children, rather than his wife, since they just say that either should inherit. I've attempted some rewording, but maybe it could be simplified further. BTW, where does that ridiculous funny drawing of Beatrice come from? Can't we find a contemporary image? Paul B (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your intervention, your comments make sense to me. A dispute for the throne brings complex issues and therefore it is necessary to take care specially about the use of sources, and to avoid to offer personal interpretations of fragments extracted of primary sources, because at last, such interpretations can contradict what explicitly the own primary source indicates itself, as I already indicated on October 9 [42] (I have noticed that I had not write this link above).

Now, your wording really discard that original interpretation focussed on demonstrating that Beatriz could not be a queen simply because his husband did not acknowledge as such, and that Juan I of Castile as king of Portugal implies excluding to Beatriz as queen of Portugal. To avoid these misinterpretations I see that there would be necessary to replace Many Portuguese nobles of the pro-Castillian faction recognized her husband, with Many Portuguese nobles of the pro-Castillian faction also recognized her husband,. And in addition, to replace John I of Castile, as can be read in his testament, dating of 21 July of 1385, in Celorico da Beira identified himself as de facto king, with John I of Castile, as can be read in his testament, dating of 21 July of 1385, in Celorico da Beira identified himself as de iure king, because he identified himself as rightful and legitimate king, not as a usurper.

In regard to the image, there is only this image [43] in commons. Trasamundo (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made those changes and added a reference to de jure uxoris, as on the page of Constance, Duchess of Brittany (wife of Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany). Paul B (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much again. Now the wording is much more accurate. Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Primary source policy discussion

Could some editors please chime in on this discussion? A new editor wants to use her own transcriptions of British National Archives documents in Latin to source a biography article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. I don't have the firmest grasp of policy, so advice from more experienced editors would be appreciated. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting interpretations of a source

I'm posting this discussion on behalf of another editor Alinor (talk · contribs) who seemingly refuses to come to the noticeboard to discuss a clear difference in interpretation of a source.

The source in question is Francis Boyle's Palestine, Palestinians and International Law (2009), which states the following:

As I had predicted to the PLO, the creation of [a] Palestinian State was an instantaneous success. Palestine would eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states. The only regional hold-out was Europe and this was because of massive political pressure applied by the United States Government.

According to User:Alinor, Boyle is making a prediction that Palestine would eventually be recognised by 130 states, and therefore raised issue with what is currently written in the article that "In 2009, Boyle reported that about 130 countries had recognised the State of Palestine."

There's a preliminary discussion located here. Nightw 14:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive the possible dumb question here, but have either of you considered the introduction of/confirmation from a third source? When you have two sources contradicting each other, its often best to note the discrepancy of (in this instance) recognition. The third source provides a point of view, perhaps even a prevailing one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that there may be a related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Francis A Boyle? is this a new issue, or an off-shoot from that discussion? Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We argue not about the discrepancy, but about the meaning of "would eventually achieve". Alinor (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is related, but not the same issue. Alinor (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have migrated to the article's talk page. Nightw 09:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking just in terms of grammar, there are indeed two ways of reading the first two sentences:

At some point in the past I made the following prediction to the PLO: "The creation of a Palestinian state will be an instantaneous success. Palestine will eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states." All of this turned out to be correct.
At some point in the past I made the following prediction to the PLO: "The creation of a Palestinian state will be an instantaneous success." The prediction turned out to be correct. Moreover, Palestine eventually achieved de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states.

The first interpretation does not make much sense. Why should the author have predicted the approximate number of state recognising Palestine, rather than a minimal number? What really shoots down this interpretation is the word "eventually", which indicates that the number of states recognising Palestine is not going to change substantially either way even in the future. That would be an extremely unusual claim to make, and it did not turn out to be correct since we simply can't know this yet.

The second interpretation is much more natural, and in fact the way the source phrases it is merely a stylistic improvement over the formulation under 2. I have no doubt that this is what is meant by the source. Hans Adler 12:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that Hans's analysis of how to interpret the quote is the most logical one ... WP:NOR makes it quite clear that we are not supposed to include our own interpretations or analysis of sources. What we need to do is find a source that discusses what Boyle says and interprets it for us. Until we have this, our choice is to either leave the quote uninterpreted, or (probably the better choice) omit the quote entirely. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

All reading of sources is an act of interpretation. Even if we found a "source that discusses what Boyle says and interprets it for us" we would have to interpret the meaning of that source - or find another source to interpret its interpretaion of Boyle for us, which we would then have to 'interpret' too. This reading of NOR rules just creates an absurd infinite regress. There are cases where there may be real ambiguities in sources, but this surely is not one. I think we should work on the basis of "reasonable doubt" about meaning. No-one would ever be convicted of any crime if we had to ensure there could be no doubt about their guilt whatever, since we can all conjur up elaborate conspiracy theories in which all the evidence was planted etc etc. It's the same here. There is only one coherent, reasonable interpretation of this sentence (Hans' second option). The first makes no grammatical or logical sense, so there can be no reasonable doubt as to its meaning. Paul B (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. The issue has been resolved. A sincere thank you to all who commented here. Nightw 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuals Anonymous

An article on the topic of the Homosexuals Anonymous program was recently posted and nominated for DYK. I considered it extremely POV and advertisement-like (there was virtually no criticism). In working on the article, I have been accused of violating WP:SYNTH (see the talk page), which led me to work in the quiet of my user space. I have now (just) posted a new version, and I invite comment / criticism / feedback / changes on the new version, with particular concerns about NPOV, NOR, and SYNTH. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Responded on talk page. Nightw 13:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

When sources disagree

Related to an issue previously discussed in another thread above, a lengthy debate has developed at Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority between myself and another editor, Alinor (talk · contribs).

