Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 25

"Burden" RFC

A dispute has arisen in regards to the wording in burden regarding the tagging or removing of content. This request for comment is to establish the specific wording for just that part of the "Burden of evidence" section of our "Verifiability" policy. Found here.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

BACE2 function

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-secretase_2 currently states "The physiological function and role of BACE2 in Alzheimer's disease is unknown." might need updating there is a article at: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250401.php but it is poorly written, containing: "BACE2 then cuts beta-amyloid into smaller pieces, which in turn, destroys it" but then later in the article: "...by using BACE2 to block beta-amyloid destruction." leaving the reader confused (is it destroying or blocking the destruction of beta-amyloid?).

the articles source materiel may be more useful: http://www.molecularneurodegeneration.com/content/7/1/46/abstract the pdf has a section labeled: "BACE2 cleaves AB at 3 sites" however it also has a section labeled: "BACE2 does not degrade fibrillar AB" (isn't fibrillar the Alzheimer form?)

should any of this be mentioned as a footnote or "additional references" in the wiki article or is it still too original or non-peer reviewed to mention?

No opinion, but signing to allow archival. You should sign your posts, see WP:SIGN.  Sandstein  01:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Adjusting for inflation

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but is there an established procedure for adjusting for inflation? For example, the article on the Bath School disaster has the following sentence (emphasis mine):

"The Red Cross also managed donations sent to pay for both the medical expenses of the survivors and the burial costs of the dead. In a few weeks, $5,284.15 (about $70,698 today) was raised through donations, including $2,500 from the Clinton County board of supervisors and $2,000 from the Michigan legislature."

There are several ways of adjusting for inflation, and they all become out of date rather quickly. It's important to provide context to monetary amounts, but what is the best way to do it? Andrew (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless the focus of the article is an economic indicator such as GDP, cost, rvenue etc. it really should not matter what indicator is used for inflation. However, the example you gave about $70,698 today has a problem, its an absolute amount so we don't know if the espected deviation is in dollars or cents. If it is in cents then the deviation does not matter and if it is in dollars then we would have to assume some reason why we cannot arrive at an approximate figure (like a dispute). So the term about is wrongly placed. A better statement would be approx $70,000 which would still leave the discussion open for an absolute amount. You can edit the article to give an approximate conversion and open a discussion in the talk page. Unless the amount is really important, no one wil object. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I never translate old-timey money amounts into today's currency because, as Wikishagnik noted, there are so many ways of doing it, most of them totally off the mark. If you feel it necessary, though, avoid using the word "today" but use the year instead. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Some content might demand a conversion. E.g. a statement like such-and-such tycoon started his career in 1912 with just $10 might confuse a reader not accustomed to time adjusted value of money. SO we will have to convert old amounts. SO we might have to convert old amounts as per editor's discretion-Wikishagnik (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I simply disagree with my good friend Wikishagnik. There are simply too many ways of figuring the COI. But I would not get in high dudgeon if some other editor wants to attempt the conversion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OOPS! Looks like I took a too strong position about something I am no expert about, adjusting to NPOV -Wikishagnik (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If the value of (say) a dollar changes over time, it's a bad idea to convert from 1900 dollar values to 2012 dollar values without telling readers that they're 2012 dollars, because - even if the conversion was a reasonable one - it will become inaccurate again after you edit. Something like a CPI deflator isn't a magic wand which converts "old" money into "new". bobrayner (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems all my main sources are wrong....

I posted this at the Help Desk and they suggested i bring my issues here. My post there was:

I have a strange problem. I decided to pick back up my series of presidential oval office desks, which I have been working on and off with for a few years now (List of Oval Office desks), and I was about to start a new article about the Theodore Rosevelt desk when I hit a major snag. I dug up this article stating that Truman moved FDR's desk out of the Oval Office which runs counter to every reference i have about the number of desks that have been used in the Oval Office. I dug a little deeper and found this picture on commons showing that yes, FDR had a different desk than what is declared in the sources. How do I deal with this problem? The desk FDR had does not appear to have a name, so what do I call it? Since the references are obviously not right can i use any of the information in them? Is this whole thing original research? I guess I just need another set of eyes to look at all of this to see if I am crazy and what should be done.

--Found5dollar (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Just swallow hard and rewrite your article with both sets of facts. You could use something like "disputed" if there is indeed a dispute. Or "In 1945, however, the Associated Press reported that . . . " Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.  Sandstein  01:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

world's largest flower article Rafflesia

I am posting this because the article on "the world's largest flower "Rafflesia is incorrect. While the article itself on Rafflesia is accurate, Rafflesia is not the worlds largest flower. Amorphophallus sp. is considered the world's largest. A picture and more detail is posted on my website http://www.facebook.com/Wi.thyme

This belongs on the aticle talk page as I can't see how it relates to a question of original research. Tagging to allow archival. Please sign your posts, see WP:SIGN.  Sandstein  01:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Supporting a claim that "some" or "many" authors support a certain theory

As a general principle would we agree that a statement such as "Many/some authors now support the theory that [some novel theory proposed by an amateur historian]" can be reliably supported (and thus made verifiable) by a string of references (to represent the "many" or "some"), placed just after the "many" word in the sentence, to cites of: a set of college course notes, a literature review, a paper published by an organisation accused of being a "predatory" or fraudulent publisher and the local news section of a science club website - all of which do refer to the amateur historian's theory, directly or indirectly? MeasureIT (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no. "Many" and "support" are ambiguous terms that require interpretation. Drawing such a conclusion from individual sources, even reliable ones, is an act of (original) research. To include a statement such as "Many authors support...", in my opinion, you do need a reliable source that makes this exact statement.  Sandstein  00:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The claim must be referenced to a RS which makes the claim directly; while drawing a conclusion from sources as you are suggesting is Original Research and not encyclopedic.(olive (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC))

OR and SYN in Bane in other media

Article and relevant section: Bane in other media#The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Article edit history: Edits Relevant discussion: Talk:Bane_in_other_media

Relevant section text: "Bane was reportedly born and raised in a foreign penitentiary [13][14] known only as the Pit,[15] where he spent most of his life incarcerated as a prisoner. There, he became the friend and protector of a young girl who like him was born in the Pit. After the girl's mother was killed by the prison's crazed inmates, Bane protected her for several years until she escaped by climbing up to the surface (it is initially implied that Bane was the child who escaped, then revealed that he was the child's protector).[16]"

What's wrong with it: Synthesis, original research, misrepresentation of sourced material Source 13-14 is a small book meant for little children that came out before the movie and does not attempt a comprehensive look into the story of the film in any way (I've read some of it). It only states that character in movie was born in an unnamed prison. It states nothing about being raised in a prison or being born and raised in the Pit that appears in the movie. The article definitively states what is only cloaked in rumor in the film--that is Source [15], which is a quote from IMDb. Source [16] is a comprehensive article that is part of a series of articles written about the movie. It states that the background given the origination of said character is false and is used to cloak the identity of another character in the film's plot. In the film's story the audience is fed this legend and many flashbacks about a child that originated in a prison and that later escaped. It turns out to be another character in the film's reveal scene near the end. There's nothing stated by sources that Bane spent most of his life in the Pit.

How I've edited the article in the past: I've edited the article in the past to reflect the ambiguity (rumor) of the place of birth instead of definitely stating it. Or I've written that the "the origin story is used as misdirection" and used Source [16] to support it.

Why finding reliable sources is difficult: Most professional film reviews do not divulge spoilers or give thorough analysis of a film's plot.

Easyjusteasy (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for including me in this discusion. While neither the children's book nor IMDB are reliable sources, Source [16] doesn't say anything about the birthplace, it only states that Bane was someone's protector in the Pit, rather than the child. Despite this, you used it to insert a comment about misdirection in a sentence in the article after the one talking about the birthplace, making it look like there was misdirection about the birthplace, which is a bad faith misrepresentation. The film itself has a character straight up state that Bane is born in the Pit, and this notion is not presented as a rumour, or refuted at any pont in the film. ArtistScientist (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I know where you stand, and I completely stand by my assertions in regard to character origin/beginning referred to in said article. I put it on this noticeboard to get the attention of people who don't really care about the topic, primarily. P.S. "The film itself has a character straight up state that Bane is born in the Pit, and this notion is not presented as a rumour" That is new. Easyjusteasy (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So where in that article does it suggest anything about Bane's birthplace? That is the specific point of contention here, not some vague notion about "origins". You seem to be holding onto the idea that both characters being born in the Pit is impossible. The character that states Bane's birthplace outside the context of rumours is Alfred. ArtistScientist (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And you seem to be holding the idea that it is impossible for Bane to have been born elsewhere instead of the Pit, point blank. Bane says to Batman "I will show you WHERE I HAVE MADE my home" the first time he describes the Pit instead of just calling it home. Yes later he calls it home but that's because, as he put it, the Pit is where he made home. Osh33m (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

He's referring to Wayne Tower, not the Pit. Not that personal conclusions can be used in place of a reliable source. If that's not enough for you: Bane couldn't have been suggesting that he wasn't born in the Pit while at the same time it was being suggested to Bruce Wayne and the audience that he was. Can we get some less invested editors looking at this please ArtistScientist (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

He was speaking about another his new residence, underneath Applied Sciences. Easyjusteasy (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at the quote Easyjusteasy used: "Nolan tells one big lie about the origin of Bane. That lie is designed to hide the film's biggest reveal, and we do eventually learn the truth about Bane. It seems fitting that in the one flashback where Nolan tells the full truth about Bane's identity, we finally catch that single glimpse of Tom Hardy's face." It says that in the flashback scene where Bane helps Talia (the child) escape, we learn the full truth about the lie that the movie tells us. And what that scene shows is Bane as the protector, and Talia as the child of Ra's al Ghul who escaped. Therefore the lie is clearly about his identity, not his birth, which is twenty or so years prior to the flashback. Do you still stand by your assertions, Easyjusteasy? ArtistScientist (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Origin is birth in this case. The origin of Bane story (which Alfred says is a rumor, read how he introduces the conversation in the IMDB quote.) What other sham (he calls it a lie that has been presented up to this point) origin of Bane could the author be talking about? That's the only origin that was presented up to that point. Talia is the reveal--she is revealed as the child that was shown to be born in the Pit, and Bane is revealed as a protector in the prison whose origin is then made ambiguous because he is not the child revealed to be born in the Pit. That is unquestionable. So of course I stand by everything I've said. I really don't have anything new to say on the topic as this is just getting redundant. Easyjusteasy (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see the encyclopaedic purpose of this article. The problems could be resolved by merging it back into Bane and then cutting the whole thing down. Give links so that people who are interested can follow the stories up. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. See now Talk:Bane (comics)#Merger of Bane in other media.  Sandstein  00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

How much material should be left behind post-merge? A sentence or two per appearance in other media? I'll work on finding RS to document the existence of the character in other media in the upcoming weeks. Easyjusteasy (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If Bane in other media is going to be merged with the Bane article, then so should all the other supervillain in other media articles - Joker and Green Goblin. Osh33m (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Is applying the Bechdel test to works of fiction original research?

The Bechdel test is a relatively popular test for gender bias in works of fiction. A work passes the test if it features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man.

My question is: Would it be original research for Wikipedia to classify works according to whether or not they pass this test (e.g. through a category, and/or an infobox entry with a footnote explaining which passage in the work meets the test) based only on the work itself? I suspect that it would, but I'd like to hear the opinion of others. (This is an abstract question, unrelated to any particular article or dispute.)

The relevant passage from WP:NOR is:

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

The question therefore is whether applying the Bechdel test based on the work itself (as a primary source) is a statement of fact akin to a plot summary, or an act of interpretation. I suspect that it is the latter, because what counts as a "conversation" can be a matter of interpretation (see Bechdel test#Limitations and problems), as can the question of whether the participants or subjects of a conversation are women or men (e.g., in the case of persons of ambiguous or unknown gender, or non-human characters). This would seem to rule out any system of Bechdel-categorization of articles about works of fiction (except of course for articles that cite a reliable source that makes a statement about whether or not the work meets the test.) That's a bit regrettable because the results of such a categorization might well be interesting.  Sandstein  00:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like original research to me - as you say, it involves 'interpretation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. There is plenty of wiggle room - form of communication (would an epistolary novel consisting only of letters between two women pass?), genders (there is a nice short story by Clifford D. Simak (IIRC) in the form of a report by one (indeterminate gender, procreates by blasting spores into the environment) alien police person to another (same species) alien friend talking about the exploits of an amoeba huckster who, when captured, performs meiosis, with both parts declaring themselves innocent of the crimes of the parent), and so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What about Jane Austen, where the women might on the surface be talking about embroidery but actually they are sniping at each other about a marriage prospect? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes. I think it's usually best to let sources decide these things, rather than performing our own Bechdel test. Also, if sources haven't bothered doing so, then writing our own content about whether or not something "passes" a Bechdel test may well be an UNDUE problem too. bobrayner (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought; thanks for the input.  Sandstein  17:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Applying the Bechdel test without citing a secondary source that does so is probably OR in most cases. But in the case of Jane Austen, there's no shortage of secondary sources talking about the depiction of women in her novels; this is the case with many works of literature, art, and film. So the kind of information one gets from applying the Bechdel test could be covered in many articles, just not in the infobox-y way Sandstein's question contemplates. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It is not up to Wikipedia to "test" anything at all. Collect (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Organic milk

Not sure this is the right noticeboard, but I've gotten into a dispute about the breadth of information that should be present in this article. I have been arguing that we should focus on organic milk only in this article. Other editors feel we should be discussing other organic products like organic fruits and vegetables. For instance, this source is being used for discussion about organic produce and other organic products not directly linked to organic milk (see for instance this diff or this diff. Is this appropriate? Yobol (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any original research in this article. Quite the opposite, in fact, as an out side source is directly discussed. The question on which you are seeking input is a content issue and an argument could be made either way. It seems like dispute resolution is on track with Talk page discussion and an RFC. Andrew³²⁷ 02:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

When can information acquired through unverifiable experiments with google satellite comply with WP:OR?

There have been secret camps for detainees, at Guantanamo -- the names of at least three secret camps have become known: Camp Strawberry Fields, Camp No, and Camp Platinum/Camp Seven.

The DoD continues to deny the existence of Camp No. We didn't know where either of the two other camps were, other than that they were not operated by JTF-GTMO and were not contained within the JTF-GTMO campus. But in 2009 Jason Leopold, who has published many articles on Guantanamo, published a crop of a google satellite image, showing Camp Platinum/Camp Seven. I uploaded it, supplying what I thought were valid fair use templates.

A week or so ago a {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag was placed on the image, asserting it was a "replaceable fair use" image. Leaving out the rest of the details the original challenger and I are disagreeing over what kind of experimenting with google constitutes original research.

My position is that since the journalist who published the non-free image in question had published previous articles on Guantanamo, and is an expert on Guantanamo, their publication of the image made it verifiable, but that any previously unpublished image a wikipedia contributor cropped from google would be unreferenced, unverifiable, and a lapse from WP:OR. I think the challenger may be claiming that the experimenting the acknowledge performing with google fell under the exemption our rules barring original research have for routine calculation.

The challenger may also have been asserting that the previously published image I uploaded should be erased, then replaced. Erased, because it was not esthetically pleasing, and then replaced with a higher resolution crop done by one of us. While I agree a more esthetically pleasing crop is certainly possible, any crop one of us made would be unverifiable and thus unusable, and I believe it would be a lapse from WP:OR.

Some years ago I came across a tiny image about 80px * 80px, of an important Afghan warlord named Hazrat Ali, who was based in Torkham, Nangarhar Province, he was reported to have been corrupt, and to have been bribed by al Qaeda to let Osama bin Laden slip across the Afghan/Pakistan border. A few years later a Navy SEAL officer published a tell-all book under the pen-name Dalton Fury, about attempts to kill or capture Osama bin Laden in late 2001. He was interviewed by 60 minutes, who broadcast clips from formerly secret video recorded by the Navy SEALS. Those clips included several short segments showing "General Ali", an unreliable Afghan warlord from Torkham, Nangarhar, whose lack of cooperation allowed Osama bin Laden slip across the border. This warlord shared the same last name as Hazrat Ali, who was reported to have helped OBL slip across the border, he was also the warlord from Torkham, and he looked like Hazrat Ali. I asked for opinions as to whether I could use snapshots from the Navy SEAL video to replace the 80x80 image of Hazrat Ali with the superior quality images of General Ali, from the Navy SEAL video. The consensus was that, because my judgment that the images were of the same individual was unverifiable the images couldn't be identified as Hazrat Ali. I think the same principle should apply to the challenger's experiments with google. I think because they are unverifiable they lapse from WP:OR.

