Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

This notice board is provided so that editors can ask for advice about material that might be original research (OR) or original synthesis.

The policy that governs the issue of original research is Wikipedia: No original research (WP:NOR). It says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." For questions about the policy itself, please go to WT:NOR.

Please post new topics in a new section. When a thread is closed, you can tag it with {{resolved}}.

Islam and antisemitism

A dispute has arisen on the Islam and antisemitism article. User:Nishidani has interpreted the lede of the article as meaning that any source that broadly discusses the topics of Judaism and Islam can be used as sources in this article, rather than sources that explicitly discuss Islam and antisemitism. Thus, if a source says that Muslim references to Jews as apes are indications of antisemitism, Nishidani can, in turn, bring any sources he feels relevant to refute or "throw light on" that claim, regardless of whether or not they actually discuss antisemitism. Furthermore, when confronted with the fact that he is adding material intended to create a counter-argument, he argues that if he merely removes the word "However", it suddenly is no longer a counter-argument.[1] The discussion is here: Talk:Islam and antisemitism#Latest edits by Nishidani Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a Jew, and even I find the article title itself a bit confusing insensitive and not all that accurate or encyclopedic. Islam itself is not antisemitic, by definition anti-semitism is hatred against Semites, not just Jews. If Islam was anti-semitic then it wouldnt have such a large following amongst Arabs. Plus it must be remembered that not all anti-Israeli remarks or actions are anti-Jewish and vice-versa; a hatred in the Arab or Muslim worlds does not mean they are "anti-Jewish" or "anti-semitic". The President of Iran himself has shook hands and even hugged Orthodox Jewish rabbis (of course it was an anti-gay conference in Iran so I guess if you hate the same things he does he overlooks your Jewishness). We dont have an article Catholicism and antisemitism unless it is under another name and trust me Catholics have been worse in history than the Muslims towards Jews. A source doesnt need to outright use the term antisemitism, but if he is using them in a manner that borders on synthesis or original research then they dont belong. The entire article probably shouldnt exist, I have no inclination to read the article based solely on the title which itself is a bit bigoted. Sorry I pontificated my personal opinions and didnt really get to the core of your problem. The article title is just too much for me, as a Jew I understand how it sucks to have a religion associated with ideas and beliefs that arent what the religion stands for and be stereotyped.Camelbinky (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the contention that the word "Anti-semitism is hatred against Semites"... yes, linguistically this is what the roots of the term indicate, but that is not the meaning of the term as used in modern society. Seriously, can anyone come up with an example of an actual anti-semetic statement in the last 100 years that was not directed specifically at Jews?

That said... I agree that Islam is not Anti-semetic (even if you narrow the term to mean "Anti-Jew")... no more than Christianity or any other religion is anti-semetic. There are definitely individual muslems who are "Anti-semetic"... and, yes, there are significant segments of Islamic society that are Anti-semetic (this is true even if you include other semites... there are elements of Iranian society that are Anti-Arab as well as Anti-Jew). Islam, the religion, is actually fairly Pro-Jew (since Jews and Christians are "People of the book" who the Koran says are to be favored over other non-muslems).

Finally, I have a lot of problems with "Group and X" articles in general... be it "Catholicism and X", "Islam and X" or "The Boy Scouts and X"... such articles often started as POV forks that set up false oppositions between the two elements in the title. And even when started in good faith, they often become POV magnets. So... I agree with Camelbinky that a clearer and less POV name is needed for the article in question. Blueboar (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

there is an rfc that just opened regarding merging this article into a more appropriate one, at least partly because of its name and the POV forkiness. camelbinky and blueboar, your input would be appreciated there. untwirl(talk) 03:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The introduction to the no original research policy states (bold in original, underline added): "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." That's a lazy answer, but one that directly addresses the question (no pun). I think the statement "the correct response is to fix the representation, not to add one's own counter-arguments" is spot on. If there's a problem with how sources are used or questions about their reliability, using off-topic sources and editorial rebuttals is the wrong way to going about addressing the issues. --Vassyana (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion might be a red herring. Jayjg lists five of Nishidani's sources, saying they don't address the topic "Islam and antisemitism." The three of those five that are accessible online do in fact explicitly address the subject of the article, and are obviously relevant. I can check the other two in a research library over the next few days. The interpolation of these sources into the text may need some smoothing (indeed the article as a whole is a bit of a mess), but there doesn't appear to be any WP:NOR issue.

Well, not in that section at least. There is in fact a very large section of the article, around 2300 words, which appears to consist entirely of original research. It's called "Antisemitic comments by Muslims," all of which are culled from marginal pro-Israel websites that neither discuss Islam nor present these remarks as representative of it, but rather record them as examples of incitement in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict.--G-Dett (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Which, as I pointed out, does not mean anti-semitism. Anti-Israeli sentiment does not equal anti-Jewish sentiment. There are alot of very ultra-orthodox Jews and Rabbis who are against a State of Israel because the creation of a nation in the Holy Land for Jews is one of the jobs to be performed by the Messiah when he arrives, therefore they dont think a semi-secular Jewish nation as Israel is should exist as a creation of us mere common-folk. That doesnt make them anti-Jewish themselves, just as Arabs and Muslims who are against an Israel are not necessiarily anti-Jewish. There are alot of Jews who reside in "anti-Israel" nations such as Yemen, Libya, and Iran who are loyal citizens of those Muslim states, and yes are persecuted occasionally but in more modern recent times other than some discrimination on holding jobs and living in certain areas they are not molested. I completely agree with Blueboar on his changes to my original ideas and still forceably think that the entire article needs a renaming and some oversight on a redrafting of the topic and its content. It's inflammatory and such thinking that Islam is anti-Jewish simply feeds their flames of hatred, by misunderstanding what they are angry about simply makes them angrier. Labelling their entire religion anti-semitic or labeling the comments of a few as indicitive of a systematic bias in the entire religion against their own brother-religion simply makes them not want to have a dialogue and makes them even more fanatical. But I guess some on Wikipedia may argue that Wikipedia should not be concerned with being careful not to create more terrorists, that this is just an encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this topic has apparently been brought forth at the RS/noticeboard now too. Either someone is fishing around for the answer they want regarding this topic or the article has many issues.Camelbinky (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't know while engaged in editing that page that this discussion had taken place. Perhaps many will sigh with relief that my lack of awareness saved them the eyestrain of reading another extensive analysis of the way my work and edits were misrepresented.

I would like to correct the misimpression that might arise from the sentence: 'if a source says that Muslim references to Jews as apes are indications of antisemitism, Nishidani . .'

Laqueur said no such thing of course. He did not discuss the Jew = ape equation as 'antisemitic'. Neither does Lewis. Both mention the contemptuous metaphor as evidence of hostility, as against other evidence they mention of positive feelings for Jews in that text. The context is not therefore antisemitic. And since the reference to Jews as apes and pigs in Laqueur, who has absolutely no specialist knowledge for the text or period, came from his tampering with two passages, I added three more sources to show what other scholars, peers of Lewis, say of this metaphor in that text. No original research, therefore, just allowing the reader more RS on the theme touched on by Lewis (RS) and Laqueur (not RS for this kind of period or material).Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Representative money

An editor is trying to push the notion that "representative money" (an old fashioned phrase rarely used today) is just as important as commodity, fiat and credit money by misusing sources, refusing to source information, removing tags requesting he do so, reverting anything that doesn't support his POV. Two editors have been trying to explain this to him but he seems to be one of these fanatical gold bugs who thinks that gold certificates (an example of "representative money") have to be proved to be "real money," wiki-policies be damned.

I'm going away for a few days and hopefully others with an interest in economics will take a look. Read talk and look especially at these versions: 1' 2, 3. Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that same editor later put in enough refs to slide out of WP:OR category somewhat - since his interpretations can be dubious.