The argument, as it has degraded into, is over a recently added section entitled "Overview", which contradicts the data displayed in the rest of the article. The main point of concern is the following conflicting statements:

"the State of Palestine is recognised by 104 states..."
"the number of states that have recognised the 1988–proclaimed State of Palestine is not clear..."

The first statement, which I recently changed to "at least 104 states" to address concerns I'd had with its conclusiveness, is derived from calculations of multiple reliable sources. Without the recently added "at least", this statement contradicts different figures cited by respected legal professionals: "over 114" (Boyle, 1990); "more than 100" (Fowler and Bunck, 1995); "117" (Anat Kurz, 2005); "about 130" (Boyle, 2010); "about 126" (Boyle, 2010).

The second statement comes from the fact that, according to one reference, many statements of recognition were "equivocal" in nature. It is also, in my opinion, plainly obvious from the level of disagreement between sources citing a number (above), and therefore necessary.

So the question is: Is it original research to claim that a situation is unclear when multiple sources disagree? Do we need a source that states that the situation is unclear? Nightw 13:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So far Night w has managed to file these notices here in a NPOV way (e.g. representing fine both my and his opinion), but in this particular case there are many inconsistencies, that I will explain below shortly. Alinor (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion are this and more recently this. The issues are the following:

We already solved the "at least" issue, e.g. it remains per his proposal (my opinion is that the explanatory note was enough, but anyway I have nothing against adding the "at least" words - this doesn't change the meaning of the text).
Sources giving "just a number" (without list and dates) are conflicting/contradict each other. Sources don't show exactly that (see below)
"Number of states recognizing the State of Palestine is unknown/unclear" Sources don't show exactly that (see below)

About the alleged contradiction between the sources. First, the Fowler and Bunck 1995 source statement is retrospective: p. 59: "By 1988 more than one hundred countries had formally recognized the 'state' of Palestine, which also received official acknowledgement by the United Nations General Assembly.", e.g. this is not for 1995. Second, most of these sources don't use "exact number", but ranges ("over X", "about X", etc.) and some of them overlap (e.g. don't contradict each other). Third, they are for different moments in time - and state recognitions are not constant - they change over time - so it is highly probable that some states gave/withdraw recognition in the time between the sources. It should be noted that the only "exact numbers" given are 117 (Anat Kurz 2005) and 127 (Boyle 2010).

Boyle "over 114" (1990) doesn't disagree with Anat Kurz 117 (2005). Boyle "about 130/126" from 2009/2010 and the Boyle 127 from 2010 doesn't disagree. Boyle "over 114" doesn't disagree with Boyle "about 130/126"/127. So the only potential disagreement is between the "exact" Anat Kurz 117 (2005) and Boyle 127 (2010) - but maybe 10 additional states recognized for these 5 years - the sources we have neither confirm nor deny that.

The number is not "unknown"/"unclear" - it is unknown/unclear only to us, the Wikipedia users - because we have inconclusive sources (e.g. the 117/127 no-specific-list vs. the sources showing recognition by 103 undisputed up to 111 - 8 inconclusive). An example for "unknown number" is the Age of the universe, but the number of SoP recognitions is not unknown/unclear - it is only that we don't have simultaneously reliable+exact+specific+recent sources about it. The SoP itself (PLO as its government in exile) should know it pretty well (does it have a website?). Alinor (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So, I propose that we avoid making statements like "number is unknown/unclear", "sources contradict each other" (unless we have a source actually showing such thing) - and that instead we stick to wordings like "In 1988 the PLO declared the State of Palestine, being quite widely recognised by states, although often in equivocal terms." that more closely resembles this reference cite above. Alinor (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's quite plainly unclear. The sources given are just those that previous editors have deemed as the most authoritative. The numbers on the web are all over the place: "108" (Zaid Tayem, 2009); "more than 115" (ABC News, 2008). Given the many proposed manifestations of this state, the number of UN resolutions and proposals, it's not even clear which "State" they're recognising... Nightw 15:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - it's not even clear which "State" they're recognising - that's what's unclear. If we focus on "recognizing SoP" only (not "Palestine" as PLO/PNA/Palestine state right to exist/etc.) then a) the sources are much less b) those that are reliable (e.g. do not include statements contradicting official webpages, known facts, etc.) are even less c) the picture is much more clear - but additional efforts are needed to get there in the first place (e.g. in contrast to the current mixing of all into one single "152 list"). Alinor (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

See here: "Crawford and the other sources cited do not say that the number of states that have recognized Palestine is unknown or disputed. That appears to be an unsourced editorial narrative introduced by user Breein1007. [44] [45] [46]" comment by user harlan. Alinor (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

[Alfeyev-1] Cite error: The named reference Alfeyev was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[twsNovD41-2] Heather Mac Donald (2010-11-04). "Conservatism doesn't need God". USA Today. Retrieved 2010-11-04. ... It is a proven track record that makes conservative principles superior to liberalism, not the religious inclinations of their proponents.

[1]

[2]