I'd appreciate third party opinions please.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

All of this verbiage is entirely irrelevant. Look, I've been probably more fanatical than most about assigning coordinates to objects, having created numerous lighthouse articles where, if they be provided at all, they have to be worked out from charts or the like. And I'm always careful to note when I've had to do that. But in this case the question is entirely moot: on the page used as a source for the contested image in this article [1], the uncropped image has the coordinates readable along its bottom edge! And therefore I added the coordinates to the article with that web page as a citation. If you don't think that they identified the correct building, then this is an issue of their credibility, not of OR. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Geo Swan, I think that you want to publish your own book. I suspect that it could be a very good book. You have your own thoughts and judgments that go beyond mere summary of already published material from reputable and reliable sources. I think you should step back from Guantanamo on Wikipedia, and write your own book. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• This topic is not well focused. The article includes coordinates, so the coordinates are verifiable. Substituting or cropping an image of the same geographic location would not be OR; there's a clear implication that the camp is the building and walls that were pictured and not the surrounding scrub. We aren't here to debate fair use of an image; that is not a question about OR. Glrx (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

VFP essay

At Visual FoxPro‎, an IP and new editor have repeatedly added an unreferenced section to the article that appears to be original research. Could someone else take a look at it? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Description of opinion polls results in UK w.r.t. UKIP

Hi all. Recent months have seen the UK Independence Party (UKIP) do better in opinion polls in the UK. UKIP claim to have supplanted another party, the Liberal Democrats, as the third party in British politics. There has been much editing activity around UKIP's rise and how best to reflect this. The particular OR concern here is over how to report and describe the opinion poll data. The key discussions here are at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graph_to_show_tie_for_3rd_Place and Talk:UK_Independence_Party#3rd_party_Chart_-_disclude_Labour_.26_Tory. There are various issues here, but the OR one is around text written by Sheffno1gunner that I and some others feel constitutes OR. Sheffno1gunner (and some others) feel it does not. (There is also a somewhat related issue around what to highlight in a table: see Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Lib_Dem_UKIP_box_colouring, although I'm not certain if that counts as an OR issue or not.) Some additional perspectives and thoughts on this would be very valuable to help resolve current disagreements. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical Jewish Population

• Historical Jewish population comparisons#Comparisons

Is the table (the one that's still there right now) in this article (Historical Jewish population comparisons) original research by synthesis? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Jewish" can mean different things. Depending on what the questions are, some surveys/censuses might capture people who are jewish in a religious sense, whilst other surveys/censuses might capture people who identify as jewish for cultural or family reasons. (Obviously there's a lot of overlap between the two sets, but they're exactly not the same thing). Is that table comparing like with like? bobrayner (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the whole article needs merging with Jewish diaspora, which would then need to be split in another, more logical way. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that this is OR by Synth, but I partially agree with Itsmejudith that the topic could perhaps be better in a different article. Andrew³²⁷ 18:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is also Jewish population by country as a potential merge target. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If the table just copies numbers from reliable sources it's likely not OR, because it does not reach a novel conclusion, but just collates existing data. The more significant problem with the table is that it is unsourced and therefore fails WP:V. Once sourced, the table should also note what definition of "Jewish" each source used.  Sandstein  00:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Combining numbers from different surveys/censuses is almost always synthesis unless the sources give confidence that they were taken on the same basis for the same reasons. I'd also have to doubt the credibility of some of these numbers, such as the 1942 numbers from the Vatican: in the middle of a world war, nobody could possibly collect current, headcount-quality numbers of anything. I should also like to point out that the 1906 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia specifically say that "The accuracy of these figures is doubtful since, as stated above, England and the United States have no religious statistics." A great deal of their article is, in fact, devoted to learned (and generally wise) discussion of the difficulty in obtaining decent data, featuring for instance a table of estimates of the Jewish population of Jerusalem at the time. Picking one column of data out of their article and presenting it without all these many caveats is not really acceptable. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Court protocols as source for allegations

At Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority there is a dispute over what the actual allegations against Mr Assange is. One contention is that the court protocols can be used as sources for the allegations contained in them, while another editor's contention is that it would constitute original Research. (There is also a dispute over what the allegations actually are, and this issue is a part of that dispute) The dispute arose after a revert, and the discussion can be found here: Talk:Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Revert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.161.146 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 January 2013‎

This is a complex issue, not least because we are dealing with two different languages (Swedish and English), two different legal systems (ditto), and a highly-charged case. Whether the actions allegedly carried out by Assange would constitute rape under Swedish law is presumably for the Swedish courts to decide, if it ever comes to court. Whether this would be seen as rape under English law is actually a moot point, as I understand it - the extradition issues would be the same in the case of sexual assault as for rape. As for what Wikipedia should say in regard to the allegations, policy seems clear enough - we don't use court documents as sources. But why do we need to anyway? At the moment, Assange hasn't formally been charged with anything, as I understand it. Allegations concerning serious sexual offences have been made, and the Swedish authorities have asked that Assange be extradited for formal questioning. This we can report, using secondary reliable sources, as guidelines suggest. If Assange is indeed ever charged with rape under Swedish law we can report the fact, and also report anything of significance that secondary sources say about whether this might be seen as 'rape' in other jurisdictions - but it wouldn't prevent us from reporting what he'd been charged with under Swedish law. For the moment, the consensus amongst the mainstream media seems to be to be non-specific about potential charges, if for no better reason than that they haven't been laid yet. There is no reason whatsoever for Wikipedia to act differently. We aren't here to interpret law. We aren't here to speculate. We should report ('conservatively' according to WP:BLP policy) the facts as deemed of significance by secondary sources - and such sources seem not to use the word 'rape' in relation to the allegations, quite possibly because of the many uncertainties I've outlined. We should do the same. I can see no legitimate reason to do otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Use reliable secondary sources for such stuff - like the New York Times reports at [2] etc. Avoids the entire "Wikipedia use of court records" quagmire. Collect (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to help.

(And for signing my previous post for me. I think I read somewhere that when an issue was brought to the noticeboard it should be neutral and unsigned, but I may have confused this with something else.)

Structure

It is, as you say, a complex issue. There are several interconnected problems with it, and it’s hard to untangle them so that they can be solved. I don’t really know how to go about it without the discussion rapidly expanding into several different issues (like on the article talk page).

I find that the different issues are ordered something like this:

1. What is the subject of the article, what kind of claims should be in it?

2. What does policy dictate regarding articles of that type?

3. What is the actual claim, and who/what is the subject of the claim?

4. What does policy dictate regarding claims of that type?

5. What sources are relevant on the subject?

6. What does policy dictate regarding sources of that type?

7. What do those sources say?

The issue I would like to solve here is located in point 6 and 7. (This means, that even if it were to be found that there are no obstacles in these points, obstacles in prior points may render the issue moot anyway. (I obviously don't believe there to be such obstacles. I'm happy to discuss it, but this is probably the wrong place to discuss those issues))

The reason for this is that I suspect it would be a lot easier to find consensus at this level, and therefore a time saver to start here, rather than begin with heavier issues.

For sake of discussion:

2&4 are beside the point.

1: The article is about a legal process, and not Mr A as a person.

3: The claim is "Sweden wants Mr A extradited for allegations X". This is a claim about Sweden, not Mr A. This renders "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." moot. Wikipedia:BLPCRIME#Misuse of primary sources

5: The court protocols, press releases, and the "summary to assist the press" are deemed relevant on the subject.

The issues:

6A. Are the court protocols all primary sources?

6B. Is the "Summary to assist the press" (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf) to be considered a primary source?

6C. What does policy say regarding sources in this (narrow) context? I.e. Is it OR to cite the allegations spelled out in the court protocols, the summary, and press-releases?

6D. Does quoting the allegations spelled out in the English court protocols constitute OR?

6E. Does quoting the allegations spelled out in the "Summary to assist the press" constitute OR?

7A. Is it OR to conflate (From the "Summary to assist the press" p 3)

"In respect of Offence 4, Mr Assange contended that whilst rape was a Framework Offence and therefore didn't require dual criminality, the conduct described in the EAW was not fairly and accurately described and that if it had it would not be rape. (para 59)" and "The Court ruled that Mr Assange's objections raised in relation to Offence 4 fail. (paras 104 - 127)" to mean that the alleged conduct is to be regarded as rape according to the court?

My contentions:

6A: The English court protocols are secondary sources, as they reference the allegations in the EAW.

6B: The "Summary to assist the press" is a tertiary source, as it references the English court protocols, which in turn references the EAW

If contentions A and/or B are wrong;

6C: per WP:PRIMARY " primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia"

“A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.”

6D: The court documents are reliably published, and are used to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", therefore citing them is OK and does not constitute OR.

6E: The "Summary to assist the press" is reliably published, and is used to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", therefore citing it is OK and does not constitute OR.

7A: Mr A claimed it to be not rape, and the court said he was wrong. This is not OR, since it is spelled out, and no interpretation is needed on behalf of the reader.

83.254.161.146 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Court docs are primary sources ("...original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved"). The statements in them are from the source of the doc. A secondary source would be an article referencing the court doc, offering context and explanation. Also, please take note of WP:BLPPRIMARY, specifically "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.". Ravensfire (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And please note per "The article is about a legal process, and not Mr A as a person" that WP:BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia - not just to articles about persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it policy to treat court documents as primary sources regarding any claim? If that is so, I have misunderstood the policy.

I understood it as Court docs are primary sources regarding claims originating within them.

I based my argument on the fact that the English court documents are not original materials regarding what the allegations by Sweden is (since the Swedish docs are the originals), and that the people in the English courts are not directly involved in the legal process in Sweden.

This point is of minor importance. I won’t concede it just jet, but I would be happy to receive help on interpreting the court document paragraph.

In 6C I argued why I think it’s irrelevant if the sources are primary. What is wrong with that reasoning?

The policy regarding secondary sources is “Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.” No such statement is drawn from the court documents. Therefore there is no absolute need for secondary sources.

"Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."

A committed B is an assertion about A

C thinks A committed B is an assertion about C

If A is a living person, this particular policy only applies to the former example.

I agree. WP:BLP policy applies. I have not argued this point. I don't understand what sections within BLP are being violated?

What do you think of the "Summary to assist the press"?

83.254.161.146 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, BLP would apply to A in both examples. If you mention a living person, you've got to consider BLP. C is making an allegation about A thinking something about B - all three can fall under BLP. Ravensfire (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As before: I agree that BLP applies. What I'm arguing is that this particular section within BLP is irrelevant.

Is your point that the quoted text should be interpreted as: ... to support assertions involving a living person?

Thanks again to everybody for all your input. I would however just like to echo that although the current BLP discussion is highly relevant to the issue at large, it was not the issue I turned to this noticeboard about. (I will obviously not insert the sources and material into the article until the issue as a whole has been resolved)

What I would like to resolve is whether the six contentions I named would be considered OR, (and if so: why).

83.254.161.146 (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

court documents and statutes are primary sources that are specifically outlined as NOT acceptable as sources for any content in an article about living people. see WP:BLPPRIMARY -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we need some specifics here

I'm a little unclear over what exactly needs to be resolved. I would assume that the dispute is that different editors want to put in different versions of what the allegations are. It's important what the various sources are and why they might be giving different versions. If one of the versions is an editor's translation of a document in Swedish, then that one is right out as obvious research: we are inevitably going to prefer an outside source's translation unless it contains an error extraordinarily gross and self-evident to any Swedish reader. Thus we'll never prefer an editor's translation of a court document which is in Swedish.

Looking through the discussion, it seems to me that the "Summary to Assist the Media" published by the British judiciary constitutes a perfectly valid and accurate secondary source. It is recounting what is in the warrant put out by Swedes, and it summarizes the charges as well as justifying that summary through (presumably translated) quotations. Comparing that with the documents in Swedish is Right Out. I see no obstacle to using that summary. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rampant OR by IP

Gospel of the Hebrews‎ is getting WP:OR by an IP - needs help. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "Comparison chart" that was added here? Andrew³²⁷ 02:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's got big problems, starting from the long list of direct citations to scripture. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of thought

The following section from this article is entirely sourced with primary sources (Bible quoations), yet the supplementary statements consists of interpretations of these passages in an attempt to connect them with the article subject (freedom of thought, a term they don't mention themselves):

The obvious impediment to censoring thought is that it is impossible to know with certainty what another person is thinking, and harder to regulate it. Many famous historical works recognize this. The Bible summarizes in Ecclesiastes 8:8: "There is no man that has power over the spirit, to retain it; neither has he power in the day of death." A similar sentiment is expressed in the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, where he likens those who attempt to control the emotions of their neighbours to "the children in the marketplace" who try to produce dancing with a happy song and mourning with a dirge, and then express frustration at their futility in trying to do so (Matthew 11:16). The concept is developed more specifically in the writings of Paul ("For why should my freedom [eleutheria] be judged by another's conscience [suneideseos]?" 1 Corinthians 10:29.)

I first made aware of the problem of OR July 2011, and have since taken up the subject again, however no reliable secondary sources has been cited in the section. Still User:Til Eulenspiegel reverts my attempt at removing the section in question, claiming that there are lots of sources, yet having himself failed to provide a single one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not true; I added several sources covering this material only yesterday. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You have exactly zero citations to that specific section. The above quote is a direct cut-and-paste from the article. As you can see it contains no citations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? More than enough references to cover this material plus a LOT more was added to the "Further Reading" section, which if you bothered to read first, you might actually know something about this subject. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A "Further reading" section can't substitute inline citations, as policy clearly states: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". You will need to add citations to each of these claims citing a page number in the book or article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Biblical passages may not be interpreted without citing the interpreter source. I removed the offending passages. Also: nothing can be harder than "impossible". Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Saddhiyama's point that 'further reading' can't be considered references. We have guidance on further reading sections, eg "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject". In particular, "This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content." Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States (Statistical breakdown)

Several editors have brought up similar concerns on the Talk page without any real discussion ensuing, so I am bringing the question here. Most of the article is well referenced, but the section about the statistical breakdown appears to be completely original research. Andrew³²⁷ 03:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have deleted it. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

History of the metric system

Can OR experts please review the above mentioned article and help to decide whether it fully complies with the WP:OR policy.

It contains many statements which are not directly supported by a specific reliable source, but which are based on personal interpretation and extrapolation from one or two sample sources. Examples include:

• "The origins of the metric system date back to the sixteenth century when Simon Stevin published details of his decimal notation," - no specific cited source says that, the editor seems to have concluded that for himself.
• "Since then [2007] writers have also focussed on Wilkins' proposals;" - no specific cited source says that, the editor has concluded that because he has found a 2012 source that focusses on Wilkins.
• "Most writers credit the Flemish mathematician Simon Stevin with introducing the decimal system into general use in Europe." - no specific cited source says that, the author has concluded "most", because he has found some that do.
• "In contrast, in England the Magna Carta (1215) had stipulated that "there shall be one unit of measure throughout the realm"." - added, per talk page comment because "the point being made was that whereas France had thousands of units of measure - the pied varied from town to town (depending on how the lord could fleece the peasants), England had the principal (not alweays followed) of one unit of measure", but with no specific cited source saying that.
• "Wilkins was raised to the episcopacy a few months after his book was published, and devoted the remaining four years of his life to his ecclesiastical duties." - was added because "its only impact is to show why Wilikins did not follow up his Essay", with no source to support that reasoning.
• "Interest in Wilkins' Essay was confined mainly to those interested in the field of onomasiology: for example..." - personal, unsourced, conjecture.
• "British commentators of the Essay devoted little space to Wilkins' proposals of measurement;" - not directly sourced, but a personal conclusion.
• "there is little evidence to show whether or not Jefferson or the French Revolutionary leaders derived their concept of defining unit mass in terms of a unit volume of water independently of Wilkins." - not sourced, but based on personal conclusions.

Additionally, when questioned about the reliability of a self-published blog, the editor replied on the talk page: "As regards the reliability of his [Naughtin's] 2007 publication - how "reliable" was the small boy who shouted "Why isn't there emperor wearing any clothes?"

Stevengriffiths (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"3rd party lead" in opinion polls

The article on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election gives the results for the four main parties in UK politics (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP). There is an additional column giving which party is in the lead. As you can see in the discussion at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Lib_Dem_UKIP_box_colouring, three editors (User:Sheffno1gunner, an IP editor and User:Nick Dancer) agreed to add a column marked "3rd party lead" comparing which of the two smaller parties, LDems and UKIP, are ahead in each poll and by how much, with additional colour shading of the 3rd party leader. This is in response to UKIP's rise in the polling in recent months. Subsequently, myself and two other editors objected to this change. There has been lengthy discussion and a degree of local consensus has emerged to keep the new column.

However, I remain perturbed. This looks like original research to me and that core policy should override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, so I seek further input on the matter.

Reliable sources should be our guide. I've not seen any reliable source that presents polling data like this. That said, some reliable sources do discuss the UKIP/LDem difference and who's ahead (as cited in the article). "Third party lead" as a phrase is not used (in this context) anywhere on a basic Google search, except in references to this page. No other Wikipedia article has a "3rd party lead" this. This all seems like a massive warning sign to me.

It seems to me that "3rd party lead" largely represents the interests of particular editors and while those editors may have an argument about why such a statistic is interesting, as they've laid out in Talk page discussion, it clearly constitutes OR/WP:SYNTH. It also represents a bias in the article because it is there to draw particular attention to UKIP's rise in the polls. Talk page discussion has not engaged with the OR issue. Reliable sources do not present polling data in this way. While there is some RS interest in whether the LibDems or UKIP are ahead in the polls, it is not pronounced and it is not reported in this manner.

Some further background notes... The rise in the polls of UKIP in recent months has led to considerable discussion on Wikipedia around how best to cover the party. Sheffno1gunner, the IP editor and Nick Dancer have generally argued for more coverage of UKIP, while others have felt that some of the changes proposed would be undue. I recognise a balance is required here and am not suggesting that either side of that debate are inherently right or wrong. However, there have been concerns and discussions as to whether content on this issue has strayed into original research. We've had lengthy discussions at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graph_to_show_tie_for_3rd_Place and at Talk:UK_Independence_Party#3rd_party_Chart_-_disclude_Labour_.26_Tory on other possible OR issues around UKIP (and I came here before about the former -- see above). In the latter example, discussion got rather heated and the IP editor expressed some fundamental disagreements with policies like WP:RS.

This very issue of how well UKIP are doing in the polls compared to the LibDems has itself been used by some of the same editors as an argument for greater coverage of UKIP, in particular in a number of discussions on what parties to include in infoboxes for forthcoming elections: see Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Addition_of_UKIP_Debate and Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013#Election_Box.

What to include in tabulations of opinion polls has often been fraught. Articles about other countries have tackled OR concerns before; see Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 for example. There is much that one could include in a table of poll results, so it becomes an almost artistic judgement about how much is too much. Sheffno1gunner has, for example, opposed including the Greens etc. on the polling tables for the 2014 Euro-elections on the grounds that it makes the table too busy: see Talk:European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#Opinion_Polling.

My concerns about OR may be misplaced, of course. But with the discussion often getting heated and difficulty coming to agreement, it would be very helpful if we could get some more heads looking at the problem. Bondegezou (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis deaths?

Hi, I just created an RfC and was advised to enter it here. Does this study deserve mention in the "safety" section of Cannabis (drug), and what would be reasonable to say? It is being used to support an idea contrary to what good sources say, that there has never been a cannabis-induced human fatality. Thank you. petrarchan47tc 02:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Just from a quick glance, I'd say no. I'm not familiar with the journal, so I'm not sure if it's considered reliable. But, from the abstract, all they're saying is that THC was present when the person had a heart attack. They aren't concluding that it was the cause, just noting the correlation. That's not enough to be included in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Can I copy your note to the RfC? (I doubt anyone will see it here.) petrarchan47tc 19:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This question involves more than just the one medical source. This [3] is at least one good secondary source documenting “occasional myocardial infarction and stroke”. Another medical review and secondary source[4] also supports this. Several other primary sources are available, such as [5], [6], etc. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Consistent WP:OR/WP:RS violator

User:Redhanker seems obsessed with proving how evil Iran is, to the extent that he ignores talk page requests that he stop engaging in WP:Soapbox on article talk pages and adding primary sourced and non-source material to articles. A perfect example is today's revert I did removing a number of such examples of his recent edits from one article. Here is a discussion on proper WP:RS pn the same article at WP:RS Noticeboard on his misuse of primary sources. (At this diff even another editor I disagree with on many articles agrees he's becoming disruptive.)