However, the same editor is at it again in History of money article where he's included big section on Representative money which is totally WP:UNDUE. (Since he tends to make stuff up and throw a reference at end, I'm sure there's continuing WP:OR.) It's funny, in 3 years, 3 months, and 12 days of editing, this guy's behavior is the issue that makes me most feel like throwing up my hands and walking away from the project. We need some staffers to spank these kind of guys! oi!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Synth on Albanian nationalism

User:Megistias has changed the direction of the page Albanian nationalism (a week ago) and is applying WP:SYNTH allover the article. This article should also be considered for WP:TE and Vandalism. We would appreciate if anyone would just come and verify this! AnnaFabiano (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For each case that you think is synthesis, please post (or point to) the sentence(s)/phrase(s) in which the synth is perhaps occurring, and post quotations from the sources being used to mint that synthesis.

That's pretty much the only way that someone unfamiliar with the subject can determine if NOR is being abused or not. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply. I did not see your reply. Here are some WP:SYNTH's and Original Research.

• "Albanian nationalism is a general grouping of nationalistic ideologies among ethnic Albanian communities." — (No references)
• "The term is associated with similar concepts, such as Albanianism[1][2][3][4][5] and Pan-Albanianism[6][7], with irredentist aims towards neighboring nations, for the formation of a Greater Albania." — referenced: 1. ...dynamic that would remain essential for understanding the development of Albanianism..., 2. ...the religion of Albanians is Albanianism..., 3. ...frequently then and since, "The religion of the Albanians is Albanianism..., 4. ..Henceforth, Hoxha announced, the only religion would be "Albanianism...", 5. ...form a 'Greater Albania'. Although considerable attention was given to pan-Albanianism in the West... --- (Nowhere is claimed that Albanian nationalism is associated with those concepts).
• "These ideologies were partially adopted during the People's Republic of Albania (1945-1991), which was more focused on Illyrian-Albanian continuity issue[8][9][10]." — referenced: 1. These ideas however were later criticized by scholars from socialist Albania and the Pelasgians were forgotten or at least left aside official history..Although Enver Hoxha himself supported the Pelasgic theory in his own writings, the directions he gave to Albanian archaeologists at the end of the ‘60s focused on the Illyrians and on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity..., 2. ...this mind set the future of Albanians outside the borders could be largely forgotten, and for fifty years families in towns near the border, like Peshkopia, could not even visit relatives a few miles away in Yugoslavia. Thus, where the national question is concerned, the communist state can be compared to someone living on a limited inheritance in a time of inflation. ....Thus there is an organic link between the decline and eventual collapse of on-party-state in 1990-91 and the reopening of the national question....The nationalist and Royalist Right have always claimed that Hoxha was in some ways a betrayer of the nation..., 3. ..but it did little more to encourage Kosovo Albanians to "unite with motherland". Indeed never wanting to create tensions with Yugoslavia, Albania had even returned members of illegal Kosovar groups who had sought shelter within its borders... --- (The first reference is manipulated, the actual file does not say that link - page 4 otherwise it only states that Albanian communist regime worked intensively on Illyrian-Albanian issue. Other references are totally not related to the sentence. And the sentence itself is not related to the previous sentence.)
• "However these ideologies have survived largely intact[12] in modern Albanian society and institutions, as well have a degree of acceptance and proliferation in Kosovo." — (No verifiable reference)

The article is full of Original Research and SYNTH. For more examples you can see the article, or request them from me. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC) (AnnaFabiano)

Since the sentences of the first and fourth point have no references, they're unverifiable and covered by WP:V. The apropos-of-nothing mid-sentence attribution of the clause "However these ideologies have survived largely intact" to "Practice of Archaeology under dictatorship" makes no sense.

As it stands, the sentence of the second point is OR, since the article is saying the term 'Albanian nationalism' is associated with Albanianism and Pan-Albanianism, but the sources do not seem to be saying that (the concepts might be related, but the sources do not seem to be saying that either).

The sentence of the third point is incoherent. The sentence starts with "These ideologies", but there is nothing in the preceding sentence from which to adduce what the "these ideologies" is referring to. What "These ideologies" might be can't be determined from the sources either. Indeed, each of the quotations appears to have nothing in common with any of the other quotations, so even if the prose were fixed such that the subject of the sentence were clear, all those references couldn't possibly be referring to the same thing.

Perhaps the problems could be solved if the authors of those sentences used the talk page to explain what they intended to say? -- Fullstop (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You can see the talk page Talk:Albanian nationalism. The editor that made the article User:Megistias seems to have a personal opinion on that issue and stays firm on it. There was a Third Opinion, which was also ignored. Since I have the same problem with this particular editor in almost all Albanian related articles, I believe that he should be banned from editing in all Albanian related articles so that the articles can develop easily and without edit-waring. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is fully referenced and the refs were so abudant in information-as i doubt i have to exhibit several hundred pages of material- that an admin even shortened them as they took up too much space footnote cleanup,footnote cleanup,footnote cleanup,footnote cleanup.Megistias (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Anna has linked the wrong article above,my article from the same author speaks of Pelasgians.Megistias (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

All my references are verifiable look at the article Albanian nationalism,Anna above has made a "mistake" by linking a 2008 article when my article is 2009 in the article and speaks of Pelasgians.Megistias (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo subsection was already sourced on the issue Albanian_nationalism#Influence_on_movement_toward_Kosovan_secessionism, and i have made soures even more verifiable in the article.The article is referenced fullyMegistias (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• 1,Albanian nationalism is the topic of the more than 50 references in the article.
• 2,Hoxha himself has stated this and the references are directly relating the terms with Albanian nationalism
• 3,An entire subsection Albanian_nationalism#Evolution_under_the_People_Republic_of_Albania analyzes this world known fact *with references.
• 4,An entire subsection Albanian_nationalism#Influence_on_movement_toward_Kosovan_secessionismanalyzes this world known fact *with references.

Those three refs that have now been replaced were a leftover from this version of the page history,that claimed falserly that "This ideologies were left aside during the".Megistias (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors from both parts have used incivil expressions, and I really wonder why Anna C. did not see the highly disruptive comments by User:I_Pakapshem on the same page that made the talk page a major battleground [[2]] [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]] (writing directly to Anna C., no wonder he was immediately blocked). When an article is pov this doesn't mean we have to ban our opposition. Actually the alternative lead proposed by Anna C. is for sure pov too (characteristically, words such as 'nationalistic' or 'nationalist' are total absent) [[8]] but this doesn't mean a concensus can't be reached.Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My material is verifiable, Anna has a personal issue against me,

Diff on my talk page.First contact with Anna she tells me that i spread Propaganda and that i hate Albanians ."You, my friend, are very active in this "Albanians are not Illyrians" propaganda. I would say, you have real hate toward Albanians".

• On Albanian nationalism talk pageMegistias (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

diff on Albanian nationalism,Anna writes."I would not be surprised if it would write "All Albanians are pigs, and they should all burn in hell!".

Almost every single sentence in the article has been referenced, but despite this Issues are being raised with little to no justification.Just because some users dont like the information that an article provides to the public doesnt mean it makes it POV,OR or something that has to vanish.Megistias (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Anna has seen fit not to inform me of the OR and proceeded to adress the following 3 users while i was not even aware of the OR and while she predisposed an OR verdict (with the above methods seen in my response).diff,diff,diffMegistias (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Taxpayer March on Washington

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Taxpayer March on Washington where certain editors have come to the conclusion that all RS (except for The Daily Mail) reporting the crowd estimate as 60-75,000 are leftist and biased (even Fox News and The Washington Times...I'm not kidding) It's gotten to the point where demands for US government satellite images are being "demanded". Repeated discussions and links showing their view is incorrect falls on deaf ears. The article has already been semi-protected, but a group of editors are feverishly "trying to find the truth"; this has resulted in a perfect example of WP:OR. Please see the talk page for evidence. Thank you. APK is a GLEEk 01:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a prime example of what I have noticed recently, Conservatives using Wikipedia as a forum for their fringe views. They have no place here in Wikipedia. Ignore them, but if they edit war use the proper channels to punish them. I do wonder what US government satellite images they want (a satellite would have to actually have been looking at that moment to capture something, we dont just have a dedicated satellite taking images of Washington!) and if there is a US government satellite image...are they planning on doing a head count manually from it?! (hope no one has any hanging chads!) Treat them as the freaks they are. Civility and good faith is reserved for those who use it themselves, they wont listen to reason, they've shown that repeatedly in the discussion already. "Fox News is leftist media", ha!, when a group says that then you know they are fringe and cuckoo. There are plenty of non-biased media outlets like CNN and the New York Times to quote, and it just makes it even better if Fox News is not disputing their numbers.Camelbinky (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Socionics

User:Rmcnew concluded that socionics is hermeticism (see the looooonnng discussion on the talk page) and a protoscience, without direct support from any reliable sources (which, imo, there are only two: http://www.socioniko.net/en/ and http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/). MichaelExe (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely true that this is origional. Psychologists Spencer Stern and Rick Dulong have referred to socionics as a protoscience to avoid claims that socionics is a mystic science or mystic psychology. Also, while it is true that it has not been widely stated that socionics hermeticism, there is evidence that this is the case. I do agree that it could be considered origional research to claim that socionics is hermeticism in the socionics article; however, it is established by Dmitri Lytov and Alexander Bukalov that socionics has similarities and influences to the theories and philosophers who involved themselves cybernetics and synergetics, which are modern revivals of 17th century hermetic science.