Just reviewing Special:Contributions/Redhanker, it looks like he does this on a lot of articles. User talk:Redhanker shows at least four recent AfDs (some speedy) on poorly sourced/POV articles regarding Iran he created, plus a couple deletions of categories he deleted. Like I said on the talk page, this is probably the first time I've sought to have an editor sanctioned/banned from an article for something less than being a sockpuppet or repeated 1rr/3rr. Any help someone would like to offer to explain these policies to User:Redhanker on Veterans Today talk page, his talk page, or talk page of any other article they personally find of interest welcome. Very frustrating. CarolMooreDC 20:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have actually held off on adding too much to the article to see what else other people had to say. Much of the reverted edits are from a number of other editors, such as the section of Ingrid Zundel being married to Ernst Zundel, though I added the section on support for Nazi soldiers and Stephen goodson praising Hitlers victory against Jewish banksters. Zundel has nothing to do with Iran being evil, and as long as VT readers aren't bothered by Zundel (Gordon Duff has gone on record on internet radio as backing both Zundels as well as David Duke), there is nothing wrong with neccesarily wrong with association with Nazis unless you think there is something wrong with it. It is a significant deletion from the lead to remove that VT is an outlet for the Iranian press through Press TV, as well as Mehr news which is operated by Iran's department of propoganda/disinformation. It would be OR to claim that Iran's intelligence agencies are in fact responsible for the 9-11 and Sandy Hook conspiracy theories promoted by VT, but I am not making that case, at least not until there is evidence from RS. PressTV is certainly an RS for official Iranian government positions, such as promoting Fetzer's Sandy Hook theory. It is remarkable that PressTV, Iran's primary news agency, cannot be used to establish notability for Koroush Ziabari and Mark Dankof who are frequently reposted from both PressTV and Veterans Today articles across dozens of pro-Iran and pro-Palestine websites seemingly because they do not fit the western pro-Israel view of what constitutes a notable news source. The combative attitudes are discouraging enough that I may cease to contribute to this article Redhanker (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This is somewhat more of an argument, compared to what seems more like pure soapboxing on talk; of course there is some inference of bad motives by other editors. Nevertheless, it doesn't sound like you are addressing policy issues regarding Original Research with Poor Sourcing. In any case, considering how much you are reverted, obviously a few of us have problems with your edits which you were ignoring when we brought them on talk page. And you continue to get complaints on your talk page about "attack page" type behavior. You don't seem to understand the difference between legit criticism from WP:RS and synthesizing neutral information to produce your own criticism. CarolMooreDC 17:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 Background Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per here. --RA (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

The article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 is going through a peer review here. In the peer review, it was suggested that a background section was needed to provide more context to the discussion. However, one user brought up the fact that it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I would ask for your opinion on the subject. Thanks for your time.Casprings (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Link to Background section: Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012#Background

Link to peer review [7]

Link to allegation of WP:OR on article talk page Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012#Background

FiachraByrne (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the article is in relation to the 2012 election. The background is not the background of the 2012 election and the view of rape related pregnacies, it is a research view of the question of rape related pregnacies. I have written enough papers to see the clear research presentation in this section. In a research paper it would be called the lit review aspect of the research. By creating this section you are in effect writing a research paper on the this article. Hence this section is contributing to Original Research. Furthermore you are trying to link previous research to this event which is Synthesis of Material. Simply put, any information included must be relevant to the article and specifically mention the effect regarding the 2012 election. The big problem the approach being done here is that you, the editor, is framing the background outside of the scope of the article. If Casprings wants to write a research paper, I suggest he/she do it somewhere else, and the get it published in a journal. Arzel (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's telling that Azrel hasn't constructed an argument that is pertinent to any existing wikipedian policy, much less to that of original research or synthesis as defined on the relevant policy pages. This is an individual interpretation of what constitutes original research and as such Community consensus is required before seeking to apply it at individual articles.

Azrel has also introduced a distinction between what they think is appropriate for inclusion in the background to a given article without actually defining the basis for that distinction in any meaningful terms (other than their assertion that they are somehow able to identify said distinction having "written enough papers").

That the material is relevant for inclusion in such a section is determined in the first instance by its presence in reliable sources and not by the idiosyncratic interpretation of what is germane as advanced by individual editors. The sources, cited in the section additions, have identified the theories of Mecklenburg and Willke as pertinent to the topic of this article. In terms of improving the article, they make the controversy more rather than less intelligible and provide much needed context for the reader.

The additional statements that the theories of the Mecklenburg and Willke are "medically inaccurate" and without scientific validity is derived from policy relating to WP:FRINGE - as these are demonstrably pseudoscientific medical theories it is necessary for the article to state that fact per WP:FRINGE/PS on the basis of reliable and authoritative medical sources per WP:MEDRS. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, FiachraByrne; I could not have said it better. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you FiachraBryne for showing a great example of WP:TRUTH and to Both for showing your bias. FiachraBryne is obviously incapable of peer review for this paper as shown by their comments above. Furthermore has clearly stated that this section is exactly what I said it was. WP is not the place to write your research papers. Arzel (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Again this is assertion without argument. If you have a case, outline it please with reference to the actual sources used and relevant wikipedia policy. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see any synthesis in the contested section. The section is largely constructed around a skeleton provided by an article from the Seattle Times, with examples of similar cases in the past. All of the MSM sources I checked relate these statements to Akin, so there's no question that this is material that is not thought relevant to the case in question. The material is obviously helpful to me in placing the controversy in a historical context. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If reliable sources discuss these issues when reporting the various 'rape and pregnancy' controversies, then the Wikipedia article should discuss these issues as well (referencing both the news articles and the academic research articles). It's what I would expect from an encyclopedia article. FurrySings (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources stating an opinion about what they think is the relationship is entirely different than using those same sources to make a factual link between events. It is clear that the editors of this article are trying to take these opinions to make a factual link and as a result are writing a research paper. If WP editors wish to write research papers, then they should follow the proper protocols, but WP is not the place to publish it. Arzel (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

1. You still use no policy to back up your argument. 2. I am at a loss to understand your "research paper" argument. 3. What is a background section supposed to have in it if not something that provides context, and is commented on by WP:RS as giving context.Casprings (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The background has absolutely no link to the 2012 section. You seem to confuse the opinions of some with actual linkage. WP is not the place to promote new linkages (ie OR). Perhaps this is an underlying fault of too many college and high school students trying to use WP to write their HS and College papers. Activist editors like yourself only compound the problem. Arzel (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. Arzel, you're clearly a single purpose account with a political view to promote [8] FiachraByrne (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOR on Waldorf Education Page

I am looking for input concerning a possible original research issue in section 7.4 ("Pseudoscience") of the Waldorf education page. There are two parts of the issue. Editors of this page have approached the problem through many discussions on TALK for over two weeks and there have been several rounds of edit/undo. No consensus for how to resolve this has been established. [NOTE: The image in question may or may not be on the page currently. If you don't see it, please respond to issue #2 noted below.]

• Alexbrn has included an ancient "map" of Lemuria on the page. (Lemuria was the name for a sunken continent before plate tectonics/continental drift disproved the existence of sunken continents). The image is from a book by William Scott-Elliott in 1896. The caption to the image says "The mythical continent of Lemuria features in Steiner's account of the geology of the Earth." I argue that the image and caption violate WP:OI because “image captions are subject to [the policy of no original research] no less than statements in the body of the article." Yet even a tag that a source is needed to accompany the caption has been refused by Alexbrn. The image itself also violates WP:IRELEV which states that “images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic.” There is no source on the page that discusses “Steiner’s geology” or makes a connection between Waldorf education and William Scott-Elliott's views, drawings, etc. (Steiner is the founder of the "Waldorf" educational approach.) For these reasons, I believe both image and caption violate the aforementioned guidelines and constitute synthesis and original research.

  For clarity: the caption referred to above is the Wikipedia caption, not that in the original book. hgilbert (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Question: Is an unpublished manuscript copyrighted by a University professor a reliable source? How should such a document be used (or not used) in a Wikipedia article? Alexbrn also sources content in this section to an unpublished manuscript, inventing novel criteria for its use rather than following the expectations set forth in WP:RS. Alexbrn argues that the Jelinek & Sun (2003) manuscript [9] is a “middling” source that can be “used with care.” I have argued that novel criteria for determining reliable sources violates WP:SOURCES which states “unpublished materials are not considered reliable.” First, no peer-review has occurred with this or any other unpublished manuscript. Second, as a manuscript that reports research findings it is also a primary source for its own findings. Third, any use of primary sources – even ones published by academic journals – requires that “all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources…be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.” WP:PRIMARY For these reasons, I have asked Alexbrn to rely on published secondary sources as is expected. For a time none were known to exist. However, we have now identified two sources that could be used. One is from a peer-reviewed journal [10] (Edvin Østergaard , Bo Dahlin & Aksel Hugo (2008): Doing phenomenology in science education: a research review, Studies in Science Education, 44:2, 93-121). The second is a book (Philip Woods and Glenys Woods (eds.) Alternative Education for the 21st Century: Philosophies, Approaches, Visions. Palgrave: 2009.)

Despite ample discussion having occurred, editors of this page have reached an impasse. We would appreciate the input of fellow Wikipedians to help us resolve this issue. Thank you. Jellypear (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Jellypear (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Five Elements of Humor

Is the entry about Zac Toa at Theories of Humor an example of Original Research? Why is this acceptable, given that a previous entry was deleted, on the grounds that it was only an unvetted thesis? Isn't Mr. Toa's brief book an "unvetted thesis"? It is surely not sufficient for a dissertation, or an academic article.

Editors deleted the entry by an established scholar in the field, who has now been invited to speak at a humor conference having Daniel C. Dennett and John Morreall as the keynote speakers. That scholar is a Professor Gontar, who, just by being admitted to that high-profile event is now "vetted" and established as a scholar. If Five Elements is not Original Research, then can the other deleted theory return?Cdg1072 (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Kashmir

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Human rights abuses in Kashmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Currently it says: "Human rights watch has also accused the Indian security forces of using children as spies and messengers, although the Indian government denies this allegation." The linked source is Hartjen, Clayton; S. Priyadarsini (2011). The Global Victimization of Children: Problems and Solutions (2012 ed.). Springer. p. 106. ISBN 978-1461421788. ——link Issue: It doesn't say that Indian Forces are recruiting children in Kashmir. The article is about Human rights abuses in Kashmir. User:Darkness Shines is behaving unreasonably this time on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. Our terse conversation can be seen here and here; it won't take long just go through the first discussion and preferably, both. He wants to include a assertion that is not supported by the source. ——link Issue: Only line where it mentions Indian Police it doesn't specify which province of India? It ascribes child-soldiers to Insurgent groups as opposed to Indian Police or Government-run agencies. Anything beyond that is an abject synthesis. Caveat Lector I first reached out to Bbb23. Yes, I am involved in this edit-war. But it's only because DS blatantly reneged on the agreement with Bbb23 that he will provide a better source. The last revert was done with good faith. I was hopeful in vain. I am resorting to WP:ORN now (hope it's not too late) because I don't think the discussion will ever yield any result. These topics relating to Kashmir and Human rights abuses have a knack of becoming pariah, I hope this doesn't become one of them. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC) I can't see the problem. The source says: "Although the Indian government denies recruiting children, Human Rights Watch (2008) contends that children were being used by police and government agents as spies, informants, messengers, and the like in that corner of the subcontinent." The sentence you are complaining about just says this in other words. I suspect that the source cited by the book is the Child Soldiers Global Report 2008. The summary that is available online does not have this information, but it's just a summary and the accusation is not one of recruiting children as soldiers in the strict sense. Presumably the accusation is contained in the long version. If it is not and this report is really what the book is citing (unfortunately the page with that reference is not on Google Books), then it's a problem with the reliability of the book rather than an original research problem. But this seems unlikely. Hans Adler 08:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC) [11] This is the link to the page 106. Read it in proper context (I have quoted the pertinent section for your convenience). The hartjen source doesn't specify that Indian Forces are using children in Kashmir, the article is about Human rights abuses in Kashmir. It is appropriate for inclusion in Human rights abuses in India but right now, not appropriate for Human rights abuses in Kashmir. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC) BTW the only states where the ALRC source (DS later brought it up directly on the talk) explicitly ascribed child-soldiers to Indian Police is Manipur and Chattisgarh. They are nowhere near Kashmir. In Kashmir Children are being used, but the current source doesn't say it's Indian Police. Anti-state militias and insurgents are using children. Hartjen, Clayton; S. Priyadarsini (2011). The Global Victimization of Children: Problems and Solutions (2012 ed.). Springer. page 106 says, "children as young as 10 are reported to be used by Pakistan-based militants in Jammu & Kashmir as messengers and couriers, but some have also been used to throw grenades and plant bombs." This source says, ″Children and youth are involved with insurgent groups in a number of states including Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkand, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Jammu and Kashmir″ I hope this helps. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Lynn Fontanne

Someone has used the 1930 U.S. census as a source for the Lynn Fontanne article, interpreting it to come to a conclusion about her date of immigration and citizenship status. There is further speculation appended to the citation about her "likely" British citizenship status. This all seems like original research to me, but my deletion of it was reverted. Comments, please. -- Mesconsing (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Using census information to press what is (as far as I can tell) the random pet theory of an editor here is original research. Before the article can make any statements regarding her citizenship, you need to cite a source that specifically questions her citizenship status in as many words -- you can't prove it yourself using primary sources; you also need a source indicating that those primary sources are relevant, and that the conclusion you're trying to draw from them is both reasonable and relevant. Please don't put anything in the article about her citizenship status without citing a source that discusses it specifically and supports its relevance to the article -- without a source like that, citing official census figures, the wordings of various laws, etc is just speculation by a random editor here and not an encyclopedic subject. --Aquillion (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about any of that, and don't care (and don't see why anybody would feel very strongly about this trivial ancient issue). I just restored sourced information. We're allowed to include primary sources for simple statements of fact. WP:OR says in the lede "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material...". This is not what is being done here, at least not in the first clause. "According to the 1930 United States Federal Census, Fontanne indicated she arrived in the United States in 1915, and a notation by the enumerator indicates she was or claimed to be a naturalized United States citizen" is a simple statement of fact. It's either true or it's not. Assuming that the source checks out and it's true, and another editor decided it was worth putting in the article, your only argument would be that it's trivial. Maybe it's trivial, maybe not. There's a whole section on the pronunciation of her name, though, and that seems more trivial. When she arrived in the US and what her citizenship status was or became seems like something that some researchers would want to know, I think. We don't need a secondary source saying "The issue of X was important" for every fact that we write into our articles. That's our judgement, subject to discussion.

The second clause "which at that time would likely have resulted in her losing her British citizenship under then British nationality laws" is either true or not, and is researchable, but I don't see a citation for it, so that part of it is OK to remove if challenged, which you have. Better would be to find out if it's true, but I've no interest in doing that.

I restored the first, referenced, part. Per WP:BRD the onus is you to convince me that's its not germane to the article, or that it really is not the sort of material that's allowed in articles. I'd need some serious convincing on the second part, since there's a hella lot of article material -- everyone's citizenship, and I suppose birth date and place of residence etc. -- that would have to removed under that rubric. Herostratus (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(1.) A person was listed on the original census as "Linfontane Lunt". The editor who inserted this material made the assumption that "Linfontane Lunt" was Lynn Fontanne. Making assumptions like that is original research. (2.) The census enumerator wrote that Fontanne entered the U.S. in 1915 and was a naturalized citizen. The editor inserting this material made the assumption that Lynn Fontanne told the enumerator those details ("claimed to be"). In fact, Fontanne could have told the enumerator anything, or not even have spoken to the enumerator. Perhaps Alfred Lunt spoke to the enumerator, and perhaps he was wrong in his facts. Perhaps neither Lunt nor Fontanne spoke to the enumerator, but their neighbor or landlord did. Whatever, making such assumptions is original research. This is why the use of primary sources is so fraught with problems. It's why the WP:OR policy is: "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In this case, we have no reliable secondary source for the interpretation, just the interpretation of one lone original researcher who likes to edit Wikipedia. -- Mesconsing (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Erm well that's reasonable, regarding whether Linfontane Lunt = Lynn Fontanne Lunt. I didn't read the original source, sorry.

Census forms are, I would think, similar to birth certificates, in being official government documents backed by the credibility of the government in question. And we certainly use birth certificates. Birth certificates are sometimes wrong, and if there's credible evidence showing that they can be challenged, but are assumed correct unless such evidence is shown. Census records should be treated somewhat similarly, I would think, although granted not with that high an amount of credibility. Our assumption is that census takers are recording facts that they've verified, I would suppose.

However, whether Linfontane Lunt = Lynn Fontanne Lunt is open to question. It very probably does, but there's enough element of doubt that its reasonable to remove it if challenged, and I have done so, and withdraw my original objection. For my part I consider your case proved and withdraw my objection. Herostratus (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate your rethinking of this issue. To clarify the role of the census taker - they were not required to verify anything, taking the word of the person reporting at face value, writing and rewriting as they heard or perceived the information. Prior to 1880, census takers were federal marshals who received no training for the task. Thus, although both vital records (birth, marriage, death) and census records are official public records, vital records are probably more reliable. -- Mesconsing (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Classifying an argument type

There is something called the argument from silence, which is a type of argument found in historical analysis. The portion of the text below, from Jesus, after the first reference about lack of physical evidence, classifies a variety of arguments as being this type. It also implies that the opening statements about physical evidence constitute an argument from silence, even though the argument doesn't apply to a lack of physical evidence. I think 1) classifying an argument type is an act of research/analysis, and should be done by sources not editors, 2) most of the sources don't classify anything as an argument from silence, 3) the very last sentence may be allowed, since it actually applies the argument to the topic, but should be attributed in the text.

There’s no physical or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed, nor are there any writings from Jesus. There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him. [257] The argument from silence that that lack of documents mentioning Jesus indicates that Jesus did not exist goes back to John Remsburg in 1909 who commented on the silence of Philo of Alexandria.[258] Remsburg stated that Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until the middle of the first century, but wrote nothing of the birth or death of Jesus.[259] Van Voorst points out that although Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate in Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 CE), he did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty.[260] However, he adds that a possible explanation is that Philo never mentions Christians at all, so he had no need to mention their founder.[260] In general, an argument from silence can not be definitive and may be questionable, given the circumstances in which it is made.[261][262] In an overall context, scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.[263] Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[264] Moreover, arguments from silence also apply in the other direction, in that in antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[99][249] Humanpublic (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Heterophobia

Heterophobia has existed for some time as a redirect to Homophobia#"Heterophobia", but has recently had some content added that reads very much to me as original research/original synth. A single user has cobbled together a few isolated incidents (ie, a single faked hate crime), some unsourced statements (heterophobia started during the sexual revolution) and some less than ideal sources (a YouTube video, lifesitenews.com) into an article about "Heterophobia" that differs wildly from the sourced "Heterophobia" section of the Homophobia article. I and two other editor have reverted it back to being a redirect, but User:3abos is reverting us all, so I thought maybe there should be a few more people keeping an eye on the situation. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just like Homophobia Heterophobia began as a term started out in the media. I do not see how Heterophobia having its own page is different to say when Homophobia had its own page when research about the specific issue had not begun. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. User:3abos (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is more with the content of the article. While the referenced sources outline events which could be construed as Heterophobia, only the blog posts seem to make that assertion. To me, making this leap constitutes Original Research, WP:NPOV, or at least WP:PRIMARY. In addition, blog posts are generally unacceptable for WP:Verifiability.Josh3580_talk/hist 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(From: User talk:Josh3580#12 Feb 2013)There does not seem to be any "blog posts". Everything is sourced from actual, registered organisations.3abos (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

[[12]] is definitely a blog post. I could not find anything about the "Degradation of Religious Liberty" in the article[[13]] you referenced for that. You defined heterosexuality as people who support the traditional definition of marriage. While I support that, I'm afraid that isn't what makes me a heterosexual. Also, the first sentence in the history says that "Heterophobia began during the sexual revolution in the 1960s and takes many forms." Where does that information come from? Again, the events are documented, but not the opinions. That is the problem. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion site.Josh3580_talk/hist 01:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, 3abos. I brought this issue here to the Original Research board beacuse it is my belief that your edits violate WP:SYNTH, which states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." You have sourced your article with 5 different articles but only one of those articles even mentions the word heterophobia, which makes it seem very much like you might be, as I said above, cobbling together a bunch of sources and coming to your own conclusions. I believe you are editing in good faith, but that you are in violation of the no original research policy nonetheless. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"Heterophobia", based on "hetero" opposite and "phobia" fear, should simply mean an irrational and unnatural fear of the opposite gender. For instance, men who are afraid of women, or women who are afraid of men. Which apparently hits the nail on the head, for most of those so described. 71.246.158.83 (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dawn Bard thanks for your reply. As you can see from the Heterophobia page. this is certainly not the case. I have cross-referenced and provided scholarly sources. 3abos (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia (3rd nomination), no new information that suggests this fringe topic is now notable has appeared in the few months since this discussion. Or has something been published that is noteworthy? 05:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomesia (talk • contribs) ^{Hit an extra tilde there?}

yes there have been, many. Please see the Heterophobia page itself 3abos (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• May I direct y'all's attention here? Wasn't aware that this discussion was ongoing, but I don't think I would've done anything differently. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is still paying attention to this, the content in question has now been repeatedly re-added to the homophobia article since Heterophobia was fully protected. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been agreed upon on the Talk page for Homophobia that the content was sourced-well and should have its own page. I believe THIS was a neutral discussion! 3abos (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It has not been "agreed" at all. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed (that it has not been agreed). –TCN7JM 00:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So are not proper sources? 3abos (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

We weren't even discussing that in this thread, we were just saying there is no agreement on the Homophobia talk page. I suggest we keep the discussion there going forward, in steadying of splitting it and having some of it here. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Prophecy of the Popes

Resolved

 – Unsourced text has been removed.Trystan (talk)

Additional opinions would be welcomed on Prophecy of the Popes, specifically on whether the final paragraph of the lead (as of this version) contains original research, or if it is supported by the sources given. A related talk page thread is here.--Trystan (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Conclusions based on primary sources

Can someone comment here: Talk:Continuation_War#Original_research_in_this_article
We need more comments.
Basically, reliable sources say that an event occurred, but a user says that primary sources he looked at show no evidence of it and implies a conclusion in the article text... -YMB29 (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You are referring to the event which you conclude that took place based on a claim from personal diary type primary source which you consider non-biased and fully reliable source? And once over conclusion that it didn't take place is from secondary sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is your own conclusion... No source makes that conclusion.

The source that I used explicitly mentions the event. -YMB29 (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The primary source does, and even notes that it was hearsay, event of which the author had not witnessed, or rather just a detail which the author of the diary became aware of. From which you conclude that it was a fact (which happens to be a conclusion drawn from a primary source, i.e. OR). - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The source I used, unlike yours, directly says that it happened, and there is another source that is secondary.

Stop with the ridiculous claims and let others comment. -YMB29 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a primary source which notes that the account you refer to was a second hand information. Which you have so far presented as if the source would have been a secondary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that it was a secondary source. Again, whether it is primary or secondary does not matter since it directly states what happened, unlike yours. Please try to make sense... -YMB29 (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a personal diary of an involved person describing an event that he never witnessed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

He was a famous war correspondent and his accounts were published in a book, which I cite. The point here is your OR; don't try to accuse me when you are the one guilty of OR. -YMB29 (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Boys, boys! Or maybe, girls, girls! Take a WP:Wikibreak if you have to. Come back in a week. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I am not going to post any comments here anymore, but can you give a third opinion to help resolve the dispute? -YMB29 (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Calappa calappa

Hello, all. I had a few discussions recently with User:Paul venter and checked out some of his other recent contributions. Calappa calappa had an inuse tag on it, so I waited a few hours and then edited to remove several sources: one to a gallery, one to flickr, and two to videos. The sources have their own WP:RS issues, but those aside, the photo and video sources seemed to be supporting statements that are Paul's own observations derived from the photos and videos. For example, the gallery says nothing similar to "Except for the front, the carapace curves down on all sides, covering the eight ambulatory legs in a design similar to that of Horseshoe crabs" but that is the statement it is anchoring. However, the gallery itself does contain an image that does look an awful lot like a horseshoe crab.

Anyway, Paul reverted, suggesting there is no original research. I'm bringing this here without first discussing it further with Paul since he clearly has an issue with me, accusing me of stalking on a few occasions. I'm not sure one-on-one discussion would have been productive so I'm bringing the possible OR issue to the noticeboard's attention. Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 06:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Clockwork universe theory

Upon Talk:Clockwork universe theory we had a very sophisticated discussion about whether the scientific consensus is that the world in itself would be indeterministic. Since the other party objected to quoting Interpretations of quantum mechanics#Comparison of interpretations and an article by a Nobel prizewinner in physics as evidence that there is no such scientific consensus upon this matter and has produced no reliable sources to substantiate his/her view, I ask for an objective review of this claim in respect to being original research and/or original synthesis. If there are no reliable sources which affirm with utmost certainty that the scientists have consensually agreed upon the world in itself being indeterministic, I ask for either stating that there is no scientific consensus upon this issue or to the total deletion of any claims about present-day scientific consensus in respect to this issue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The mentioned article is Gerard 't Hooft (2006) "The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics" in Beyond the Quantum, World Scientific, Th. M. Nieuwenhuizen et al, ed., pp.3-19; ITP-UU-06/14, SPIN-06/12, quant-ph/0604008, at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604008 . Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Clockwork Universe

The point at issue was not whether 't Hooft was a Nobel prize winner and especially not on any of the issues in the Wikipedia page on scientific consensus which did not in any way discuss a clockwork universe, determinism, or 't Hooft but rather discussed how science evolves in general. This obfuscation is frustrating and contributes to a smoke screen of indirection about the fact, in my opinion, that 't Hooft doesn't claim anything like what the other correspondent claims he says. I put in several references to 't Hooft's papers and to other works in a similar vein to try and clarify the issue. That these references support my position is not my fault because I had nothing to do with them whatever. I do, however, recommend reading them and welcome an informed critique. Best wishes...

Why not submit the issue to 't Hooft himself or one of his gratuate students? Couldn't hurt to ask, not so?JudgementSummary (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Clockworks

Well, it is you who has to substantiate the big sweeping claim that scientists have established the scientific fact that the world in itself is indeterministic. Do offer quotes, stating expressly this. Till now, you have not presented any source which expressly claims that this would be the scientific consensus. Namely that it would be the consensus, an informed view of a number of physicists does not establish consensus. I have presented four of five names of post-Bell physicists who think that the world in itself is deterministic. They have read Bell's paper, they know what the equations of quantum mechanics are about and they still disagree with the idea that the world is indeterministic. It is not me who has to prove something, you have to prove your claim by backing it with reliable sources. Till now, you have not quoted anything even remotely saying what the consensus is in this matter. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can read below, the issue of determinism has not been decided.

Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined. This was the subject of the famous Bohr–Einstein debates between Einstein and Niels Bohr and there is still no consensus.

— Determinism#Quantum realm

In his last writing on the topic, Einstein further refined his position, making it completely clear that what really disturbed him about the quantum theory was the problem of the total renunciation of all minimal standards of realism, even at the microscopic level, that the acceptance of the completeness of the theory implied. Although the majority of experts in the field agree that Einstein was wrong, the current understanding is still not complete (see Interpretation of quantum mechanics).

— Bohr–Einstein debates#Post-Revolution: Fourth stage

(Einstein was wrong does not imply determinism is wrong.)

So, I'm far from being the only editor who thinks that the interpretations of quantum mechanics show that the matter has not been consensually decided. The quoted articles are less marginal than the article about the clockwork universe, they have been reviewed by many informed editors, who had a chance to object to the idea that there is no scientific consensus in this matter. I don't claim that Wikipedia would be a reliable source for Wikipedia, I only claim that the discussion belongs in the talk page of these articles rather than in the talk page of a marginal article. It may even be an abuse to quote 't Hooft and his reviewers in an article which does not even refer to quantum mechanics, but presents a mechanical understanding of the Universe dating from Newton's time. And, again: show me the sources. I mean sources expressly stating that the matter has been consensually decided. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me rephrase it: if there is no consensus, it ain't a fact! As simple as this. The consensus of scientists forges facts. How do you know that water boils at 100 degrees Centigrade? Because it is written in physics manuals. Why it is written there? Because scientists have consensually agreed upon it. The consensus of historians forges historical facts, the consensus of medics forges medical facts, the consensus of physicists forges physical facts. Don't tell me about experiments, engineers don't experiment to find the boiling point of mercury but find it in handbooks. Handbooks are a source for Wikipedia, not original (unpublished) experiments. Physicists do perform experiments and if they agree, they tell others that is is a fact. I do acknowledge that consensus isn't unanimity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Forge" is used as explained by Merriam-Webster: "3 : to form or bring into being especially by an expenditure of effort <working to forge party unity>". Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus

Look at the references I gave you. We have good scientific evidence via Bell's theorem for indeterminism. You can't deny the evidence just because you can't seem to understand it. And your criticism "Criticism of the claim that Quantum Mechanics supports Indeterminism" is unscientific and factually WRONG. And you keep quoting and re-quoting the wikipedia page on scientific consensus which does not discuss t'Hooft or quantum mechanics or indeterminism or Bell as if you had such consensus. Why you want to supress the findings of a major branch of physics is beyond me. JudgementSummary (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And you seem to be requiring a scientific consensus on the subject which will NEVER happen especially given the many uninformed/uneducated opinions on ALL aspects of quantum mechanics... From your writings I see you have a strong religious requirement for your point of view but that is not a reason to supress mention of literally hundreds [maybe a thousand] of peer-reviewed references to the validity of the indeterministic findings of quantum mechanics experiments based on Bell's experiments... JudgementSummary (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus Revisited

The scientific consensus is a scientists-only club, no popular press or public opinion included. Again: show me the sources. Either they have to say "it is a scientific fact that the world is indeterministic" or "the consensus among physicists is that the world is indeterministic". Lacking such sources, your opinion, however informed, amounts to a big, flat zero. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of being slightly off-track, I would remark (I do not have time to chase up sources for this but they exist) that reliable sources say that the Schroedinger equation is deterministic, though single particular measurements based on it are not. It is the Schroedinger equation that describes the evolution of the defined system, not the single particular measurements. The mention of a 'Schroedinger equation for the whole world' makes the mind boggle.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me give you an example: the consensus of biologists is that evolution is true. This had been shown with reliable sources to the point that every creationist theory and even intelligent design are treated by default like WP:FRINGE/PS as far as Wikipedia is concerned. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, evolution is a fact of biology, not a theory. Or evolution is the paradigm of biology, if you prefer fussy language. E.g.:

Two offshoots of creationism—[[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]]—have been characterized as [[pseudoscience]] by the mainstream [[scientific community]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/science|title=Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations |publisher=National Center for Science Education|accessdate=2008-08-28}}</ref>

— Creationism

There is no church involved in such consensus and no popular press. A public opinion survey was not required to say that creation science and intelligent design are pseudoscience. This is what I meant by "scientists-only club". Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I require sources like "Determinism has been definitively refuted. This is a scientific fact./It is agreed by all physicists who live by publish or perish." I need to know who said it, when he/she said it, in which scientific journal has said it, if it was published with peer-review and so on. What I do not demand at all is chatter about Bell's theorem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me there should be lots of reputable 2nd party sources discussing a variety of view of what the current consensus is and where it is going. (Hopefully towards indeterminism, being my POV.) Search books google for "scientific consensus on indeterminism" and [https://www.google.com/search?num=40&hl=en&newwindow=1&tbo=d&tbm=bks&q=scientific+consensus+on+determinism&btnG= "scientific consensus on indeterminism". CarolMooreDC 01:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not something definitively solved and dealt with, as the quote below shows. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The key question is whether to understand the nature of this probability as epistemic or ontic. Along epistemic lines, one possibility is that there is some additional factor (i.e., a hidden mechanism) such that once we discover and understand this factor, we would be able to predict the observed behavior of the quantum stoplight with certainty (physicists call this approach a "hidden variable theory"; see, e.g., Bell 1987, 1-13, 29-39; Bohm 1952a, 1952b; Bohm and Hiley 1993; Bub 1997, 40-114, Holland 1993; see also the preceding essay in this volume by Hodgson). Or perhaps there is an interaction with the broader environment (e.g., neighboring buildings, trees) that we have not taken into account in our observations that explains how these probabilities arise (physicists call this approach decoherence or consistent histories¹⁵). Under either of these approaches, we would interpret the observed indeterminism in the behavior of stoplights as an expression of our ignorance about the actual workings. Under an ignorance interpretation, indeterminism would not be a fundamental feature of quantum stoplights, but merely epistemic in nature due to our lack of knowledge about the system. Quantum stoplights would turn to be deterministic after all.

— Robert C. Bishop in Robert Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will: Second Edition, OUP, 2011, p. 90

Another quote below. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So, was Einstein wrong? In the sense that the EPR paper argued in favour of an objective reality for each quantum particle in an entangled pair independent of the other and of the measuring device, the answer must be yes. But if we take a wider view and ask instead if Einstein was wrong to hold to the realist's belief that the physics of the universe should be objective and deterministic, we must acknowledge that we cannot answer such a question. It is in the nature of theoretical science that there can be no such thing as certainty. A theory is only 'true' for as long as the majority of the scientific community maintain a consensus view that the theory is the one best able to explain the observations. And the story of quantum theory is not over yet.

— J.E. Baggott, Beyond Measure: Modern Physics, Philosophy, and the Meaning of Quantum Theory, OUP, 2004, p. 203

once more into the breach

Please read the references I gave you and read why Bell's theorem is exceptionally strong experimental evidence the world is indeterministic. It really isn't that hard to understand... and no you still misquote Schroedinger's equation... what you said is wrong... and your section on "criticism of the claim quantum mechanics is indeterministic" is not only off point, mistates what the references say, and in more than one area completely wrong.... the question seems to be why you want to write on the subject anyway... just curious...

JudgementSummary (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC) For reference, it is the wavefunction itself which is probabilistic/indeterministic. Schroedinger's equation, given precise initial conditions, describes with great accuracy how the wavefunction evolves in time; but this is not determinism. The consequences of a probability wave are that we cannot predict individual microscopic events and we get such things as tunneling thru energy barriers. Now is the wavefunction real or just a mathematical construct. Bell derived an equation that allows us to TEST EXPERIMENTALLY whether the wavefunction is real or not.

Quite a suprise that this is possible. Experiments all indicate the wavefunction is real, that nature is indeterministic, and that God plays dice. And like Einstein said when the Nazi's got 2000+ German physicists to sign a paper saying Relativity was nonsense... something to the effect, that "all the opinion in the world was meaningless if the theory gave correct predicitions, but that a single predictive failure would destroy it entirely" I would have thought you understood that.... but in any event you might think about it a little.... and again read the references on Bell's theorem I gave when I first wrote the section Objections due to Quantum Mechanics.... please... JudgementSummary (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

breach revisited

Show me your sources with precise quotes stating expressly what I have demanded. I don't need chatter about Bell's theorem, I need exact quotes. I have given above two quotes from reliable sources (both published by Oxford University Press) that the matter has not been decided. So there is definitely no such thing as scientific consensus upon determinism having been refuted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, please do not split this topic again, it all should remain under a single NORN notice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can challenge the reliability of the quotes from Kane/Bishop and Baggott, I consider this matter solved and the notice should be closed. In this case the verdict should remain that there is no scientific consensus upon determinism having been definitively refuted. I hope you cannot seriously claim that I have misunderstood Kane/Bishop and Baggott. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me draw a sketch of your case:

• you have to show that the hidden variables approach has been definitively refuted;
• you have to show that the decoherence approach has been definitively refuted;
• even if you show both of the above using reliable sources, it still amounts to a case of WP:SYNTH, since you are drawing your own conclusion rather that letting reliable sources speak. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

breech revisited yet again

Hopefully we are beyond your name calling and religious objections in Talk:Clockwork universe theory. Tgeorgescu and Tgeorgescu.

You demand a simpler explanation for Bell's Theorem than given in the references I quoted when I wrote Clockwork Universe:Objections due to Quantum Mechanics which provides well accepted experimental evidence for the indeterminism of quantum particles. I for one would like to see an error free version of your submission of the paragraph you wrote in Clockwork Universe::Criticism of the Claim Quantum Mechanics supports Indeterminism. You make grandiose claims for determinism, misunderstand Bell's theorm, and even quote results which provide definitive experimental proof for INdeterminism as doing exactly the opposite.

Why can't you simply read the wikipedia page on Bell's theorem and the conclusion which flatly refutes your assertions.

The violations of Bell's inequalities, due to quantum entanglement, just provide the definite demonstration of something that was already strongly suspected, that quantum physics cannot be represented by any version of the classical picture of physics [which for the uninitiated means hidden variables and its inherent determinism unlike quantum mechanics]

And just exactly what loopholes remain... not non-locality (over 18 km already tested).... not efficiency (over 90% and even one at 100% but not non-local).... ? see the wikipedia page on Bell's experiments....

AND THEN you say that "even if you show both of the above using reliable sources, it still amounts to a case of WP:SYNTH, since you are drawing your own conclusion rather that letting reliable sources speak".... Even if I reference/quote RELIABLE SOURCES, that is not good enough for you??? Really??? Without further comment, I think I will let that rest on its own merits. Thank you.

And please remove your unfounded opinions in your section which really is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Really and thanks JudgementSummary (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

once again

I have provided two reliable sources and offered quotes from them, quotes which do support my point. One of the quotes even quotes Bell's paper, so it did not arise out of ignorance of Bell's theorem. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, so if your source is Wikipedia, you have zero sources. Again: show me your sources which say that determinism has been definitively vanquished. What you've done till now is bragging and idle chatter about Bell's theorem. Wikipedia needs sources, not chatter or bragging. I do acknowledge that Bell's theorem says that there are consequences for determinism and consequences for indeterminism, but to this date there is no perfect experimental validation of Bell's maths and of his assumptions, see the quote below. And applied maths remains applied maths, it only becomes physics if experimentally validated.

Experimenters have repeatedly stated that loophole-free tests can be expected in the near future (García-Patrón, 2004). On the other hand, some researchers point out that it is a logical possibility that quantum physics itself prevents a loophole-free test from ever being implemented (Gill, 2003, [14]; Santos, 2005, [15] ).