There is also other argumentation and proof that socionics is hermeticism, that could be considered speculation, because the lack of direct evidence could mean that the similarities are circumstantial, meaning that some things could have only been losely borrowed from hermetic science, through another source that did borrow from the science, or the fact that socionics is a deductive science (socionics is not an inductive science in the least).

In any case, other than what is stated by a PHD, the speculation remains in the criticism section. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Pacific typhoon season

Some editors are insisting in designating Tropical Depressions with numbers that are not found anywhere. They can't provide any evidence that such a designation has been assigned by an official agency. Therefore, it is clearly an original research.Typhoon2009 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, its unverifiable, which is not the same thing as "original research". -- Fullstop (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, it is original research, unverifiable implies that it may in fact be true but there is no way to verify it, original research is a lack of written published material designating it as such. Unverifiable would be if climatilogists used the system but for some reason never wrote it in a book, this is not that case. This is original research because editors are inventing their own numbers.Camelbinky (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally disagree with this pointless conversation. The JMA Advisories in which the tropical depressions are put on in are archvied on various sites and in the logs on the talkpages, and we can verify which depression formed first which makes it ok to Say TD 1 so its no OR or unverifable and is a routine calculation. Oh and just for information this is the conversation we had about it and came to a consenssus to use the numbers. Jason Rees (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Still OR if only Wikipedia editors are the ones using this number system! You cant, no matter how many editors in your group agree to it, decide on your own way of numbering things. I cant get together with a bunch of editors and decide we'll have the countries of the world numberized, making Iceland=1, Norway=2, Sweden=3, Finland=4, Russia=5, Estonia=6, Latvia=7, Lithuania=8, Belarus=9, etc etc etc. Provide a legitimate source that numbers tropical depressions and not a source that simply lists the depressions in order of formation. Fullstop and Typhoon are correct that you cant use that system.Camelbinky (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu and Pokémon Pocket Monsters

An dynamic IP editor has repeatedly removed information from the article claiming that it is original research and a synthesis to state that a manga series that was serialized in a children's magazine is not targeted to children, referred to as kodomo. —Farix (t | c) 12:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the article Electric Tale of Pikachu, that it's kodomo (yes, I know what that means - targeted to children :) ) is in the article, but not sourced. To my understanding (and trust me, it's far from complete) any claim an article makes has to be referenced. I don't see one for it being Kodomo. I'd say the IP is right _{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 16:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What if sources are wrong?

An article was not started on Chad Schaffner, a man who robbed between 10-15 banks over many different states, who was recently arrested and made the news throughout the United States (including AP wire and CNN, Fox News channel and other national outlets and the major newspapers) and even made the news in the UK and probably was mentioned in other countries. But here is my question concerning if there had been an article written about him, and I'm sure the question applies to certain other articles about people that rely primarily on news outlets- I know for a fact that the information presented in the media concerning his arrest is full of wrong information and much of it is not accurate even in the closest approximation of what happened. What would we do in that situation? It is my word against the published reports of reliable sources. The difference is- I was actually there when the arrest happened, I talked to the police, the FBI, the suspect, his wife, the man who turned him in, and the America's Most Wanted TV representative who showed up two days later; the news outlets did not, in fact the one police officer they do show giving a press conference is one I do not recognize from that day (though he may have been there), and he provides some wrong information. An article written would be full of the media's version of what happened, and unless I somehow got published my account of what happened, how would I be able to say "that information is wrong, it didnt happen that way"? I would probably be accused of original research, though no research was done. Shouldnt we be concerned with truth and not just repeat what published material says? Any suggestions on what to do in similar cases? (or if someone does make an article on that bank robber, though probably it wont happen)Camelbinky (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

NOR is really very simple: thou shalt not write (on Wikipedia) what hath not been written (elsewhere) before.

So, the solution to your problem is this: write your story elsewhere, and ensure the RS revised theirs, and then you may cite them. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a really crappy answer, though most likely all that is allowed on Wikipedia. We should really have a better policy that allows the RS sources to be taken out of an article or at least flagged for our readers that they might not be the full account. I obviously cant get into detail what or why I was there but this whole absoluteness on Wikipedia is ridiculous that RS sources are taken as the word of God even when wrong, this is a perfect example of a problem with Wikipedia. Obviously I'm not going to write a book on this issue, and if I were to correct the statements the news outlets have, I run the risk of ruining my career and if not that then enough time may have already passed where no newsoutlet other than extremely local ones of the area in question would even care, if even those cared. It is a matter of 15 mins of fame. Alot of current events news outlet heavy articles may even be having this problem, the Duggar kidnapped victim, the Casey Anderson murder trail, probably have people out there like me who are saying "well that's not exactly true". There has got to be some sort of medium ground between "oh well, reliable sources need to be taken at their word" and still keep OR out. In my opinion me being there when it happened and having first hand knowledge does not make it OR. There has got to be some way we can keep to high standards of the truth, and not to high standards of copying others information. Wikipedia is not trusted because we simply get things wrong, it has nothing to do with the fact that anyone can edit here, we need to start worrying more about wrong information being cited as fact than we do with making sure there are citations.Camelbinky (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

RS sources are not taken as the word of God. You must be confusing Wikipedia with Conservapedia. :) Unlike them, Wikipedia is not a purveyor of TheTruth^TM, but rather of what verifiable reliable sources say. On Wikipedia, divine revelation is promptly reverted as unverifiable or fringe.