— Bell test experiments

By sources I mean García-Patrón, Gill and Santos, not Bell test experiments. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The gist is: I have shown two reliable sources which state precisely what I claim, you have no sources stating precisely what you claim. You only have musings about Bell's theorem and its elusive experimental validation. So, unless you can show that my sources would be unreliable, discussion is over. It is no longer a NORN case, but my claim has been verified according to Wikipedia's policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Another quote from Wikipedia: Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In 1964, [[John Stewart Bell|John Bell]] showed through [[Bell's theorem|his famous theorem]] that if local hidden variables exist, certain experiments could be performed where the result would satisfy a [[Bell's theorem|Bell inequality]]. If, on the other hand, [[quantum entanglement]] is correct the Bell inequality would be violated. Another [[no-go theorem]] concerning hidden variable theories is the [[Kochen-Specker theorem]]. Physicists such as [[Alain Aspect]] and Paul Kwiat have performed [[Bell test experiments|experiments]] that have found violations of these inequalities up to 242 standard deviations<ref>Kwiat, P. G., ''et al.'' (1999) [http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003 Ultrabright source of polarization-entangled photons], ''Physical Review A'' '''60''', R773-R776</ref> (excellent scientific certainty). This rules out local hidden variable theories, but does not rule out non-local ones (which would refute [[quantum entanglement]]). Theoretically, there could be [[Bell test loopholes|experimental problems]] that affect the validity of the experimental findings. [[Gerard 't Hooft]] has disputed the validity of Bell's theorem on the basis of the [[superdeterminism]] loophole and proposed some ideas to construct local deterministic models.<ref>G 't Hooft, ''The Free-Will Postulate in Quantum Mechanics'' [http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701097]; ''Entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory'' [http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408]</ref>

— Hidden variable theory#Bell's theorem

The view from the Right Field bleachers

I've read the Clockwork universe theory article and was struck by vast amounts of religious material included. Only the first paragraph deals with the theory, the rest of the article is rubbish. Serious, God created the Big Bang, you can get your head cut off saying that in some countries. Whatever you two are fighting over, it looks like it's about who can destroy the article the quickest.

• I recommend dropping everything regarding QM and GR (and religion) ... at least until the theory is fully explained in Classical Physics.
• Combine all the `opposition`, `counter-opposition, and `counter-counter-opposition` information into one or two sentences ... the average reader just doesn't care.
• Focus your attention on upgrading the article to Start grade. There's WAY too much basic information missing to even begin talking about the advanced details.

You two need to work cooperatively, or move on to other (and separate) articles. More important, you two need to move your fight to another site, these web pages here at Wikipedia are for discussions to improve articles. This is NOT a debate club. - Watchwolf49z (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. My point was that the newly introduced stuff properly belongs in the article Determinism and we cannot just throw our own opinion, but we have to quote reliable sources for everything we write in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the POV essay/OR does not belong in the Determinism article.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Then it does not belong in Clockwork universe theory either. My point was to introduce some deeper insights about quantum mechanics in determinism, I did not say I agree with all what is written there. So, the more is deleted from it, the merrier. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't belong at this stage of development. Start with how clocks work, then advance the material to things like Kepler's Laws, etc etc etc. Just remember, if you decide not to write this article, please leave your references behind ... in the years and decades to come, someone may be able to use them. - Watchwolf49z (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV/OR issues

This hasn't stopped. User Talk:JudgementSummary is writing an WP:OR essay in this article under the guise of Considerations. I've tried explaining that's his work is OR, and at best WP:SYN, but he hasn't desisted. In his "sourced" contributions, zero sources even mention the Clockwork universe theory. In every paragraph, he develops arguments about clockwork universe theory not found in any of the sourced material. Taken together, his contributions make the article a WP:COATRACK for his personal views on philosophy and life in general. I've tried explaining, but he persists. —Wing gundam (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

One difficulty is that Clockwork Universe isn't really a "theory" per se but rather a paradigm that was based largely on Newton's laws/gravity which unified the heavens and earth. So issues related to mathematical predictability of physical systems and especially on new insights into Newtonian mechanics are relevant.... The book referenced clockwork universe returns time and again to these multiple themes all interwoven into the paradigm.... hope this helps clarify the issue... thanks....JudgementSummary (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Not to mention the fact that the clockwork universe was used by various religious groups to support various philosophical stands... so traditional religions and new ones like Deism are also tightly interwoven. What is not relevant is a discussion of watches/clocks or celestial mechanics... or even philosophical issues not directly related to mathematical predictability of mechanical systems JudgementSummary (talk)

No one disagrees the WP:TITLE is wrong, so moving the article to clockwork universe and redirecting clockwork universe theory to Newton's theory of gravity, per WP:PRIMARY, seems uncontroversial. However, the philosophy, ethos or "paradigm" to which a "clockwork universe" euphemistically refers, is Mechanism (philosophy). The most extensive philosophical treatment of topics such as predictability and determinism, (which any "paradigm" must address), can be found in the Determinism article.

Wing gundam was not referring to a single book. Some, though certainly not all of the ostensible sources, have occasion to use the popular phrase "clockwork universe"... though rarely where cited (and further, I'll just note the conspicuous absence of From Clockwork to Crapshoot). You're opposed to the Mechanism (philosophy) redirect, so it's WP:TENDENTIOUS to keep arguing that something so grand as those "multiple themes all interwoven" constitute a single paradigm called "clockwork universe" that was heretofore missing form the encyclopedia.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't hear?[16] —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Bayard Rustin

I've taken a look at the Wikipedia article on Civil Rights Movement Leader, Bayard Rustin, and what I've found is that a large chunk of the content is not sourced. For the sourced material, it does not constitute as a reliable but yet mainstream source of which some of the content, particularly relating to homosexuality, is rather scandalous. I am creating this notification in hope to get a person to take a look at it; I don't want to be deleting an entire article with information unless it's by consensus. Publius Valerius Poplicola (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of older articles were created and developed without the extensive referencing and high quality sources one would expect today. However I do not see anything wrong with the information, and WP:BLP does not apply. Any attempt to delete the article would fail because Rustin meets notability. It would be helpful if someone would work to improve referencing. TFD (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Shokrollahi digraph

It appears that the author, Amin Shokrollahi, of some mathematical work that is available over the internet, is aggressively attempting to put his article and links to it into Wikipedia using sock puppetry. At this point, I do not want to get into an edit war with this person, so I would like to turn this issue over to more experienced editors to decide what to do. Please see the edit history of List of matrices and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shokrollahi digraph. — Anita5192 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about possible incidents of original research.

There's an article that has some uncited statements that I find troublesome.

An example of a uncited conditional statement: Albeit that these early 'native' Irish were Catholic upon arrival, their descendants today, [are] predominantly Protestant as it would have been practically impossible to retain their Catholicity in such a hostile environment.

An example of an uncited, non sequitur: Many Americans descended from the early Irish retain their surnames through the male line. Thus traditional Irish-Celtic surnames are common throughout America.

Am I correct in thinking that these examples violate Wikipedia:No original research by intimating conclusions that are not supported within that section of the article? If not, why not? I'm not questioning the truthfulness of the statements as I just don't know about Irish immigrants and Catholicism in North America during the colonial / Federal eras, the subject of that section of the article. The missing verb is another, more obvious, matter that even I can identify. Thanks for your input in helping me understand this concept of original research, Wordreader (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Could we get a link to the article in question? Mangoe (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What Mangoe said. It's impossible to decide if something is likely to be original research without knowing the full context of the passages, as well as the sources that allegedly support them. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Dog breed identification

Editors of the List of fatal dog attacks in the United States are debating a question of dog breed identification. The case in point is a fatal dog attack that occurred on April 20, 2012, which The Post and Courier, a newspaper published in Charleston, South Carolina, reported as follows: [[17]]:

"The boy, Aiden McGrew, was apparently pulled from an infant's swing and his legs torn off by the golden retriever-Labrador mix inside the family's mobile home on Sandpit Road, authorities said."

In the context of the report, "the authorities" included the County Sheriff and animal control officers. The report included photographs of the dog that killed the victim.

The article identified the dog's breed as golden retriever-Labrador retriever mix, but two Wikipedia editors, User:Chrisrus and User:Mantion, discussed the photographs in the article and decided the authorities were incorrect based on a review photographs of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers and changed the identification. This has led to a couple of edit reversions follwed by a rather lengthy discussion at Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Clear Case of misIdentification. about whether to keep the identification from the original citation or leave the identification as determined by the Wikipedia editors.

Question: Is changing the breed identification justified by the editor's arguments, or is the change supported only by WP:OR? Astro$01 (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There is also a discussion on this matter on Jimbo Wales talk page, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Verifiability_vs._Truth. What should we do when someone comes to us and points out an error in the sources? Is there any way to fix it without violating WP:OR? Chrisrus (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" actually get lots of details wrong in most articles.

Sometimes we notice such a problem through original research and cannot support our findings with formally reliable sources. If the misreported item has itself become notable it can't be suppressed. In this case, the usual recourse is proper attribution of the incorrect claim, though we can't say that it's incorrect. This is not satisfactory, and it's best to look for a creative solution in such a case. (Even reporting the misreporting without explicitly saying it's wrong can be a BLP violation, and in that case we have to look for a creative solution or leave out the claim even though it's notable.) But often it's just a relatively minor detail that can simply be dropped. I think your case is one of these.

Sometimes 'original research' is actually obvious or borderline obvious. In your example, no editor should disagree with identifying the dog based on an image just for the sake of following a formal rule. Wikipedia's ultimate goal is accuracy. WP:NOR is just a means to this end, and it arose in the context of disputes. Where there is no dispute to begin with, it should not be manufactured for pedantic reasons. That said, I would not trust that a bunch of Wikipedia readers necessarily get a relatively rare dog breed right based on just a photo, so it appears to be a bona fide dispute, and therefore it is correct not to allow the original research. Then again, I would change my opinion if there were a strong consensus in a large and active WikiProject on dog breeds that generally does excellent work in the area. Hans Adler 07:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to occasionally completely work out a borderline case from first principles, so allow me to do this here.

Our policies are descriptive (of actual practice in articles) not prescriptive. Without written or unwritten policies, every dispute would potentially draw in more and more editors until finally the entire community would come to the ultimate consensus, in the worst case by a narrow vote. The purpose of policies is to properly approximate that outcome, so that everybody saves time and energy by going to it right away. As a result, policies are biased towards the case where there is an actual conflict. This must be kept in mind when interpreting them. In particular:

• The existence of a formal verifiability policy at WP:V does not imply that we claim things that we know to be false simply because they are formally verifiable. (Any disputes in such cases normally don't reach the point where they would begin to influence written policy.)
• The existence of a prohibition of original research at WP:NOR does not imply that Wikipedia can never offer new insights that are not present in any single reliable source. Only an article that is a complete copyvio from a single source would be consistent with such a fundamentalist reading of the policy. However, for claims not in reliable sources we require a very strong consensus that they are actually accurate and unbiased with a very high probability. (This is because for a global consensus, one needs to convince editors who are not experts on the subject, who don't necessarily trust other editors who are experts, and who are aware of the various pitfalls of original research in their own expertise.)
• In cases of doubt, there is a bias towards reporting it as a controversy or saying nothing at all. (This reflects the fact that where the community is split, there will neither be consensus for one version nor for its opposite.)

The restriction of policy scopes to actual disputes is implicit, and editors are increasingly (mis)applying policies to cases of an a priori uncontroversial nature, which were never thought of when the policies were written. In such cases, direct application of a literal reading of a policy typically comes to a result that is incompatible with what a wide global consensus would be. In that sense such a result is wrong.

As an important though possibly unwritten general principle, the (un)certainty with which we report something must reflect the (un)certainty with which we know it.

In this case, it appears to be established that reliable sources identified the breed only as a Golden/Labrador Retriever mix, and that this identification was obviously wrong though only blogs (correctly) pointed this out.

We cannot report the breed to be a Golden/Labrador Retriever mix because we know this to be true. (The question of formal reliability does not even arise for this.)

If we just report that the breed was "reportedly" a Golden/Labrador Retriever mix, then that is still problematic as it only implies doubt where we actually know the information to be false.

Also, blogs say it was actually a Duck Tolling Retriever, and comparison between photos of the actual dog in reliable sources and photos of tollers show that they have an excellent point. The problem: Blogs are not reliable sources, and we can't be really sure as there is still some interpretation left and some uncertainties, e.g. it could be an atypical Duck Tolling/Golden Retriever mix.

So we cannot report that the breed is a Duck Tolling Retriever, not even "apparently".

We also can't say that the breed is "unknown" because it's so much not the full truth that it's almost a lie. Everybody including the reliable sources ultimately agrees it's some kind of Retriever.

What we can do, however, is break the weakest of the NOR rules; the one that is already broken to some extent in almost every article because it's impossible to follow it completely: WP:SYNC. Or we can just shut up about the breed. That's the most elegant solution but unfortunately unstable in practice.

I propose two possible solutions in this case:

1. "Reportedly Retriever mix". This is formally correct as reliable sources reported it to be a mix of specific Retriever breeds. It doesn't report the full extent of what the reliable sources said, but only leaves out the part that is wrong. The only problem is that we have reason to believe it might be pure-breed Duck Tolling Retriever rather than a mix. But we can't be sure, and after all we have hatched the statement with "reportedly".
2. "Reportedly Golden Retriever / Labrador Retriever Mix; resembles Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever". This gives the full facts on what is reported. This could be misleading, but in this context it is not because (a) other entries don't have "reportedly", so readers will take it seriously, (b) the links and references invite readers to make their own research, and (c) we explicitly give a better version. The part about the Duck Tolling Retriever is the mildest form of original research. I think nobody will deny that the dog resembles typical photos of that breed. By putting this here in the article, we are committing a WP:SYN, but due to the principles of policy interpretation I gave above that seems to be appropriate. We are doing this synthesis in order to present our original research with the lowest degree of confidence possible.

I personally prefer 1 to 2. A compromise would be the following:

• "Reportedly Retriever mix [footnote: Reported as a Golden Retriever / Labrador Retriever Mix, but more similar in appearance to a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever.]"

Moving the SYN to a footnote that explains our editorial decision to leave out some detail from the sources makes it even more harmless. Hans Adler 09:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course...this is all based on the assumption that no further reliable sources can be found. Are we ready to say, this is it, there are no more, so we have to deal with just what we have?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

And one other point. Are we saying that the two editors that challenged the description are correct? Becuase I am not seeing the same thing they are. This image of the dog does not seem to match up with the images of the Duck Tolling Retriever to me enough to begin to mention the other breed. I believe the use of "retriever mix" to be accurate and anything else would not be an improvement.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

--Amadscientist (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are lots of photos of Duck Tolling Retrievers where they have a slightly creepy facial impression that seems to be identical with that of this particular dog. I haven't seen this in other dogs, but I know next to nothing about dogs myself. In particular, I can't judge how relevant this and the very similar body shapes are. The colouring does seem to be quite different, and again I don't know how relevant that is. So I guess "retriever mix" or "reportedly retriever mix" it is? Hans Adler 10:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a textbook example of what WP:NOR forbids. The identification just isn't certain enough to invoke an exception, it is just an editor's opinion based on a tiny photograph. Zero^talk 11:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with those who are calling this OR... Ir is fine for to challenge the accuracy of a source - to question whether that source is reliable about a specific fact. We do this with news sources all the time. That is not OR... The OR occurs once you substitute your own opinion into the article. What this means is that we can reach a consensus to omit mentioning that authorities identified the dog as a Golden-Lab mix, but we can not replace that sourced information with our own opinion that it was a Duck Trolling Retriever. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have approached this from the original "verifiability vs. truth" context at Jimbo's talk page, so was more concerned with principles than with the individual case. I tend to agree that option 2 is too risqué, but surely there is nothing wrong with option 1??? Hans Adler 14:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I think that's not true. There are several photos of that dog in reliable sources, and the resolutions of these are fine. The issue is not the quality of the photos but the fact that the colour and possibly some details that I, as a layman, wouldn't know to look for, don't match the photos of Duck Tolling Retrievers. And that there are likely to be other similar breeds that I don't know about.

In almost every case it's not original research to say that an animal on a photo is a dog, or a cat, or a bird, as the case may be. In almost every case it's original research to say that an animal on a photo is a specific individual cat, dog, bird or elephant. These are the textbook examples. Identifying dog breeds is an activity in the grey area in between and is definitely not a textbook example. Most people are perfectly competent to judge whether a particular dog looks roughly like a pitbull, roughly like a dachshound or roughly like a Dalmatian. Only the exact identification as one of these breeds is problematic, and of course more so for less recognisable and rarer breeds.

"The identification just isn't certain enough to invoke an exception". It actually works the other way round. If the identification were certain enough, which it isn't, then there it would not be justified to invoke the policy in the first place. It wasn't made for clear cases; clear cases are not exceptions, they are outside the scope and they are the vast majority of cases that arise on Wikipedia every day.

But I take it that you can agree with "retriever mix" as well? Hans Adler 14:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the dog you will see if you Google Images "Aiden McGrew", and then also Google pictures of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever images you trust, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nova_Scotia_Duck_Tolling_Retriever.

Please view videos like this one of the dog in question, http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhP4dGgl516Qf7vp0P, vs. this Best of Breed competition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4YAdmUQK

And also Google up "Golden/Labrador Retriever mix" images and have a look at a bunch of them for comparison, and some videos such as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vNyCB-ts8I.

If you do this, and combine it with the knowledge that, while the ability to recognize breeds is not all that hard to come by, the ability to recognize a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever is quite rare, then you will like me agree with the author of the edit, User:Mantion, who called it "A clear case of misidentification" and like me want to get it right.

I am trying to find a way to use images to cite it to satisfy likely challenges, but don't know how to cite an image. I am thinking about offering Astro and the WP:OR patrol a compromise that might say "Breed: Reportedly a Golden/Labrador Retriever Mix, but apparently a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever (cite images of the dog, cite images of NSDTR). I'm open to other ideas.Chrisrus (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I have to say this explicitly: I certainly disagree with the "apparently" identification. Looks similar to a toller, no problem for me. But not "apparently" a toller. Maybe it is, but not with the required certainty for saying it without a reliable source. Hans Adler 16:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

When I google labrador golden retriever mix these are the images that come up:

https://www.google.com/search?q=labrador+golden+retriever+mix&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=9rAzUfL6HMbpiwKilIG4DQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=879

It really doesn't change my opinion that this very likely could be an accurate description as the length of hair on the dog could be the result of the mix with a golden retriever. It is possible. I also noticed that Lucky comes up in that search but that is because of the mention in the article. I am just not prepared to makes claims of a Duck tolling retriever based on the views of editors that I feel have not been properly demonstrated.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

In similar situations I have supported making no identification at all. But to make a different, positive breed ID, we need a formally reliable source which does so. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mangoe. If we have a good reason to believe that a source is wrong on some point, then maybe we could omit that point; but to contradict that point without another stronger source is a step too far. bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. I mentioned this on Jimbo's talkpage. While I am still am not convinced that the claim of misidentification is accurate, I very much would support a consensus to simply not mention the breed at all at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, it all boils down to "How much weight do we give to original research given that it is itself prohibited under WP:OR?" I can see omitting or compromising on the text in an article if two WP:RS sources are in disagreement, but if we do this because WP:OR disagrees with WP:RS then we have made WP:OR and WP:RS equivalent. I think that sets an extraordinarily bad precedent with capacity for nearly infinite mischief. In the case at hand, the operative element in the citation is:

authorities said

The question for us is therefore,

"What is the relevant weighting between the photo-interpretive skills of J. Random Wikipedian and edit-checked reporting where the reporters interviewed law enforcement authorities who

1. Physically interacted with the dog and
2. Questioned the dog's owners?"

Unless the WP:RS source (The Post and Courier) prints a retraction, I don't think this one is even close. Astro$01 (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your trust in the press is totally misguided. As you would know if they had ever written about you, they get details wrong in almost every article, and in this case it's pretty obvious that we know one of these wrong details. We may not be able to identify the breed, but it's obvious that their identification was wrong. Certainly obvious enough to leave out what we know to be incorrect information. As Jimbo once said, we are not transcription monkeys. We are editors, and it's the job of editors to choose intelligently. Hans Adler 22:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

our trust in the press is a basic foundation of Wikipedia. Throw that out and you may as well throw out the idea of having anything other the every editors personal opinion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a project to write an accurate encyclopedia, not a silly pointless experiment in fundamentalism that might accidentally result in occasionally more or less accurate articles if we are lucky. If we know it's wrong, we don't claim it, regardless of whether it was published.