Seriously though... look at it this way: reliability comes from using reliable sources. This is not only true for RSs, but Wikipedia too cannot hope to be considered a reliable source if it does not rely on reliable sources. Get it? -- Fullstop (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I get it, and its frustrating that there, so far, doesnt appear to be a solution to what I see as a major problem. The fact is that in this case every single news outlet then can not be considered a reliable source; they were not there when the arrest occured and they have gotten the facts wrong. Therefore whether it is the AP wire, CNN, or the local ABC affiliate of the area (they at least did show up the next day) they can not be considered reliable. No news outlet was on the scene at all the day it occured. I can understand that some may say "well, your own word on what happened isnt verifiable", I understand that, I'm not asking to be a source myself, I'm just trying to figure out a way that in that type of situation we would be able to say "the news got it wrong, we cant use their reports". I do think we need to worry more about keeping the truth in our articles instead of just saying "its a reliable source, so its reliable", well then if you are going to rely on that, then there is no other choice but to say in this case those news outlets arent reliable, since you are saying we have to rely on reliable sources, in this case I am the more reliable source, I was here and the media was not.Camelbinky (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It is frustrating when one knows that something is false, but can't correct it due to Wikipedia policy. I know there are mistakes in my own "reliable" writings, which could be quoted back at me to "correct" information I have written here on my specialist topic. Fortunately it is not an area that attacts wikilawyers. In practice consensus usually trumps policy, but on matters concerning living people and legal proceedings the 'truth' is subject to strict regulation, just as in real life! Paul B (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone knows what I'm talking about, and has first-hand knowledge of similar situations. Speaking of "legal proceedings" I find it ironic that my testimony, if I was needed to testify which I'm sure I wont, would be admissable in court concerning this matter, but all the media coverage would not be admissable. The exact reverse of what Wikipedia allows! Its all because obviously I couldnt then, and cant now, tell the media what happened because of my job, its not my place to talk to the media and truthfully none of the media or public's right to know this stuff anyways despite what the media says about "the people have a right to know", and therefore they got the story messed up by talking to people who werent there and by assuming things they couldnt possibly verify. If I had been allowed to have a press conference, I could have set the matter straight. The America's Most Wanted representative does have the right information, but unless they decide to do a story on his capture I wont have a published source for the RIGHT information because they are the only ones in a position to publish the information, everyone else with the truth really cant. (Some of the news reports claim the bank robber was featured on the tv show, he was never featured on the tv show, he was only on the AMW website though they may have been planning an episode on him)Camelbinky (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a second. You need reliable sources to put information in, not to take it out. False information does not belong on Wikipedia, even if it has a "reliable" source. I'm not aware of any policy that says otherwise. -- Zsero (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Read (or re-read) WP:V, which clearly says that the standard for including something in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth". I agree that this policy sometimes leads to troublesome results, but the problem is that there are some subjects where people simply cannot and will not ever agree on what is "true". If a source can be shown to be unreliable per WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, etc., then it (plus whatever it was "substantiating" in an article) could of course be taken out. Richwales (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Zsero is right. If information presented in wikipedia is known to be false, then it has to go, regardless of what allegedly "reliable" sources say about it. It is not wikipedia's place to publish original research. But it is also not wikipedia's place to present false information as if it were true. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:VERIFY the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I gather Camelbinky is a primary source, per WP:PSTS. If the sources are wrong, then eventually more accurate sourcing will appear, or if Camelbinky chooses, s/he can have a more accurate source published which can can then be cited. Is there a particular article this refers to, or is this a hypothetical question. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The word "verify" means "to make true". If an alleged fact is known to be false, it is not appropriate to state it in wikipedia as if it were true. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Here's a trivial hypothetical: Let's suppose that the only source I can find, and let's say it's The Wall Street Journal, states that President Obama has green skin. You could include that with its source. Or you could say he has brown skin, which would be original research. Or you could say nothing about it at all, because the only source is clearly wrong. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The evidence is overwhelming [9]. 12:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant when I wrote that "in practice consensus usually trumps policy". If all active editors agree that a "fact" in a reliable source is not a fact at all, then it can be corrected. That's fine where there is no ideological conflict at stake or wiki-pedants who insist that the source says X so Wikipedia must say X, even though everyone who knows about the topic accepts that it's an error. Muntuwandi/Wapondaponda is being naive, I think, when he says that "eventually more accurate sourcing will appear." There are many areas in which published reliable sources are few, and in which a mistake can be copied from one source to the next - even in academic literature. Paul B (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can convince the rest of us that the sources are wrong, it would be asinine to include such information. Anyone who seeks to include information that they believe to be false (and not simply outdated) because the sources say it should be banned. For instance, if Poor's Manual of Railroads says a railroad extended to Mountaintop, but all other sources show it going only to Foothills and don't mention Mountaintop at all, and no grade up the mountain is visible on topographic maps, we can assume that Poor's is incorrect (and was probably reporting on a proposed extension). But we can't then say that an extension to Mountaintop was proposed, since we don't have any reliable sources for that.

On the other hand, if we believe, as an editorial judgment, that the sources are more likely to be correct than you, we can and should state what's in the sources. The obvious example of this is fringe theories, where an editor may be convinced that George Washington was born in Uganda and that all the sources are incorrect. --NE2 13:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that consensus trumps sources. However the guidelines have been established for a reason. We cannot take the word of a wikipedian without some sort of independent verification. If the sources are wrong and there is a way for an independent person to verify that the source is wrong, then it shouldn't be used. But if the source is wrong because of the opinion of a wikipedian, then that won't do. In many of the articles I have been dealing with, some scholars publish fringe theories that don't make sense and will obviously be debunked in the future. However, as these studies appear in peer reviewed journals, we have no choice but to include them per NPOV, if an editor insists. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The unfortunate wording "verifiability not truth" sometimes leads editors to think that "truth" does not matter. That's not the case. Truth does matter. But it's not enough. It must be backed up by reliable sources. To "verify" means to "make true". That's what the sources do. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean all points of view. If all other editors agree to keep it out, the insisting editor loses. --NE2 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording "verifiability not truth" can be misunderstood. Truth is in fact more important than verifiability, but verifiability is what keeps the truth in check. More often than not, something that can be verified in reliable sources is true. Cases where all reliable sources get it completely wrong do occur, but they happen less often. This is why "verifiability not truth" will on average still work out to deliver the truth. If CNN, BBC, New York Times and Al Jazeera all publish similar information, should we believe the unpublished opinion of a wikipedian acting as a primary source who believes otherwise- unless there is a conspiracy theory. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've stayed out of the discussion I've called so that it may flow freely and cover more than just the situation I presented. I do come back to this discussion to address Wapondaponda's last sentence of his/her last post, if it was directed at my specific issue. Yes, of those sources you stated that covered this story (sorry but I cant verify if Al Jazeera covered the story and if they got it right, maybe they did!) I am not saying there was a conspiracy to get it wrong. I am saying they got it wrong because the news media relies on the AP wire to such an extent that pretty much all coverage was a carbon copy. I guess in a way I am a primary source because I was at the location and saw what happened and no representative of the media was present (if they had shown up the state police had already been asked to threaten them with tresspassing if they remained), and they never spoke to the suspect, his wife, or the FBI agents on the scene, and I did. So, yes, it is my word versus theirs, but if I was willing to lose my job I could scan and download to Wikipedia internal documentation that proves 1- I was here, and 2- corroborate what I say is true and the news media simply got things wrong. This happens when people involved in crimes are told "dont talk to the media", I cant get my story out. I'm sure this happens more than you think because people involved in crimes dont cooperate with the media and the police spokesman talking to the media has no first hand knowledge of what happens because he/she wasnt there and they may not have all the information because he is not the one who spoke to the suspect and isnt involved in the case, he's just a spokesman (which seems to have happened in this case when the police spokesman spoke on the camera because he was contradicted by the America's Most Wanted representative and by the suspects wife, both of which I met).Camelbinky (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you're all making this far more complicated than it needs to be. Reliable sources are needed to include a statement of fact, but they are not required to exclude one. That is the sum and total of it. If anyone here thinks I'm mistaken, please cite the policy or even guideline that says so. -- Zsero (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "[reliable sources] are not required to exclude" a statement of fact. However, as far as I can tell, WP:NPOV requires us to include all significant views which have been published by reliable sources, and doesn't allow editors to leave stuff out because they believe it is not true.

In my view, using verifiability, not truth, as the threshold for inclusion, doesn't mean that we are presenting material in Wikipedia as the truth, we are just stating that it has been published by credible, competent sources, and is not our own work. As long as readers understand that, I don't see a problem with it. It's not our remit to assess all material published by reliable sources and decide whether it's true or not - that is essentially original research. --hippo43 (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to present information as factual if it is known to be non-factual. We are editors, not mindless parrots. The way around the problem, in your scenario, is basically to say "so-and-so says this". That's especially applicable for fringe theories. An obvious example is the alleged Apollo moon landing hoax. The article doesn't say we didn't land on the moon. It merely cites the opinions of those who make that claim. But go back to my example from earlier. Suppose there was only one source that described Obama's skin color, and said he was green. Suppose that was in the Wall Street Journal, which by anyone's reckoning would be a "reliable source". You might say, "according to WSJ, Obama is green". That gets wikipedia off the hook. But you can't just say "Obama is green", because that's clearly false. So it's better to simply exclude it altogether. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything that is false, but still cited, must be removed for the safety of our readers. We cant go around spreading false information just because it has a citation. Fringe theories are a different matter, that I have no opinion on, because they are fringe theories and the articles make that clear so we are already not promoting that information as fact. In a mainstream article, even if clarified with a statement as "according to xyz news" or "according to abc, author of jkl book" we are, by citing it and putting it in our article, implicitly saying we trust the source and its information. Something is false, remove it.Camelbinky (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the view "if it is false, remove it" is that editors occasionally disagree on what is false, and the way those disagreements are resolved is by sticking to what reliable sources say, and if necessary carefully attributing statements to sources. --hippo43 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My problem is, to convince "the rest of us, that the sources are wrong" I need to do OR, I need to rely on primary sources. If somebody manages to place a statement about a "fake" incident, how can I prove that it has never happened? I will not find any secondary source, as nobody writes about things that did not occur. This problem will not occur when the author of an article is forced to present a primary source or a secondary source that fully reveals its primary sources. In this case everybody can verify the statements. If the author presents only secondary sources everybody can only verify whether he is able to make a correct quotation.

If I read an article on wikipedia I want to read facts (= relied on primary sources) and not opinions (= secondary sources). Having primary sources at hand I can verify facts, but with secondary sources I can only verify, that it has been written elsewhere. Would´nt this reduce wikipedia to some kind of a comfortable search engine? -- 82.113.106.99 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War

On the article Gaza War we document a dispute over how police killed during the conflict are classified by various groups. The Israeli government has asserted that they are "combatants" while a number of NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights have classified them as civilians or non-combatants. A report by the UN, specifically the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), covers casualties from 2005-2008 prior to the conflict. As part of their report they include Israeli police, border police and military in a category "Israeli security forces". One user is attempting to use this in the section on the dispute about the classification of police killed during this conflict. The OCHA report makes no mention of whether or not police are presumptively civilians or if the police killed in their reports are actually civilians or combatants, but it does include them with security forces while not actually saying they are combatants. But it does not address the casualties of this conflict at all, nor does it address the controversy over how to classify police killed during this conflict. My contention is that including this edit in the section on disputes over police killed in this conflict is original research to advance an argument. Each of the sources used in that section are explicitly discussing police killed in this conflict. The information that the OCHA report includes police in "Israeli security forces" is already included in the background section where we use the numbers from OCHA to provide statistics on the violence that preceded this conflict. But one user has been attempting to force in to the section dealing with casualties of this conflict the information that does not deal with the arguments presented in that section, placing it next to arguments that are specifically dealing with police killed during the Gaza War. Is it original research to include this line in a section dealing with a topic it does not mention at all? See also Talk:Gaza_War#police. nableezy - 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a clear-cut case of synthesis. I suspect the editor making that edit is probably correct factually, but I don't think this edit is in accord with policy.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is factually correct but in this section it is used to advance an argument that is not made in the source. The factually correct aspect is included where it is relevant, in the background section where it is discussing the OCHA numbers. nableezy - 22:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Then it is a fairly open and shut case of synthesis. There's really no getting around that, unless I am missing something.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello JohnnyB256. Thank you for joining the Talk:Gaza_War#police. nableezy helped me to improve my edit. The article says that: The IDF included police in the militant's count. I propose phrasing: Israeli Police and Israeli Border Police reported between 2005 and 2008 with Armed Forces as "Israeli Security Forces" by United Nations OCHA-oPt.. Based on following source sentence: Israeli security forces – are defined as any member of the Armed Forces, the Police and the Border Police.. Hope there is no ambiguity here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

But sorry, the way it is used is synthesis. I've responded further on the talk page for Gaza. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you've put words into my mouth. Did you read the discussion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly the main basis of my thoughts on this was just looking at the edit itself, rather than the rather emotional discussion from both sides, which frankly I just didn't find very helpful. Evidently every word in this article has been argued over a zillion times, as evidenced by 56 archive pages.

I do think that it would be very helpful if more editors would please come in and comment on this. It really boils down to a simple question: does this edit constitute synthesis? In my feeling it does, but I could be wrong, and on an article of this sensitivity there really needs to be more input from uninvolved editors. I noticed, to my surprise, that this very lengthy and detailed article, which struck me as a very good piece of work, was only rated "start" by two of the projects in which it resides. Obviously there is a problem there, though I'm not sure what it is. More uninvolved editors are clearly needed.

In other words, help!!! Send in the peacekeepers.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

JohnnyB256, appreciate your opinion. Could you clarify how the addition violates WP:SYN? What is not allowed is combining multiple sources ( not a case here ) or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The source (and addition) clearly say: "UN OCHA-oPt put Israeli Police in the same row of their report table with IDF". Am I missing something? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded to the above on the talk page. I have a suggestion: since this is under the aegis of several projects, why not post a neutral note in one or all of them asking for input. You going back and forth with nableezy is not going to accomplish anything, as neither of you is going to convince the other. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(restoring indent) Maybe you could see this addition as irrelevant (syned) if you read the paragraph as HRW and PCHR opinions on Palestinian police classification by Israel and Israeli response. Maybe if we consider neutrality we'd see it as police classification dispute in general. The OCHA source used in the article to provide "background" info about I/P conflict in general. UN OCHA-oPt is secondary source which provides neutral information on the belligerent police force classification precedent. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But I read that as an Israeli view of the Israeli police, not the Palestinian police. All you need is for the source to make that point clearly for it not to be, in my view, synthesis. We have to be precise, particularly in contentious articles.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... do you read the UN OCHA-oPt provides Israeli view? I'd say the phrase is probably supported by source (Terminology chapter , page 4) and it was included in Background section by nableezy during discussion. Out of context if you ask me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaza massacre

I'm concerned about the article first sentence:

The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Template:Lang-he) by Israel, and known as the Gaza massacre (Template:Lang-ar) in parts of the Arab and Muslim world...

Supporters of Gaza massacre parsing claim that the name each of the involved parties used, Operation Cast Lead and Gaza massacre, are placed in bold in the lead. There are many sources using "massacre rhetoric" around the world: a number of sources have been provided showing that this was the name used in among both Arabs and much of the Arab press, and, most importantly, by Hamas, the government of Gaza. Though other sources were provided where Hamas leaders called the event Gaza War, i.e. "common name". This phrasing sparkles a lot of contention: probably 10 complete archive pages, of the current 50+, are devoted to this issue, thus consensous is not very wide.