See WP:V#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted [...]." Hans Adler 23:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The only way we can claim the source is wrong is if there is actual verifiable information available that contradicts the sources. That isn't the case here. An editor claims the sources are incorrect but has not demonstarted it in any way that we can conclusively state sources were wrong. It just an opinion...and we all have one.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WTF? If you format something as a response to what I just said, then please make sure that it is a response to what I just said and not to a position for which I have argued much earlier and which I have given up due to additional information.

Or are you just confused about the distinction between claiming something in an article and claiming something on talk pages and making it the basis for editorial decisions? "The only way we can claim the source is wrong is if there is actual verifiable information available that contradicts the sources." This is true for article space, though even images can be verifiable information, e.g. if the question is whether there is a dog in a car and a cat outside or vice versa. But it's definitely wrong for talk space. We can "conclusively state sources were wrong" -- in talk space, based on our original research. And we can make this the basis of our editorial decision to leave out the incorrect information from article space.

• Formally reliable sources claim that the dog is a mix of golden retriever and labrador retriever.
• Photos of the dogs have been published in reliable sources. As everyone can see, the dog looks roughly like some kind of retriever, but not at all like a golden retriever or Labrador retriever or as one would expect a mix of them to look. It looks very much like a duck tolling retriever, although the colouring is maybe not quite the typical one for that breed.
• An editor proposed that we should say it's a duck tolling retriever. I initially supported a weak form of this proposal under severe conditions:
  • Not saying it's a duck tolling retriever, but suggesting it might be one through synthesis, just about the weakest way we can advance a position.
  • Only doing so if there is a consensus among editors that it's probably a duck tolling retriever.
• Such a (non-)consensus is not affected by wiki-fundamentalist positions about V/NOR, which must simply be discarded as irrelevant for the question of what breed the dog is. It is only affected by rational arguments for or against the identification of this dog, e.g. as a duck tolling retriever. Though it's hard to tell as so many editors keep insisting on arguing only formal policy as if that was relevant (essentially something like a filibuster on the actually relevant discussion), it does appear that there is no consensus that the identification is sufficiently good. Therefore my original proposal is not currently relevant.
• This leaves the fact that the identification of the dog as a golden/Labrador retriever is clearly wrong. We do not claim information in Wikipedia's voice if we know it to be wrong, regardless of whether we know it's wrong from other reliable sources or by using original research: We don't lie. Once we know it's wrong, it would be a lie to state it as true. ("Our internal process forced me to lie" is not a valid excuse after a government official lied to their country's parliament. The same principle applies here.) We also don't report incorrect information with attribution, unless it's too notable to omit. Therefore it is not acceptable for the article to claim that the dog is a golden/Labrador mix.
• However, the reliable sources and our original research agree on one point: It's some kind of retriever. So there is nothing wrong about classifying the dog as "some kind of retriever". Alternatively, it seems acceptable to summarise the reliable sources as "Reportedly a retriever mix." Even if it's a pure-breed duck tolling retriever, or a mix of a retriever with some non-retriever breed, it's still close enough, and by saying "reportedly" we are properly indicating this remaining uncertainty. The only thing we are leaving out from the reliable sources is the details we know (from our original research) to be almost certainly wrong, but we are not adding any information from our original research. Hans Adler 10:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at the picture of the dog and various golden/lab mix pictures, I really don't see what the basis is here for dissenting with the statement from the paper. The variance of such pictures is extensive, and I see plenty that I would characterize as close enough; also, it's pretty questionable that someone who had a fairly rare breed of dog wouldn't know it. It's one thing to contest an obvious mistake (say, if the dog looked like a bulldog or a borzoi), but in this case we're looking at some fine distinctions that I don't know that most expert dog breeder would accept as definitive. I see from the original assertions a certainty about size that is unjustified: springers are only supposed to range up to 50 lbs, but when I was a kid we had one that weighted 70, and down the street from us there was a golden that weighed 108. I see no indication that either of the two objectors have expert qualifications. It's time to close this down and report what the sources report; the second-guessing, from what I can see, has no strong authority behind it. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Lede section: Culture of India

Additional opinions would be welcome on the 2nd para of the lede section, Culture of India.

The user Dravidianhero has injected into the lede, "why" and how many such cultural variations exist. The sources he has cited, do not support the sweeping conclusions such as "evolved mainly..." and "largely independent of foreign...". The cited sources additionally do not support the claim in the lede's 2nd para of "two major subcultural variations".

I would appreciate if the community members can check the sources in the 2nd para of the lede, and advise if the following contains original research, or if it is supported by the sources given. [1] There are "two" major subcultural variations within India [2] Why these variations "mainly evolved" [3] Whether the culture of South India developed largely independent of foreign influences

A related talk page thread is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Culture_of_India#OR:_subcultural_variations_evolved_mainly_by_contact_with_Muslim_powers

Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As usual the IP gives no explanation, how exactly the sources got misrepresented in the lead section. He just claims the OR problems.-- Dravidian  Hero  13:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy: Original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that directly support the material being presented.

The original research idea/positions advanced by Dravidianhero, and not directly or equivalently supported by the cited sources: [1] There are "two" major subcultural variations within India; [2] These variations "mainly evolved" by contact with Muslims; [3] The culture of South India developed "largely independent of foreign influences." Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR includes also: Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material.-- Dravidian  Hero  14:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So it is your task to explain how exactly the text misrepresents sources. The way you are doing it is completely insufficient and unconstructive by placing tags everywhere you don't like the content.-- Dravidian  Hero  14:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

To avoid copy vio, you simply write in your own words the ideas/positions the authors make: you should neither cut and paste, nor should you create novel theories the authors do not make. Nowhere do the cited sources advance or even vaguely suggest your three specific ideas/positions above. Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Point is, you should explain in detail how do the cited sources "not advance or even vaguely suggest" the three specific ideas/positions above, so we could work on that. This is the last time I ask you to explain what your problem with the para is. Next time I will drag an admin in here-- Dravidian  Hero  15:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained OR issue above. Please invite an admin. Wiki policy states: Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds material. I have asked you to identify where, on which pages, the three sources advance the three specific positions/ideas above. You have failed to provide the evidence. Those authors do not advance any of three claims you have added. Kiitos, 213.243.188.203 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If one argues "the book supports what I say" get quotes and put the quotes in the citations. It's okay to selectively quote what supports your assertion. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Modern Dharmic writers}}

I've repeatedly asked for sources to 1) verify that the category which this template covers is a well-defined category in religious studies, and 2) where sources can be found to support the inclusion of specific writers in the category. See Template talk:Modern Dharmic writers which shows that this has been a concern pretty much since the creation of the template. Previously the article Dharmic religion was deleted and redirected following this deletion discussion and Category:Dharmic religions was deleted following this deletion discussion, primarily because no sources were brought forward to support such a description or categorization. I believe this template is based on nothing but personal preference and original research. My requests for supporting sources have been met only with argumentation, but no sources. Could I please get some help with this? Thank you. Yworo (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What you call argumentation is discussion and seeking of consensus. Another user Nomoskedasticity recently said to him "it should do so as a matter of discussion and consensus, not via Yworo trying to impose it even when he is told he is wrong. .... I'm more interested in forming consensus, and then editing in accordance with it. You should try it sometime."

Honestly, I has not been clear to me to what you are seeking sources. Often times you should asked for sources without specifiying the details.

To the first question, are you asking if the Dharmic religions exist as a category similar to Abrahamic religions, or are you asking if the term Dharmic religion is used for this categorization? The first question could be easily understood by you if you had even a basic understanding of comparative religion and honestly it is tiring to spoonfeed you a lecture on this because you cannot do your own research. To the second point, you must first understand that even for Hinduism there is no definition that is accepted universally by all scholars or Hindus. Even the wiki article on Hindu says: Due to the wide diversity in the beliefs, practices and traditions encompassed by Hinduism, there is no universally accepted definition on who a Hindu is, or even agreement on whether the term Hinduism represents a religious, cultural or socio-political entity. And a scholarly book on Radhakrishnan says: The term Dharma is almost impossible to be translated into English. (S. Radhakrishnan'S Philosophy Of Religion By Paitoon Patyaiying). Given this, you cannot expect a definition of dharma with which everyone agrees. But the term is used. Google Books lists hundreds of uses for dharmic religion(s), and again more for variants like dharmic traditions, etc. The term is also often used in the singular as Dharma, as in "Hindu Dharma", Buddhist Dharma/Buddha Dharma, "Jain Dharma", "Sikh Dharma" and these phrases have each 10000s of results at google books. For example, "Hindu Dharma" is the name of a book by Gandhi, and one of Gandhi's most famous quotes is: "At this holy place, I declare, if you want to protect your 'Hindu Dharma', non-cooperation is first as well as the last lesson you must learn up.".[1]. These terms have been used in for probably over 100 years in the English language.

Below are some examples, which you could yourself have easily found instead of arguing the whole day by googling.

• Jains distinguish their version of dharmic religion....The World's Religions: Continuities and Transformations [Hardcover], Peter B. Clarke (Editor), Peter Beyer (Editor)

• the indian dharmic religions, which consist of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism....God's Soul Revelation: Spiritual Yoga, Esoteric Religion and the Mystic Jesus By Lateef Warnick

• A dharmic religion, Sikhism advocates....Wondering Man, Money & Go(l)d By R. Goswami

*The terms Eastern and Western religion are largely synonymous with Dharmic religon and Abrahamic religion, respectively. Religions of the World by Lewis M. Hopfe

• Jainism (also called Jain Dharma) is an ancient dharmic religion... A Glow Of Godliness By Mick J. Brindle

*Jainism is an ancient dharmic religion from India. Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism By Margaret Puskar-Pasewicz

• The fence of true Dharmic religion has been built around it. The spiritual wisdom and reflective meditation of the Guru has become its strong gate. Shri-Guru-Granth-Sahib-English-Translation By I. Kotob

• Also a Dharmic religion emerging from Hinduism around 800 bc, Jainism denies the idea of a supreme being and believes instead in a deep respect for all living things, describing a path of non-viol http://books.google.com/books?id=sROl6RwRucEC&pg=PA50&dq=%22dharmic+religion%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GA49UdH0Haqr0AHPzIGYCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=%22dharmic%22&f=false

• Jainism is a Dharmic religion, professing nonviolence as a means to elevate one's spirit, http://books.google.com/books?id=ntWc13nSiNkC&pg=PA13&dq=%22dharmic+religion%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GA49UdH0Haqr0AHPzIGYCg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=%22dharmic%20religion%22&f=false

• the most radical objections to Hindu theism came from Buddhism and Jainism. but it has also been argued that a system which revolves around the concept of dharma (see Dharmic religion) is essentially atheist, since all depends on fulfilling Key ideas in human thoughtKenneth McLeish

• in sociological terms, he brought into being a fairly complete form of socially organized millennium, a society wherein the business of the country became the practice of the Dharmic religion; The situation of Tibet and its people: hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifth Congress, first session, May 13, 1997, Volume 4

• Westerlund, David Questioning the Secular State: The Worldwide Resurgence of Religion in Politics page 16 "may provide some possibilities for co-operation with Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists, who like Hindus are regarded as adherents of 'dharmic' religions."

• Encarta encyclopedia [2]"Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism share with Hinduism the concept of dharma along with other key concepts, and the four religions may be said to belong to the dharmic tradition.".http://www.webcitation.org/5kwrGeQ9u

--Trphierth (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please at least attempt to format your replies to be readable? Yworo (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no arguments that Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism are sometimes called Dharmas or even referred to in individual works as examples of "Dharmic religion". I'm asking for a source that covers "Dharmic religion" as a general category or concept of categorization and shows that it is a categorization which is generally recognized amongst academic scholars of religion as the preferred or most common designation for referring to a specific group of religions, and discusses which religions are generally included in the category and which are excluded. For example, what about Sant Mat, is it dharmic? What about Ayyavazhi, is it a dharmic religion? What about Zoroastrianism, which for some inexplicable reason is included in the article on Dharma. Should we add these to the Modern Dharmic writers template? If all these are Dharmic religions, why are we leaving them off the template? Also, you included Theosophists in the template. Could you please provide a source which categorizes Theosophy as a "Dharmic religion"? You seem to have left that out. Where can we find a general overview and discussion of "Dharmic religion" and how it differs from the generally accepted category "Indian religions"? Do you see why we need this type of source yet? Yworo (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "Modern Dharmic writers" is only being used at Wikipedia, or at Wikipedia-related websites. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur. I further see that "dharmic writers" as a whole is also a wikipedia-ism. GScholar shows that "dharmic religion" is not a technical term but there are plentiful GBook hits showing that the idea is out there. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if that is your only problem, suggest to rename it to Writers on dharmic religions or dharmic religious writers.--Trphierth (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's just another name for the same problem. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

OR at User talk:Seipjere

The user User:Seipjere is editing some of his WP:OR at his talk page. I removed it referencing WP:OR and WP:UPNOT but he's reverted with the comment This is a contentious issue and clearly Tippy Goomba does not understand it's significance (or science). TippyGoomba (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Computer generated images (CGI) for plane crashes

• Regarding Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#CGI-type_images

Members of the aviation task force believe that by making CGI computer graphics images of plane crashes and posting the images in the articles, it could be against the Wikipedia rules against original research. Some accident reports show diagrams of how the plane crash occurred. This may not be true for every accident. If anyone would like to weigh in, please add your comments WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The images in question are not original research. First, as the maker of most, I read the accident reports before I begin. Most times I know what the airplane was doing by reading the usually included. For those times that don't, I get relevant information from witnesses cited in the report. I can't think of a single CGI illustration I've made of an accident where I put something in not described in the reports. For cases where a major dispute in occurs; I'll either just illustrate the plane OR do illustrations for all major sides. (Please note, I also go out of the way to ensure captions include the terms CG, illustration or artist's impression.)

A flight data recorder plot of the minutes before power was lost on EgyptAir Flight 990. The info presented includes things like aircraft pitch, roll and yaw in addition to things like speed and g force.

In short, what I do is the closest thing to a visual equivalent of what any editor does with words. Reading a reliable source which anyone can access and presenting all relevant data for the people using this site as a source of information. That is why they are not WP:OR. Anynobody(?) 20:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

I am asking for people familiar with original research to pls take a look at Talk:Jack the Ripper#Proposal to add new information.Moxy (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jonestown Transcripts

Hello there, I hope I'm in the right place but I have an anonymous user who is claiming that Jonestown transcripts published by Sandiago State University are not valid as research material even though all I am doing is summering the remainder of the wiki article. These tapes are very well known and the information cited is, in both cases, an almost direct quote. Originally I only provided one citation but added a second due to a user who kept reverting. Since these citations were already present in the article and since the information is explicit in both and not an interpretation I feel that these sources are entirely valid.

The page I am trying to edit is this one (I have linked to the version of the page they keep reverting so that you can see the citations in place, which were lifted from further down the article). In most cases I know I shouldn't even provide citations in the header but I thought these were contentious enough to need a little backing up.

Source 1

Source 2

Hadashi (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The transcripts would count as primary sources. Have you read our policy WP:PRIMARY? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have indeed, but I find it a pretty odd system since it often means having to ignore what the evidence says. If it is not allowed, is there any way that I can work round this situation without writing an essay on the subject? At the moment it is extremely hard to find secondary sources that delve into the Temple's actual beliefs. Hadashi (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that my use of this primary source is allowed since I have not interpreted it in any way but rather have just re-stated exactly what Jones has said? Hadashi (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources are rarely useful except for trivial information, such as the address and names of officers of an organization, or to illustrate information already provided in secondary sources. In this case you have used Jones' statement in an interview to support "People's Temple was a Marxist[1] organization...." You are assuming that Jones understood Marxism, that despite being a pathological liar, he was telling the truth and that his being a Marxist meant that his organization was Marxist. That involves interpretation of a primary source. Neutrality requires that we establish the degree to which this interpretation is accepted. TFD (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case how do we know it was a 'religious organisation'? I could cite transcripts where Jones is meeting with representatives from Soviet Russia and I can change the text to read that he 'claimed' to be an atheist if you want (although there really isn't any doubt on that that I can see). It isn't important how much of Marxism Jones understood, only that he was an admitted Marxist who admired the Soviet system, and in this what I wrote is simply a summery of what the rest of the page says. I can also cite numerous transcripts where Jonestown residents are learning Russian as part of preperations for a move to the Soviet Union. Since all I am really doing is summering the page, would it be acceptable to remove the citations and let it stand on its own as a summery? I think that is what you are meant to do anyway in that section. If Jones really was a pathological liar it makes sense to question his claims to be running a church. By the way, I can also cite a quote from a Jonestown resident who states that the commune did not have a church, only a "meeting house".Hadashi (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

We know whether it was a religious organization or not through the testimony of secondary analysis of the material presented in reliable sources. If those analysts disagree, then we report the disagreement unless there is a very strong consensus one way or the other or unless it's clear that those on one side are clearly not taken seriously by outside assessment. In other words, it's not up to us to question his claims; we look to reliable analysts to make that assessment for us. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It can't be that hard to find secondary sources to back up the primary source, is it? No one who has heard his tapes can doubt that he talked about Marxism an awful lot. So surely there are secondary sources out there discussing this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The introduction created by Hadashi is textbook WP:SYN. It soes not just use primary sources for facts or quotations, it creates a whole narrative that the cult was a Marxist organization intentionally designed to look like a Christian group in order to undermine Christianity. That's a pure conspiracy theory for which the tapes provide no evidence. Jones makes a whole series of semi-coherent hippie-like statements about Jesus being a Swinger and love being the only message, combined with sub-Trotskyite terminology common to radical groups of the era. It's a conflation of sterotypical 60s-70s radical counter-culture rhetoric from various sources. We can't construct from this hodge-podge some story about a Marxist cell dedicated to destroying Christianity. Certainly we can't present it as uncontested fact. That's a wildly simplistic story which takes no account of the cultural context; the specific context of who is talking to at the time (and what he hopes to get from it); when these statements were made and how his views evolved (or at least mutated); and the sheer fact that the guy's a transparent bullshitter. Reliable secondary sources are the only way of making this material work usefully. Paul B (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

To put it simply, you can use primary sources to back up a tale spun in a secondary source, but you can't spin your own tale from primary sources. Yworo (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a history article, sources should conform with WP:HISTRS. (I know that still has the status of an essay, but it is based on a lot of experience, especially the modus operandi over the years of WP:MILHIST.) It would be good if the article Jonestown and related ones could gradually be cleaned up so that they rely more on academic sources and less on news sources and journalistic books. The only way of complying with WP:NPOV in this series of articles is to raise the bar on sourcing. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight.com

I don't know how much of this article is OR, but it has an extrememly unbalanced use of WP:PRIMARY sources. Of the 150 sources listed I lost count at 100 that are either the website of the main author of the website. Very little of the article is sourced to secondary or third party sources in order to establish weight. Some additional eyes would be nice. Arzel (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is overly long. Readers who want to know all the detailed information would be better off going to the company's website. But what should one do? Cut out excessive information or re-write it? I am not sure this noticeboard is the most relevant, but do not know which one would be. TFD (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know either, but I didn't think primary sources were supposed to be used in general. I would suggest most of what is reference to the website be removed unless there are secondary sources that give it some weight. Arzel (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

As a result of changes to the lead of the article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, based on this portion of a WP:FA review, Arzel made a claim of WP:OR in the lead. Discussion on the subject can be found at the WP:FA review, here and the article talk page, here. I would ask editors to look at the article, and in particular the lead section, and evaluate it for WP:OR. Thanks you in advance. Casprings (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd also direct interested parties to the talk page, where an explanation to Arzel of why his personal interpretation of the statistics is wrong and invalid has been both posted and ignored. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I was just trying to make the post as neutral as possible. But yes, the talk page is a good place to start.Casprings (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Panchakavya

what is this i dont even. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 18:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

what you didnt i did in. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone please comment on the following statement:

"If a source says a river flows from north to south it is not "synthesis" to say it flows from a high elevation to a lower one and does not "advance a new position". i.e.If Puerto Ricans are US citizens because they live in Puerto Rico it is hardly synthesis to say Puerto Rico is part of the US because we are not advancing a new position."