Such a name is clearly "leading" and probably constitutes an OR: none of the sources mention that "Name for Gaza War in the Arab world is Gaza Massacre". Instead many sources are synthesized to reach this "naming" conclusion. Your opinion is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This was the name used by BBC Arabic, Al-Jazeera (Arabic), Ma'an News Agency, al-Ahram, and many more news agencies, and was the name used by Hamas in numerous statements. See also here. nableezy - 16:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I raised this point myself on the talk page, and discussion belongs either there or on the NPOV noticeboard. This is not an OR issue as it is amply sourced, but is more of a neutrality issue, though i understand it has been discussed many times. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If the "massacre" part is properly sourced, it cannot be considered OR. I just added another common name for the war, which is thoroughly sourced ie "Israel's war against Hamas" -- gets over a million g-hits when it is in quotes. Almost 3 million sans the quotes. I agree the "massacre" word could be considered POV especially emboldened. It is essentially an opinion. It is also Israel's contention that it is fighting "a Hamas Terror war in Gaza" [10] but we don't call it "Hamas' terror war against Israel" just because Israelis call it that. Either way {massacre/terror war} - it is a descriptive opinion, not a description, ie "war". Stellarkid (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There are problems with your addition, raised on the talk page of the article. nableezy - 06:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Right or wrong, this is not the place to discuss it. Clearly a question of balance, neutrality, not original research.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of NPOV arbitration. I'd just say that such strange officially neutral naming does not really enjoy consensus. And if you look through SYN eyes on it it is kind of fun: mix a lot of sources which call the event Gaza massacre and imply this is belligerent name. There are Gaza massacre sources in archives from all around the world, so there is also wide possibility to interpretation on region where such naming is valid. I still have concerns here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not arbitration, a noticeboard.[11]. You might have a shot there, an arguable case. I just bluntly think it's a waste of time to say that the Arab world doesn't use the term "massacre", and that someone just made it up. That simply does not seem to be the case. I'm not being bureaucratic here, just trying to point you to the right venue.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the more exact phrasing is that the event has been described as massacre. Both Gaza PM and Hamas head of politburo (the belligerent) called the event Gaza War in their victory speeches. Implying massacre being a belligerent name is synthed out of many sources describing the event. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue does belong here. The few reliable sources in which the term massacre are found only use the term in their quotes of Hamas spokepersons and other such propogandists. No mainstream reliable source has ever said "This is called the 'Gaza Massacre' by ........." Thus, using snippets to create illusion that this is a term used in mainstream sources violated WP:OR. The prominent display in the lede of this country-defaming term violates wp:npov as well, and belongs on the POV Noticeboard as well. But its far harder to reach a fair consensus over the subjective POV then the more objective OR, especially when dealing with bunches of Facebook recruits.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Any specific "Facebook recruits" you have in mind? And if looking for the name Hamas used why would we not use quotes from Hamas? And would you also like to remove anything sourced to the Israeli MFA and other such propagandists? nableezy - 04:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, I doubt that you'd find many non-Israeli sources referring to the Gaza war as "Operation Cast Lead." My concern about having the word "massacre" in the first sentence in boldface relates to neutrality. "Operation Cast Lead" does not present such a problem as it is a neutral-sounding name given to the operation by the Israeli army, whereas "massacre" implies a host of things that are POV. That's why I keep referring to this venue as inappropriate. Whether or not this is synthesis, it presents a neutrality issue quite so high. Neutrality trumps all other concerns. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Johnny. Maybe if the Gaza government had chosen a name like "Fight for Gaza" then there wouldn't be such a brouhaha. But some editors regard the Gaza term as objectionable, and so want to remove it. But as long as it carries an inline citation I think putting the term up alongside Israel's term is ultimately what we have to do, per policy, for neutrality -- as Wiki does not censor. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm not saying definitively that there is a neutrality issue, and should have used the word "possible" in describing that concern. Assuming the synthesis issue is resolved, there will then be a neutrality question that needs to be definitively disposed of. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC) To repeat a point I made to another editor: I'm not taking a position on the lead, one way or the other. I don't want editors citing me in order to support their position in the edit war. My feeling is that there is a deadlock and that there needs to be more dispute resolution.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Agada Urbanit and Brewcrewer that this does belong here. Virtually every verifiable English source that has been presented (at least recently) refers to the opinion that the assault on Gaza was a "massacre." This is why the RS's do not identify it as "The Gaza Massacre." Here at WP some editors wish to use their own understanding of Arabic and English grammar rules to claim that "The Gaza Massacre" is the Arabic or Hamas' equivalent of the name of the event, therefore entitled to be in the lede, emboldened as is "Operation Cast Lead." The trouble is that the English sources do not support this and per WP:NONENG we should be using RS as our standard, not other WP editors. The other issue has to do with standard English grammar, as supporters of "The Gaza massacre" as a name insist against all authority [12] that proper nouns do not need to be capitalized. Thus this appears to be an agenda-driven issue, and every change is reverted and met with yowls of "editing against consensus" WP:CCC, ridicule, and warnings posted on other editors' talk pages. With respect to the sources given below:

1. A piece in Arabic not easily verifiable
2. IslamOnline -this is the only one that even comes close to supporting the contention with this: "Hereby we are presenting a couple of press releases issued by some of the Muslim organizations in Europe as a reaction to the Gaza Massacre." Every other reference refers to "these massacres" "ruthless massacres" "horrendous massacres" "bloody massacres" "the first few hours of the massacre"
3. An opinion piece, with even the word "massacre" in the title in small letters, referring to "the coldly calculated massacre...." and "the massacre in Gaza," consistently chanting the word over and over in a variety of contexts. It is totally a value judgment and not an RS. It includes such (POV ) comments as "we deplore the 'myth of Israel' as perpetual victim" etc
4. From the Palestine Monitor. Nowhere in the article is "massacre" capitalized. In fact, they talk of the "recent massacre" "their attack, or massacre"

We have been told over and over that Hamas calls it such but no one has yet shown that either. No one objects to including that the Muslims and Arabs consider this a "massacre" but we do object to it being emboldened and equated with OCL and Gaza War in the very first few lines of this article. This is a value judgment masquerading as a "name" in order to give the impression that Wikipedia puts its stamp of approval (consensus) on the so-called name, "Gaza Massacre," when in fact it is not so. Stellarkid (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NONENG allows for sources from other languages provided the relevant section is quoted and translated. And the translations that we have from RS also show Hamas representatives calling the conflict "the Gaza massacre". We do not restrict ourselves to English sources, especially when we are looking for an Arabic name. And the "yowls" are about edit-warring against consensus, bit of a difference. nableezy - 19:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a short list of sources showing Hamas using this as the name of the conflict. Each of the names below is either a Hamas official or spokesman:

• Sami Abu Zuhri: ".طاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدولية"
  Translation: "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the Gaza massacre on the flimsiest of pretexts will not withstand the results of international inquiries."^[13]
• Fawzi Barhoom: "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."^[14][15]
• Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre" ^[16]
• Raafat Morra: "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre."^[17]
• Khaled Meshal: "واكد انه بعد "مجزرة غزة لن يكون هناك تبادل للجندي (جلعاد) شاليط ولا تهدئة.
  Translation: He stressed that after "the Gaza massacre there will be no calm or an exchange for the soldier (Gilad) Shalit."^[18]
• Khaled Meshal: "الرد على مجزرة غزة هو ما سيرى الكيان الصهيوني لا ما سيسمع"
  Translation: "the response to the Gaza massacre is not what the Zionist entity will hear but what it will see."^[19]
• Mousa Abu-Marzouk: "إن موجة الأمل التي قابلت انتخابك تضاءلت بشكل كبير بسبب صمتك على مجزرة غزة"
  Translation: "The wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre"^[20][21]

nableezy - 19:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not synthesis. There may be other issues, but this isn't it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy you say that "WP:NONENG allows for sources from other languages provided the relevant section is quoted and translated." While you are technically correct that WP does allow it, it actually says "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." It could be considered the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law. There are a number of sources that do refer to the "Gaza massacre" but as has been pointed out ad nauseum, they do not follow the rules for proper nouns, and therefore cannot be considered an official name, like "Operation Cast Lead", but instead a characterization of the Gaza War. As such it is opinion and POV and does not belong in the lede. Stellarkid (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life violence

Talk page discussion was here Talk:Pro-life movement#Violence against pro-lifers. More input there would be appreciated. Basically, is it original research to create a novel list of incidents of violence against pro-lifers taken from random news clippings if there are no secondary sources here.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

McDojo

The vast majority of this article consists of original research, and my attempts to remove it have been reverted several times. There are only two sources that even use the term, both of which are passing mentions, so following our sourcing policies this article should be no more than a stub. The article currently has 5 in-line citations, but three of them do not even use the term a single time. I would appreciate if an uninvolved editor could take a look at this and assist in removing unreferenced material. *** Crotalus *** 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The choice of name seems to be semi-arbitrary. This may be a legitimate topic, but perhaps a neutrally descriptive title should be used, with McDojo and Bullshido redirecting. Paul B (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its mostly OR. And, perhaps "belt factory", which is mentioned in the Urban Dictionary's entry for McDojo (and is a redirect there), would be an appropriate umbrella term for McDojo and Bullshido. -- Fullstop (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Argox (breathing gas)

This entire article appears to be original research, as well as bordering on fiction. There is no such breathing gas as "argox" used in scuba diving, and the article appears to be concerned purely with how a mixture of argon and oxygen could be used a breathing gas. The only cited source which mentions breathing a gas containing argon is a study in rats, and it does not use the term "argox". The references are used to show that such a breathing gas could be used, rather than showing evidence that it ever has actually been used. A google search of the term "argox" in the context of scuba diving appears to only produce results derived from this article. 203.38.222.94 (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, I don't see much evidence that a mixture of argon and oxigen is even called "argox" by the scuba community. A Google books search turns up very few hits that refer to argox as a gas... but it is unclear if this is the same mixture that the article claims is used in the scuba context. Surely if "argox" was a common scuba term it would show up in all sorts of scuba related sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually "Argox" is cited in one of the external links. But that link also indicates that it is rarely used[22]. "Argox is still very rarely used and tested gas for breathing gas' inert component, and argon is mostly used pure as a dry suit inflation gas because of it's good thermal characteristics and relatively cheap price." I agree that there is insufficient sourcing for an article on argox as a breathing gas. Should be folded into scuba diving.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

NOR overreach

See the last several edits on [23]. I have added an observation that two episodes have the same title (feat of Clay). I did not provide a source because 1 I can't find one and 2 it's an obvious observation and there is no dispute that the episodes have the same title. I know I have read before that providing a comparison of data, without analysis, does not require a source. That is what I am doing. --Ephilei (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A clarification (because it is not clear from your comment)... Looking at the link, the issue isn't there are two episodes of Birds of Prey (TV series) entitled "Feet of Clay", but rather that there is an episode by that name in Birds of Prey, and an episode by that name in Batman: The Animated Series... a completely different TV show. Mentioning the fact that two seperate TV shows entitle episodes with the same name is, in my opinion, essentially trivia (not worth mentioning). As for OR, because these titles come from seperate sources, mentioning them together implies that there is a connection between them... that is WP:SYNT. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, they are different shows. Are you meaning trivia is not allowed in WP? There is a connection: both titles of episodes of tv shows about Batman characters, the titles refer to the antagonist of each episode. Now, whether there is a connection beyond that, there is no source. Originally, I edited to say there was a production connection which was incorrect of me. --Ephilei (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way... Trivia is highly discouraged. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, highly. -- Fullstop (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

North Carolina Tar Heels football

Editor keeps on adding wp:or that the UNC football team receives favorable treatment from officials and has close relationship with conference commissioner. I reverted twice but user keeps on adding. Want to avoid 3rr. Example: [24] Thanks.

That's not OR that's vandalism.Camelbinky (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Typical positions in left-right politics

Does this table violates NOR and SYNTH? Specially contentious is presentation of views on science. -- Vision Thing -- 08:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ack KILLITWITHFIREYes. There are plenty of anti-mainstream-science folk on both 'left' and 'right' sides - it just depends which fields of science you look at. --GenericBob (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a lot of OR in that chart. Left-right politics do not break down as neatly as this chart implies, and it leaves out all sorts of shades of grey that exist. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

GenericBob: Here is what one of the sources cited for the section on science has to say about that, "At its most basic level, the modern Right's tension with science springs from conservatism, a political philosophy that places a strong value upon preserving traditional social structures and institutions. ... From Galileo to Darwin and beyond, this conflict has played out repeatedly over history." The Republican War on Science, page 5. The book goes on to acknowledge that some liberals have also been anti-science, but asserts that there is nothing in the philosophy of liberalism that opposes scientific progress in the same way that conservative philosophy opposes scientific progress, because of the changes it brings to existing institutions.

Blueboar: I agree that the table is a bad idea, and should be replaced with information in paragraph form. The table suggests that the Left and the Right are polar opposites, rather than points along a continuum.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article be based on more than "The Republican War on Science" ... one (somewhat simplistic and biased) book is hardly enough to make definitive and unhedged claims as to what "conservative philosophy" actually is... there are a lot of Republicans( and conservatives) who have absolutely no problem with modern science. Just as there are liberals who are "anti-science" there are conservatives who are "pro-science"... and both liberals and conservatives who take every stance in between. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of references to the disputed section. I expanded one. I could expand others. As for The Republican War on Science, here is what Scientific American said, "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists". Do you have a similarly reputable source for your claim that the book is "somewhat simplistic and biased"? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has subscriptions to Discover, Scientic American, Popular Science, National Geographic, and US News and World Report among other magazines that I pick up every month at the grocery store regarding science and/or politics I can tell you that it is very well cited in alot of places the belief that the Republican Party has a problem with science. No one, as far as I have read or watched on CNN or CNBC (the two places I get my news from) has said "ALL" Republicans and/or Conservatives (or "small c" conservatives) have a problem with science. But as a whole, the party has an image-problem, and that is very verifiable. Not everyone who identifies with a party or is registered to a party or even runs on a party's line for office holds the views of that party's plank, whether it is the state or the national party's plank, and some state parties do hold positions (usually only slightly) different than the national party. An article about the Republican Party's perceived views regarding science is a notable and verifiable topic that should be written about (and handed out to all potential voters around 2011, except in Kansas).Camelbinky (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the review of The Republican War on Science in The Washington Post. It describes a book as "the journalist in him won out over the scholar, for he ends up trying to reduce the subject's complexities to the "good guy/bad guy" categories of TV polemicists. The resulting book is ill-formulated, overwrought and surprisingly unconvincing." and "Mooney has produced a book without much intellectual gravity. Instead, he offers a kind of conspiracy theory, which might be summarized thus: "If Republicans support a certain science policy, it's bad. If they oppose it, it's good." [...] when Mooney tries to distinguish between bad (i.e., Republican-backed) and good (anti-Republican) science, he applies these logical criteria in wildly inconsistent ways, according to whether they uphold his political prejudices." -- Vision Thing -- 08:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Which leads us to this question: whose views on the subject of science are more reliable, the reviewer for Scientific American or the reviewer for the Washington Post? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither. It means we need more than just an opinion piece as the primary source for such a contention. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

But Scientific American says that the book in question is "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced". If the reviewer for Scientific American is correct, the book is a good reference. The Washington Post says that the book is "ill-formulated, overwrought and surprisingly unconvincing". If the reviewer for the Washington Post is correct, the book is not a good reference. We could turn to, say Library Journal, to see what it had to say about the relative value of Scientific American and The Washington Post, but then someone could challenge Library Journal as biased, leading to infinite regress. We could supply other reviews, from Book Review digest, but thens someone could challenge Book Review digest as biased. Either we accept some sources: The World Almanac, Encyclopedia Britannica, The Oxford English Dictionary, and (I think) Scientific American as authoritative, or we just give up, and nothing can be established. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether the 'left' or the 'right' has a problem with science depends on the context. This debate is not about the left and the right, it's about Republican and Democratic party politics in the USA. The Conservative and Labour parties in the UK are right and left, but there is no correlation to the US right's reliance on the conservative Christian vote, and no particular 'right wing' dislike of science. Ideological free marketeers of the 'right' tend to dislike Climate Change science, but then again feminists of the left often dislike Sociobiological arguments. In the Communist Soviet Union science was disliked if it contradicted state ideology. Modern US experience seems to be being generalised here. Paul B (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul B is right. The distinctions made by that table don't work in a global context. And Blueboar's and Rick Norwood's earlier comments -- that the boundaries are not as clear cut as the table would lead a reader to believe -- are also valid.

The "which source do we use" question applied to sources like The Republican War on Science isn't really appropriate here. An article that intends to cover left-right characterizations in a global context can't assume that US-centric characterizations apply everywhere. That source would presumably be valid if the context were US politics, but its not applicable to "typical positions", as the section title states.

Indeed, the article should be using sources that distill that sort of thing from the ground up, and not resort to gluing together disparate country-specific sources. That's essentially the NOR violation in this case. ps: Slapping disparate sources together is a tip-off that the editors know how to use a search engine but otherwise don't have a clue of the literature on the subject. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Then change the article to being about left-right politics (or Democratic-Republican, or Red-Blue if you want) in the US and forget making the article international. I dont know why people are bringing up the UK and international concerns about the content or idea of an article regarding the Red state/blue state right/left Republican/Democratic conservative/progressive divide in the US. That is a verifiable and notable topic. Why does anyone think an article regarding that is not a topic that can be written about? I read plenty of books regarding it first as a poli sci major and as a grad student, I've written plenty of papers and articles regarding the perception of that split in the electorate of the US. I say the perception because Fiorina among others have shown the US isnt split red/blue, its just a perception.Camelbinky (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the examples given of right-wing oposition to science do not come from the US, and even the book The Republican War on Science, which is obviously about US politics, discusses the general subject of right-wing oposition to science outside of the US. The point which the cited book makes is not that some people on the Right sometimes oppose science, but rather the more general point that people on the Right value tradition, and science often goes against tradition. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR of sections claiming "Historically significant social movements"

This diff removes two sections entitled "Historically significant social movements of non-propertarian libertarianism" and "Historically significant social movements of non-propertarian libertarianism." The editor immediately reverted the sections and refuses to admit a) he is deciding what is historically significant; b) the first one isn't even referenced; and c) the third one is referenced by biased sources who are talking more about conservatives than libertarians. Comments in relevant talk section appreciated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Song name

Hi, if a song is recognizable but its name is not noted in the source is it then original research to add the name to the description (specifically in File:Ram Narayan - Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg I recognize that he performs Raga Jog, and I also own a recording where Sabri Khan performs the same composition, and it's in several versions on YouTube as well, but I have no source for this being Jog in the specific video)? Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Me and Romeo & Juliet, down by the schoolyard.