[Note: Congress passed a law in 1917 that made Puerto Ricans citizens. The US Supreme Court decided in Balzac v. Porto Rico 1922 that granting citizenship to Puerto Ricans did not make Puerto Rico part of the U.S.]

TFD (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

For the first one, it is technically correct but the reasoning is flawed. North to south is completely irrelevant. North being higher on some maps has nothing to do with elevation. We can say a river flows from a high elevation to a lower one because WP:BLUE. WP:SYNTHESIS has nothing to do with it.

For the second one, not only is it WP:SYNTHESIS, but it improperly uses synthesis to arrive at an incorrect conclusion. US embassies, US-flagged ships at sea and US spacecraft are all considered "US soil" for some purposes For example, if Neil Armstrong had murdered Buzz Aldrin while on the moon, he would have been prosecuted under US law. For another example, John McCain is legally considered to be a native born citizen because he was born on a US Navy hospital ship in the Panama canal, None of this makes those ships and embassies actual parts of the united states. If someone wants to claim that Puerto Rico is part of the US, they need a source that says that, not a source that says Puerto Ricans are US citizens. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Pandeism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism

Three years ago, user Naturalistic summed up this problematic article far better than I could:

"I am not saying that there is nothing of value in this article. However, there is not much that passes Wikipedia criteria. As pointed out above under BIAS, much of it reads like promotion and proof of Pandeism and attempt to boost the concept to a significance/prominence that it does not possess outside of this Wikipedia article. Outside of this article and links created to it, Pandeism has virtually no presence in the real world. -There is not a single book on the subject. -There is not a single web domain, -There is not a single membership organization. Google scholar [1] gives only 3 results and none of them seem to be about Pandeism as such (by comparison, Pantheism gives 29,800]. Most significantly, Google Dictionary gives only five results for pandeism and ALL of them are from Wikipedia or Wiktionary: [2] This last point proves clearly the lack of notability Taken together the above points prove that Wikipedia/Wiktionary are being abused here to promote an ideology that barely existed before the Wikipedia entries."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pandeism/Archive_3#Neutrality.2C_original_research.2C_POV.2C_lack_of_notability

It's disheartening to see that it still stands largely undisputed years later. Basically all historical and even modern references to the word "pandeism" are used interchangeably with pantheism. There's no such thing as pandeism as a discrete philosophy with its own intellectual tradition that can discerned separately from pantheism, or any number of other pantheistic religious doctrines.70.238.130.173 (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed lots of the low hanging fruit, still a lot left to be done. I'd guess that ultimately we'll replace it with a redirect but there's still a lot to go through. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

All the above comments in this section of the page seem very reasonable to me. This article seems to be almost entirely a rambling discussion of ideas that might or might not belong to a movement or association of people with a particular belief. There is nothing in the article that indicates whether, in the world in which we live, there actually exists such a movement or association of people. I think that, for its survival in the Wikipedia, the article needs to establish the real existence of such a movement or association of people. Without that, the article is own research or speculative chatter, and should be deleted. On the evidence so far offered here, it is without that. Conclusion: it should be deleted unless good evidence is produced here very shortly.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence of notability. I say nominate it for deletion and replacement with a redirect to pantheism. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

What are we to make of this Encyclopaedia Britannica excerpt, then: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1550175/pandeism ? GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if they can't tell us someone who actually believes in it, it's something of a passing reference. It's not enough of a peg to hang the rest of our article on. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That seems like a reasonable substantiation for the existence of the article.

It certainly would seem to indicate that "pandeism" is not a phonetic morphing of pantheism, but a combination of the two words pantheism and deism.

The concept is modern, conceptually novel--if a bit abstruse--and seems noteworthy.19:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

An editor provided on the article's talk page these sources:

2011, Paul Bradley This Strange Eventful History: A Philosophy of Meaning, page 156: "On the other hand, Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it."

2011, Alan H. Dawe, The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything, page 48: "Pandeism: This is the belief that God created the universe, is now one with it, and so, is no longer a separate conscious entity. This is a combination of pantheism (God is identical to the universe) and deism (God created the universe and then withdrew Himself)."

2010, Dr. Ronald Bish, Jesus: The Way, the Truth and the Life, page 19: "Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it."

2008, Shane T. Foster, We Are The Imagination of Ourselves, page 77: "The first is known as "Pandeism," which is a combination of pantheism and deism (a philosophical concept which states that whatever force led to the creation and/or existence of the cosmos no longer exists in any applicable or accessible form)."

Of these authors, I am personally familiar with Alan Dawe, whose book won a prestigious award for philosophical literature, and which has as its essential thesis the proposition that our Creator ("God") became our Universe to share in our experiences. He acknowledges the term Pandeism but eschews the use of any theological nomenclature for his theory so as not to have it boxed in. Notably, Bernard Haisch espouses essentially the same theory in The God Theory. Now, here's the rub. We cannot redirect Pandeism to Pantheism because Pantheism is not Deistic. The notion of a Creator actually becoming our Universe to experience through our lives is as old as time; Hinduism in some forms expresses it. Eriugena expressed it. Numerous examples are presented in the article as it stands, Deepak Chopra, Warren Sharpe, Scott Adams, and such. But in Pantheism, there simply is no Creator at all, so it doesn't fit. Now we could as one editor proposed retitle this Theory that God became the Universe -- clearly this theory exists, and is not Pantheism, nor traditional Deism -- but that title is unwieldy, and it is unnecessary if there exists a word, as there does, which sources use to denote such a theory. I suppose it could be moved to some such title and have it noted in the opening that this theory is sometimes named Pandeism, but why go to the trouble? DeistCosmos (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That's plenty of evidence of notability. Based on the above I say keep it with the current title. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the above evidence, I now see that the article should stand with its current title. I have taken the liberty of thinking I can "improve" the article as it stood. I have only changed the lead, mainly to shorten the sentences and make them easier to understand. I intended to leave the main meaning unchanged.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you did a fine job, given the complexity of what was the originally. I resurrected two links, and addressed the BBC source question there. I think perhaps the article as it is reflects the fact that it might essentially be compared to a play written by a committee -- bits and pieces here and there added by many authors with differing voices, degrees of education, and levels of talent for explanation. As with many articles here, to be frank, but this one seems to have more inputs and fewer efforts at making it all cohere. It is actually quite a similar problem as to Panentheism, and even to a degree to Pantheism (but Pantheism has drawn some editors who are dedicated to ensuring that it reflects their views, so it has been made to cohere with those views). I do object to the proposal on the talk page to remove the etymological history of German and Italian uses of the word, but perhaps that is neither here nor there. But again, a fine job with the opening. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

We could still us some help over here. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The focus on what word is used to describe this theory necessarily misses the real question, the encyclopedia question. And that is: does there exist a theological model which proposes that a Creator being created our Universe by becoming it? That is exactly the model that William Walker Atkinson assails in the criticisms section, and what William Sharpe proposes and the Taaroa legend describes and various other authors identify as a model. That is the initial model proposed by Bernard Haisch and Alan Dawe in their respective recent books. I asked on the Pantheism talk page and unsurprisingly was told that such a model would not constitute Pantheism. But if such a model exists, and is notable and meritorious of encyclopedic coverage (and I don't see how the theological model itself would not be in light of those uses), them the question becomes, what is the name of this model? Maybe there is no best option, but at least some authors have modernly called it Pandeism. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The solution is to follow the sources. We have four sources that call it Pandeism, so we call it Pandeism. If someone wants to name it something else, they need to provide sources for the alternative name, at which point we would have to compare and evaluate the two alternatives. Until that happens, we have to call it what the sources call it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well here is precisely the crux of the problem. We have several sources stating that Pandeism is the name of the theory which combines Pantheism and Deism to the end that the Creator of our Universe becomes our Universe. And then we have a source like the one under contention in the criticisms section which denounces as false the "certain schools of Pantheism which hold that God becomes the Universe by changing into the Universe," but which I am told can not be used in this article because that critic didn't use the word "Pandeism" to identify which 'school of Pantheism' he was talking about. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have repeatedly told you that and I quoted the specific policy. The policy which prevents us from doing so is WP:SYNTH. Does anyone disagree? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There are about a dozen points of WP:SYNTHNOT under which you are wrong, one of which is that not all synthesis is wrong, only synthesis which introduces original research. Nobody is claiming that Atkinson was somehow defining Pandeism; the claim is that Atkinson was criticizing a particular proposition, which happens to be exactly the proposition made by Pandeism (or whatever name you wish to give the "God becomes the Universe" proposition). Another point at WP:SYNTHNOT: don't be a zealot. It's easy to get in your head the notion that you're right and others are wrong on some point, and become a POV warrior for the validation of your belief. Remember Voldemort in Harry Potter? Imagine if the rule was that we couldn't presume the characters were referring to Voldemort wherever the author instead alluded to "he who must not be named." DeistCosmos (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

PIGS (economics)

After long frustration with this article (and one editor in particular), I bodly dynamited the article on Friday. I simultaneously opened an RFC on the dynamiting and would like input from folk here into that RFC.

The article has many problems, including, at its absolute worst, straight-forward reference fraud. But the more endemic problem, in my opinion, is the kind of original research described at WP:NEOLOGISM:

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Input would be appreciated. And, regardless of anyone's opinion on the dynamiting, the participation of experienced editors in getting the article into shape would be greatly appreciated. --RA (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an outdated term, of little historical significance. Just redirect to European Union, because they're all PIGS now. Hcobb (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army

Hi all, first let me apologize for the length of the post, and emphasize that any committed input would be immensely appreciated, as well as extremely helpful in solving a very difficult OR dispute. A long, repetitive, and heated NOR discussion over at Talk:Syrian civil war; the section in question is "Naming of the opposition fighters". The issue concerns whether the term "Free Syrian Army" refers to a singular organization, or is a vaguely-defined label referring to several organizations and factions. My position is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the meaning of the term "Free Syrian Army", engendered by the liberal and vague usage of the term in the media (as explained by sources).

There are numerous media links that use the term "Free Syrian Army" (FSA). However, none (that I've seen thus far) state explicitly that that it is a singular faction. Two sources were brought forth that deal specifically with the meaning of the term [18][19]. They explain, quote: "the FSA label is used in the media as shorthand for those factions which receive Gulf/Western support". Here are a few more excerpts:

• "This term [Free Syrian Army], however, is not used in reference to a specific organization, but rather as a sort of catch-all brand name referring to the Syrian armed opposition in general. In this way, the FSA label should be understood as a synonym for 'the resistance', similar to 'La Résistance' in france during WWII." p.10

• "Today, the FSA brand name remains in use within the Syrian opposition, but mostly as a term for the armed uprising in general. It’s quite similar to how a French person would have employed the term 'La Résistance' during WWII – not in reference to a specific organization fighting against Hitler, but as an umbrella term for them all." [20]

• "One can’t disregard the fact that many Syrian opposition fighters will casually refer to themselves as FSA members, or that some armed factions actually self-designate as 'a brigade of the FSA'. But that does not mean that they belong to some Syria-wide FSA command hierarchy: it’s still just a label, typically intended to market these groups as part of the opposition mainstream."

• "Today, it [the term] is understood to apply mostly to army defectors (ex-Baathists), non-ideological fighters, and more moderate Islamists. That still doesn't describe an actual organization, but at least it’s closer to a working definition of what the 'FSA' would mean in a Syrian opposition context – a definition that can’t really decide what it includes, but which clearly excludes most of the anti-Western salafis, all of the hardcore salafi-jihadis, and, for example, the Kurdish YPG militia."

..and so on. To "counter" the above, opposed users cite media links using the term "Free Syrian Army" in various contexts they deem inescapably support the notion the term refers to a singular organization. Then I reply that the usage of the term therein chimes completely with explanation in the sources ("a shorthand for a number of factions.."), and point out WP:STICKTOSOURCE, affirming that the media links do not "directly and explicitly" support their position - that such conclusions are OR. And so it goes on, over and over and over again.

Here's a bunch of googled media links just recently brought-up as a counter to the above-quoted sources, reportedly in support of the position that the FSA is a singular organization [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29][30] [31] [32] [33] [34] etc.. No doubt there are dozens more. Taking into consideration the position of the previously-cited sources, is it WP:OR to claim these links contradict them in the relevant question? My position being that the quoted links do not address the meaning of the term "Free Syrian Army", but merely use it - and that completely in accordance with how the above sources describe their use. -- Director (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I do again sincerely apologize for the length of the post, I just don't know how to elaborate on this complex issue in less words. There is one more aspect that clouds the issue somewhat: the "Supreme Military Command" (SMC), a body analogous to the SHAEF that coordinates between the (quote) "disparate factions". The first source I quote above [35] is a scholarly paper that covers that institution in great detail. Here are excerpts from the summary:

• "The SMC is not structurally cohesive, and its ability to enforce command and control is dependent on the cooperation of each of its members."
• "The incorporation of rebel networks has resulted in chains of command that are not uniform across five fronts, with each sub-unit retaining their own unique authority structures. The SMC's primary function to date has been to serve as a platform for coordination."

..etc. The reason why I elaborate on the SMC, is that news links covering its establishment e.g. may report that "military commanders of the main Free Syrian Army units from all over Syria agreed Friday to a unified command structure" [36]. My key point being that the "Supreme Military Command" (SMC) is a coordinating body for the various rebel factions (see the source for a detailed elaboration) - and not a faction in and of itself. In this regard I emphasize that the "Supreme Military Command" does not refer to itself as the Supreme Military Command "of the Free Syrian Army", nor does its coordinating the activities of the various rebel factions suddenly bring into existence a new faction by such a name. etc..

There's more.. to fully understand the matter as well as avoid any misunderstanding of cited media sources, I recommend a quick read-thru of the central sources that started this mess with their detailed insight [37][38]. Regards -- Director (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Separation barrier reversion back to WP:OR

The term is a neologism as far as application to walls/fences/borders and one used almost entirely by the state of Israel. However, evidently in a POV attempt to make it seem politically legit (as opposed to probably against international law) some editors have included in the article everything from the Great Wall of China to a fence separating animal parks in Africa, retrospectively calling them "separation barriers". They did so without any references, or references that do not contain the phrase, or just wikilinks to articles about walls and barriers that have no references using the phrase. They also have gone to all these articles and put separation barrier in the lead description, text and/or see alsos, as well as putting the article itself in Category:Separation barriers.

Last month I announced I was going to clean it up if there was not proper referencing and asked the one objecting editor if he was going to start referencing. He did not.

So last night I was on a roll and checked every reference I had not already tagged, both in the article and in every linked article. (I also did books/news archive/scholar searches and found barely any mentions except for Israel's use. I did search specifically in middle east countries where phrase IS most likely to be used and found just one ref which added.) Thus the cleaned up version looked like this, with three ref'd sections and Uzbekistan which I didn't have energy to complete checking.

The editor above immediately reverted the whole thing back. When I asked again if he intended to reference the material, he just left an incomprehensible message. I then added more section/inline "references needed" tags, but this is absurd. (Note: There also has been massive vandalism by multiple socks of a pro-Israel individual so the article is now protected.)

I'd appreciate hearing a few NPOV comments on this in Talk:Separation_barrier#Multiple_issues_cleaning_up_now. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

hi carol, i got this message from you on my talk page: "Hello, Soosim. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CarolMooreDC 17:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)" - i note that it says 'may'. up above, you discuss an editor. is that me? is the 'may' really not 'may' but 'is indeed'? i also see you are very quick to point out the editor above reverted, but since it was me, i can say that the edit comment is significant (which you conveniently left out). so, it seems to me that you are now asking for RS for various items missing RS? yes? do i understand that from the above? if so, i am happy to start adding them in. is that ok with you? is that what you are looking for? thanks. Soosim (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

and carol, the bbc has a list and a series of articles about these barriers including the one in israel. so, although i am not the original editor or among the editors who created, added or edited this page, it is clear that one's view of the situation leads one to various conclusions as to whether it is OR or whatnot. in any case, this article is one of many which uses the terms interchangeably, especially when compared with other articles by the same RS about the same barrier: World's barriers: Botswana-Zimbabwe and it is just one of series entitled 'world's barriers' - example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8342874.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8343172.stm etc. i will slowly review all of them, add to appropriate sections, etc. ok? Soosim (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

On the talk page I have fully quoted Wikipedia:No original research which reads in part: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Using sources that mention barriers and separation or division or partition, etc. is WP:OR to support that use of the term "separation barrier" which has been used overwhelmingly in one context and occassionally in others.

As I said in talk, I will search country by country to see if the whole term ever has been used to describe their fence/border/wall/barrier, but please do not think that because an article is about "barriers" it is about "separation barriers." Unless I get too busy on articles where the policy violations are not so obvious and I can do more constructive edits, then I'll invoke: Wikipedia:PROVIT#Burden_of_evidence. After all the purpose of WP:ORN is to ensure editors don't have to prove editors engaging in WP:OR are in fact doing so. It is here to ensure that you do take out WP:OR once it is challenged. CarolMooreDC 19:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page of the article in question. But I would just like to confirm here as well that I agree with you. The article is as mess of original research, misapplied citations and dead links. Your cleaning up was very much needed and should be the version implemented. In case sources can be found it is no trouble adding them later in the appropriate sections on a case by case basis. No example should be included unless a secondary reliable source explicitly mentioning the term "separation barrier" regarding them can be found. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

it is not a neologism - it is no different than the BBC using various terms for walls, fences, barriers in the same sentence and article with the words separate, divide, etc. i believe we should consult a linguist (do they have a wiki page here? i am sure they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linguistics -- i think some non-involved folks would be good. some editors on this page are way too POV.) and hence, since the BBC is RS, and since they are certainly not pro-israel (as in, paid by the israeli gov't, or work for anything israeli, etc.), their use of 'barrier' for their article on the west bank seems to be applicable. haaretz, for example, calls it a separation fence. haaretz also refers to it as the west bank fence. as does amnesty. the point is that your neologism isn't. Soosim (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Neologism wise, the phrase has been used in chemistry for a long time but for a wall dividing people only since 1980s. But even if it wasn't a neologism, per WP:RS you'd still need a WP:RS using the exact phrase "separation barrier" to mention it in the article. However, the Israel section (which currently also has no working refs at all) should mention that the Israeli separation barrier also has been called several other things,so feel free to add that with ref(s) to the article. CarolMooreDC 13:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

ah, but carol, that is exactly the point. if an RS calls him Francis and a different RS calls him Francis I, they are clearly referring to the same person by two different names. if an RS calls that war Pillar of Cloud and a different RS calls it Pillar of Defense, they are clearly referring to the same war by two different names. and so it is with separation barrier, separation fence, security barrier, security wall, security fence, separation wall. all are found in RS and all refer to the same item. so, therefore, it does not have to be just one of those. not at all. and claiming so, seems to be your own OR. Soosim (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The analogies don't hold since a) Francis only would be in an article about the Pope and b) Pillar of Cloud only in reference to Israel's bombing attacks on Gaza in Nov of 2012. The others are far to general to apply a specific term. If we did so, someone could then write an article on Israel's "apartheid wall" and apply "apartheid wall" to every wall/fence/etc. that ever divided any people for any reason, start a category, stick dozens of articles under it, etc. And I don't think you'd like that. CarolMooreDC 16:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

They don't hold for more general reasons than that too. A person may be called several different things: Francis, Francis I, the king, the duke, Francis of France or whatever. But this is different terms applied to the same object - in this case a person. The same applies to an event (The Great Hunger, the Irish Potato Famine etc). In both case the thing is the same, but the name may vary. In this case the thing varies depending on what you choose to include under the name according to arbitrary personal editorial decision. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

paul - help me understand because it really does apply to the same item/thing/etc. there are literally dozens of names for it in RS, all referring to the same thing - the fence, the wall, the barrier, security, apartheid, separation, etc. and as you said, "the thing is the same, but the name may vary." and carol, what are you talking about? if the article refers to china or israel or portugal, then that is what it is. if it is a general article, then that is what it is. Soosim (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your examples demonstrate the problem with your position, easily shown by the way links work on this very website. A "fence", "separation" and "apartheid" are clearly not the same thing. The links all go to different articles. The Great Hunger, the Irish Potato Famine, in contrast, are redirects to the same article. When you link the the use of the terms "fence" and "apartheid" you are doing so by envisaging a concept that encompases both of them and which may be represented by various things. Paul B (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was saying that "separation barrier" like "apartheid wall" are both specific terms used by a number of people that WP:RS apply overwhelmingly to the Israel-Palestine situation. Neither can be used as an article, as well as a category, encompassing everything from the Great Wall of China to the Mexico-US border. Doing both is WP:Original research. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

and carol, just to be clear, some things are generic, some aren't. 'separation barrier' is generic. lots of things fit that, even according to the bbc and others. as i have said many times, if you want an article about israel's fence/barrier/wall, then call it such ("Israel's separation fence"), but don't give it a generic name and expect it to be understood that it only refers to israel. Soosim (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If it was generic one would not find that 98% of references to it in any search of the term were about Israel's separation barrier. One also might have found that you would have been able to put even one reference using the whole term' in the article for something besides Israel. CarolMooreDC🗽 14:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

carol - you are using sleight of hand. the term is generic as it refers to all the same things as "separation fence", "separation wall", "security fence", "security barrier", "security wall", "border fence", "border barrier", "border wall", etc. there are hundreds of RS which use all of these terms to refer to the same thing. see my previous comments as to my recommendations on how to fix the issue you are having with this. Soosim (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page. Stop by WP:SYNTH before you go there. Also, we could you use a fresh look at the page if anyone new is interested. It's been relatively quiet recently. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Video game perspectives

What is the best thing to do when a user may have visual evidence that a source is incorrect, but admits that there may be no source to prove his counterclaim?

I am trying to maintain quality on a Good Article in this case, and want to make sure we are not introducing OR into the article.

The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Isometric perspective on Pool of Radiance. BOZ (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Polk family

Someone who is, I gather, a family genealogist has added as his only edit a chunk of material to the head note of this category asserting that the commonly supposed ancestry of James Polk is incorrect. I haven't deleted this outright on the possibility that references to support the passage could be found, but obviously the passage cries out to be contested. Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Original Mythbusting: Wikipedia is Plagirising

Wikipedia has a policy of not citing certain sites on the basis that they are deemed "unreliable", but its editors are free to plagiarize 100% unique and new mythbusting information from those very sites to correct Wikipedia's own errors and then justify not citing the author of that work on the grounds that he/she published it on an unreliable site. This is a licence for plagiarism. Wikiepdia has been now quite rightly outed - and shamed - and the wiki-editor has been named: here.

Can this institutionalized stealth plagiarism policy be brought to a rapid end please?

You should cite the author and their unique work - do not plagiarize their unique work as though Wikipedians discovered it with irrational, painfully ironic, self-serving policies to assist editors with their guilt neutralization in order to help Wikipedia and its volunteers justify plagiarism and vainglorious intellectual theft! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendersghost (talk • contribs)

In a nutshell this is what is written on Mike Sutton's Best Thinking Blog about how Wikipedia has blatantly plagiarized his original work (Sutton 2013):

Wikipedia's psychopathic self-serving stealth plagiarism policy is that if unique information discovered by an author is reliable and valuable enough to plagiarize, because it is essential to correct Wikipedia's own errors, then that author and originator should not be cited if Wikipedia's rules state that the site where the author published the unique information, from which they just plagiarized the author's work, is an unreliable source of such information.

Bendersghost (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC).

How is changing the word "coined" to "used" an example of 'plagiarism'? It's a very odd definition of the word. Sutton complains that "Wikipedia" asserts that "'bestthinking.com does not count as a reliable source.' That's just a policy designed for psychopaths who enjoy editing to do as they please." That's a very odd definition of the word "psychopath". If that's the best thinking on Best Thinking, I'm not surprised it's deemed an unreliable source. However, to respond to the specific point, personal blogs are generally considered unreliable sources. I don't think that Sutton's is being singled out. It's quite common to adjust information is if someone somewhere points out that it is wrong. There is no requirement to credit that person. That may seem impolite, but it is not the convention to do so in any encyclopedia. If we had to credit people in that way pages would be filled up with acknowledgements. Also, I am unaware of any legal rights over historical facts. If I come across a text in which Joe Bloggs uses the phrase "Moral panic" in 1432, I have no rights to that fact as such. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is quite explicit that it does not publish original research, and that every thing here was first discovered somewhere else. I've never seen a Wikipedia article that claimed that Wikipedians made a particular discovery - and such a claim would be deleted quickly. The articles The Selfish Gene and Richard Dawkins do not claim that Wikipedia figured out that Dawkins didn't invent the term. I looked at the page info at moral panic, and again, while it did credit an 1830 publication for the term's first use, it was never claimed that Wikipedia discovered this. Using Sutton's logic, every uncited statement in Wikipedia is "stealth plagiarism", even something as innocuous as saying Paris is capital of France. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sutton has a point, actually. There is a potential problem when a myth is busted on a site that doesn't meet RS criteria. I don't think it happens very often. We already have WP:SAYWHEREYOUGTIT, but we don't always follow it rigorously. The question needs wider discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Dawkins claim appears to be a nonsense, an article was written proving the claim to be unreliable so the whole claim was removed. you can't assert rights (moral or legal) over the absence of something. The moral panic one appears to be a problem of citations, the way Questionnaire cited partly to Sutton's underlying sources and partly to Sutton didn't make it clear that Sutton was responsible for all of the research. This led to the reversion to remove those sections sourced to Sutton without any clarity on any need to deal with those that were sourced to others but found by Sutton as well. Sutton may be angry but technically nothing was done wrongly here either legally or morally. To clean up entirely it might be reasonable to add a footnote identifying Sutton as having located the source but not actually cite any analysis to him. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there isn't really a WP:RS problem here. Sources are not reliable or unreliable as intrinsic properties, but in reference to the nature of the information. In particular, sources are reliable for their own content. Now suppose RandomBlog writes "X appeared in a book in 1833". We can't put "X appeared in a book in 1833 [ref to RandomBlog]" into an article, because RandomBlog is not a reliable source for that. However, we can put "X appeared in a book in 1833 [ref to 1833 book]", provided a wikipedia editor has checked the book. It would also, I believe, be within the rules for the citation footnote to include something like "Noted on RandomBlog in 2013", since that is a reference to the content of RandomBlog, for which it is reliable. In other words, we can't cite RandomBlog for the information, but we can (in principle) cite the fact that RandomBlog had the information. I'm not saying we should do that, only that it would not be a violation of WP:RS. We could reasonably decide to not mention RandomBlog at all, on the basis of some principle like WP:UNDUE, which is what I think we should do (i.e. not mention it, see the next paragraph). Zero^talk 01:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is certainly a violation of WP:RS to write "The term first appears in the English language in The Quarterly Christian Spectator, a publication from 1830" since neither that source itself, nor the blog on which this source was noted, can know that it is the first appearance. (This is moral panic.) In fact it wasn't the first, since the phrase was used in 1789, see that talk page shortly. This took me 5 minutes to find and I certainly don't think I deserve to be named as the discoverer. Digging up stuff from internet archives is no big deal and although it might be exciting for the discoverer (I've done it heaps of times, so I know), we shouldn't carry on like a Nobel Prize is in order. Zero^talk 02:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Bitcoin is a digital commodity""

Somebody recently radically changed the Bitcoin article from it saying it was a virtual currency to a digital commodity. This doesn't have a citation and is likely original research. --KyleLandas (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus and Quantity theory of money

an edit i made referring to Copernicus as the first person to note this theory was reverted. i have since supplied 2 additional sources in talk, neither of which have been accepted, nor the edit restored.

• Copernicus also became the first person to set forth clearly the "quantity theory of money," the theory that prices vary directly with the supply of money in the society. [39] An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 1, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith. by Murray Rothbard.
• [40] Early Beginnings of the Quantity Theory of Money and Their Context in Polish and Prussian Monetary Policies, c. 1520-1550 Oliver Volckart The Economic History Review New Series, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Aug., 1997), pp. 430-449 Published by: Wiley

is there a better way to phrase the relationship to the theory that would not be considered OR? first noted by Copernicus [41] Darkstar1st (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please supply a link to the edit. TFD (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

i did, it is the link closest to your post above. here is the revert [42] Darkstar1st (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

First, you provided Copernicus' memo as a source, which is OR. You need a secondary source to say he was talking about the quantity theory of money and that he was first. Neither of your two secondary sources which you now present are optimal. Rothbard's history is controversial. Your other source is better, but you need to show that it actually makes the claim you says it does. The page I can read does not say that. TFD (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

ok, maybe this source would help? Advanced Study in Money and Banking: Theory and Policy Relevance ..., Volume 2 By Perminder Khanna page 454, Nicolas Copernicus, the famous astronomer, has also been designated as the originator of the fundemental content of the quantity theory Darkstar1st (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd to use a book called Advanced Study in Money and Banking: Theory and Policy Relevance in the Indian Economy as a source for Copernicus in an article about Austrian Economics. Notice that the book cites The Economics Principles of Confucius and His School (1911), which explains the economic thinking in China, for the claim. I get the impression that you want to include this and are searching for a source. The correct approach is to use sources close to the subject and report what they say. TFD (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

ok, According to Lambert, Copernicus is the first one to express the fundamental relation of the quantity theory. The quantity theory of money: a critical study of its historical development and interpretation and a restatement, page 14 by Hugo Hegeland A. M. Kelley, 1969. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you proposing an edit to the Austrian School I do not see the relevance of adding this information if sources on the Austrian School do not mention it. I am guessing that you are influenced by Rothbard's claim that liberalism developed out of medieval Catholicism. A better approach would be to discuss that claim in the article rather than try to prove it by mentioning precursors to Austrian thinking. TFD (talk)

the section i inserted the edit begins as such, Mises believed that money prices and wages will inevitably rise when the quantity of money and bank credit is increased since this is the quantity theory of money, we should use it's common name and supply a link to the article, since the theory is attributed to Copernicus, we should add his link as well. actually several sources link Copernicus and Austrians, example:

• Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, chapter 10. A Copernican Shift [43]
• Bohm-Bawerk makes the Copernicus comparison in "The Austrian Economists"
• [44] (the school named after him in Turin) Copernicus was the first to explain the reason for the decrease in the value of money caused by gold and silver coins being made into an alloy with copper in the minting process. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"A Copernican Shift" does not attribute the theory to Copernicus nor does it even mention him. The term is a metaphor for a paradigm shift. "The Austrian Economists" Bohm-Bawerk makes the same analogy and it is about the Austrian theory of value not the quantity theory of money. TFD (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to see the point of this debate. It reads like a personal power struggle to "win" (or refuse to "lose") rather than a discussion of OR. Darkstar seems to have provided a number of sources which say that old Copperknickers has been credited as the originator of the QTM. Whether or not this is true, historically important, or relevant to this or that particular article are separate questions, but I cannot see how it is OR. Paul B (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Home Nations

A Fact template at Home Nations added to the assertion that the Republic of Ireland national football team “is not referred to as a Home Nation.” was removed and a thread started on the talk page. It was asserted that because the statement was negative, it did not need a citation. However, without a cited reference, who is to know whether the statement is OR or not? Noticeboard opinion would be welcomed. Daicaregos (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Any assertion that "X is not referred to as Y" is by definition WP:Verifiable, in that it only requires production of one reliable source calling X "Y" to disprove it. Similarly, if the assertion is that "X is not usually referred to as Y" (as in the current wording at the article mentioned), all that is needed is a few RS publications to the contrary. Brocach (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did that come from? I don't recognise it. If it is Wikipedia policy, please provide a link to it. Please read the policly on No original research, which is summarised: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. And this sentence, from the first paragraph, is particularly relevant here: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. This has not been done in this case. Daicaregos (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to apply a bit of logic here. If there are no reliable published sources referring to X as Y, that is the evidence dependent on reliable published sources that X is not referred to as Y. Brocach (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case, you'd still need to source the fact that there are no published sources referring to X as Y, otherwise it's WP:OR. How do you expect someone to verify the statement? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Using possible OR to question a published source

Hi! There was a person who was removing sections of Bacliff, Texas arguing that they were factually incorrect. In the process of the discussion the person posted several statements at User_talk:WhisperToMe#Bacliff.2C_Texas and I replied to her at Talk:Bacliff,_Texas#Houston_Press_reply_.232. I would like OR noticeboard members to take a look because she is attempting to undermine the credibility of a published source that AFAIK would fit Wikipedia's definition of a Wikipedia:Reliable source by using non-published and/or non-reliable sources to challenge statements made in the article, and questioned the existence of a person quoted in an article (so far she hasn't explained why). This is the source article that is being challenged.

She has not, so far, displayed any intent to add content to the article using these methods. She is just using them to challenge a source.

Here are particular statements of interest:

• "Gator Miller is not the publisher of the Seabreeze News. The existence of such a person is questionable at best" - The source article was published in 2008, so things may have changed. This would be denying the existence of a person quoted in an interview of an investigative article. So far the user hasn't said how she came to this conclusion.
• "The statement – “For such a small town, Bacliff has an astounding number of bars. In fact, its ratio of taverns-to-citizens rivals those of many hard-drinking British seaside resorts” is factually incorrect. YP.com shows Bacliff has only 5 true bars. Several of these appear to be closed." - The source article was published in 2008. YP.com is a White pages service. In response I asked her: ""
• "The quotation - ["This is the only town I know that has churches next to bars that are next to gambling halls, and then repeat that all over town," says local resident Jack Nelson.] is factually incorrect. YP.com lists 9 churches in Bacliff. A Google Maps search shows that not all of these listed exist, and of those that do, none of them are located next to bars." - Is it legitimate to use Google Maps and white pages to challenge an evaluative statement from a resident quoted in a publication? I asked her if maybe Jack Nelson used hyperbole.
• "According to Miller, September 11, 2004, was a historic day for Bacliff and San Leon. A town hall meeting was held in which the citizenry demanded local officials clean up the town – cannot find a record of this meeting" - Would a town hall meeting like this be recorded? By whom?

Are these legitimate methods to evaluate statements in published sources that can be used by Wikipedia articles? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• One user found the info that confirmed Gator Miller's existence. Anyway I would like input on the matter. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Poverty in the United States

Is this an example of "original synthesis" as provided in the examples at "Implied conclusion?

The source is an article from the U.S. conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation, "Understanding Poverty in the United States", which says, "only a small number of the 46 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description." It supports this thesis by mentioning the percentage of nominally poor people who own air conditioners, microwave ovens, vehicles, DVD or VCR players, video game systems, etc.[45]

The Wikipedia article says, "Over 80% of poor American households have air conditioning, three quarters own at least one automobile, about 40% own their homes, and the average poor American has more living space than the general population average in every European nation except Luxembourg and Denmark. Most of them have a refrigerator, stove, microwave, telephone, and television. About half have computers and less than half have internet service." (United States#Income, Poverty, and Wealth[46]) It does not however cite the Foundation in the text or explicitly report their conclusions.

This appears to be in rebuttal to the statement that the U.S. has high relative poverty rates. While a neutral source may mention the level of amenities enjoyed by Americans, it would also mention relative levels of access to health care, education and other services, as well as general health, expected lifespan and vulnerability to crime.

TFD (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No. "Original synthesis" is when an editor states or implies conclusions not found in the source. In this case the description is faithful to the source, and the underlying facts come from publicly verifiable government websites and are undisputed. Whether you agree with the source or not is irrelevant to the question of original synthesis, as is its alleged neutrality. The other items you mention are already covered on the page and don't address the issue of original synthesis either. Your personal views about what should be included aren't a legitimate litmus test for purging sources. BTW, you also grossly mischaracterize the material's alleged purpose. If anything it's pertinent to absolute poverty, not relative poverty. Please look up and learn the difference between the two.VictorD7 (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a case of OR. This is properly referenced and quoted as far as I can see. If the editor disagrees with ref this should go to RSN. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Does not appear to be OR. It appears to be a direct quote from the reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is not OR, but it's poor sourcing and should be removed. The Heritage Foundation is a politically partisan think tank. It's a notable think tank, and its website may be a suitable source to describe its views with proper in-text attribution, but it is clearly unsuitable as a source for "facts" in Wikipedia's voice. The rest of the section uses high-quality independent sources - reputable scholarly journals, the NBER, etc. - so the use of talking points from a partisan think-tank seems particularly out of place here. MastCell ^Talk 04:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually the section and Wikipedia in general are filled with partisan sources (like the CBPP think tank several lines earlier, and "scholarly" opinion papers by issue advocates like Smeeding) that are often used to cite less independently verifiable information than this (and in Wikipedia's voice). The facts Heritage recites here are available on the Census Bureau and Dep. of Energy websites and are undisputed, so there's absolutely nothing wrong with the sourcing or facts. Whether the info itself warrants article inclusion is a separate discussion, but the question here is whether it's OR, and it's clearly not. VictorD7 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)