Might someone give a ruling on my proposed addition to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Me_and_Julio_Down_by_the_Schoolyard ?

"Cryptic" proof of a love story

roMEo & JULIet Good-bye to RO__O_______E_ See? You, __Me_ & Julio_ down by the schoolyard.

Turns out it was a cryptic crossword clue.

"Deletions consist of beheadments, curtailments, and internal deletions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_crossword#Deletions

Romeo and Juliet, One beheadment, one internal deletion, and one slightly imperfect curtailment, and one masterpiece becomes the title for another. Me and Julio, down by the schoolyard.

Also : - "The House of Detention" was a WOMEN'S prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Women%27s_House_of_Detention

I cracked this one a few days ago. Any thoughts on how to revise the song page?

Prophit1970 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't put it in at all. There's a rule on Wikipedia: no original research. You may or not be right, but until you fall under the nebulous and not very well defined rules on reliable sources, you can't get it added to the article.

unsigned edit by User:Captainktainer

Hello, unsigned editor. By original research, did you mean:

a) Cross-referencing the NY House of Detention article? or b) Observing that Ro-o + Me = Romeo ?

Both of those may be verified easily - in Wikipedia, or by listening to the lyrics.

Prophit1970 (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard, this is emphatically original research. If this analysis hasn't been previously published in a third-party reliable source, no way is it acceptable for inclusion. I do cryptic crosswords, and it looks deeply unconvincing anyway: more like the alphabetical equivalent of numerology. 86.148.153.199 (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Is putting a quote in context WP:SYN?

At 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance an editor removed what was quite a bit of OR. He also removed this: [25] which I've put back. Basically the issue is that the author of the book, Gavin Menzies, has misused a quote and the edit tries to show this. It may well be OR or Syn, and if so is there any way to handle something like this where there is no reliable source making the point? If people think it should be removed, I'll remove it. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the diff [26] I'd have to say it looks definitely OR unless someone else has made this analysis of Menzies' use of the quote. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. It's so difficult with this fringe stuff that's so blatantly bogus that no one takes it seriously enough to respond to it. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But a dig in Google News for mid-2008 could well find other reviews - you'd have to be even-handed and include positive and negative, but for instance, there's this Telegraph review and this one from the New Zealand Herald ("But 1434 suffers from the full range of logical errors that also saw 1421 pilloried by experts"). The later mentions the selective quoting: "The most obvious explanations ... are selectively plundered for support, or bypassed entirely"). Or there's this Otago Times one. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've run out of time for a few weeks for doing this sort of thing, but I'll post them to the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Boiling frog

I have some concern with how heating rates have been calculated and used in the Boiling frog article (in the Biological background section, paragraph beginning with "Goltz raised the temperature...") First, I'm not sure if calculating a rate of heating based on existing numbers of time elapsed, and beginning and end temperatures would fall under routine calculations, and second, the resulting rates are compared and contrasted in a way that none of the sources used in the article do. And that this in turn works to lend undue weight to one side of the crux that is the center of the article (ie: whether the rate at which water is heated is central to the behavior of frogs.) If anyone with more experience with original reseach could take a look, it'd be much appreciated. Siawase (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The different heating rates were noted by Sedgwick as an explanation for why the different experiments had different results, as cited in the article, but he remained qualitative and never calculated the difference. The calculation for Goltz's experiment is based on the numbers given in the Offerman article, which gave a temperature difference and a time range: "He heated the frogs in about 90 minutes from a temperature of about 21 degrees C to about 37.5 degrees C." The other number is a direct conversion of degrees/second to degrees/minute, which certainly fall under routine calculations. So the crux here is whether it's ok to take (37.5-21)/90. Rsheridan6 (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the above reply was from the editor that added the material in question. If anyone uninvolved could give some input, that'd be great. Siawase (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Kube (formerly known as k-b-l-e?)

(Note: the article section this thread refers to is Glenn Beck#Radio.) Maybe the following problem could serve as a primer as to what is and isn't (inappropriate) "original research" on Wikipedia. (Either that, or it may reveal how their are two camps on Wikipedia who interpret the "no original research" policy on Wikipedia differently. We'll find out is the case, depending on how the comments stack up here, I guess -- assuming anyone chimes in with their opinions here, as I hope they will!) OK. Here goes.

[This -- ] P r o b l e m [ -- has to do with Glenn Beck].

[And now the -- ] B a c k g r o u n d

You see, OK, Glenn as a youth and his buds would reenact Golden Age of Radio scripts at this radio station in a rural area where he grew up, which broadcast from the town of Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A. . . . But here is where there is a dispute among editors to the BLP. One camp believes that --

Two years later, at age 15, Glenn began to work part-time in the big city of Seattle at a station with the call letters of K-B-L-E, at 93 on the FM dial, [where, incidentally, yada yada, Glenn would deejay R-'n'-R music on his shift Sundays, C-&-W tunes on his shifts weeknights, and inspirational hymns or whatnot in a Christian-radio type gig for his shift Saturday].

But the other camp believes that --

At an unspecified time during Glenn's youth, Glenn would begin to climb on the Trailways or Greyhound or whatever it was, um, bus to Seattle, where he worked at a radio station with the call letters of K-U-B-E.

Now, I haven't followed at all closely this dispute between these two camps, but from what I can make out of it in passing, the gist of the camp that holds to the initial version is the fact that the radio station that is now called KUBE was at some earlier date called KBLE. Whereas, the second camp is more strigently following the details provided by Glenn's unsanctioned biographer Alexander Zaitchik, whose recent three-part piece on Glenn in Salon simply names the radio station in question as KUBE.

[And now our -- ]  E s s a y  q u e s t i o n

Is it original research to say in a Wikipedia article that Glenn worked for KBLE (which was not yet KU<BE) starting when Glenn was 15 years old, in Seattle, Washington? And, more importantly, Why?
______
Ps Here is a link to a discussion of this issue on the article's talkpage. ↜Just M E here , now 04:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the sources do not say he was 15 and they say KUBE. Original research was deciding the age was under 17 by one line from Salon stating "midteens" which contradicted another line in the same article and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. If you are going to bring it to a notice board please follow the complete discussion so there isn't an unintentional misrepresentation. Also, this is low priority and we should be finding a source with his age anyways.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "anyway" is always singular. Racepacket (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Party memberships and supermajorities in U.S. state legislatures

I recently came across a statement in the Hawaii Senate article about the Democrats having the largest share any house in the United States. That turned out to be incorrect (I edited it to say it's tied with the Rhode Island House of Representatives), but I'm wondering if the statement itself would constitute OR, since one could go through the articles for each state's legislature and look at the numbers. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a problem. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not OR for the reason that 1+1=2 is not OR. Anyone can go to each state's legislative website, see the share of seats each party has, and what state has the highest. We dont need a secondary source that comes out and explicitly says what state and political party has the largest share of a US state house. Secondary sources that mention which state and pol. party may get out of date very quickly and couldnt be reliable for long. The problem is not of OR, it is a matter of notability. Does anyone really care and has any state ever gotten coverage for that distinction? That though is not a matter for this noticeboard.Camelbinky (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just making sure about the policy. Thanks. Musashi1600 (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alibi

Can I get another set of eyes on this issue? I'll try to set up the chronology of events as best I can.

• On Oct. 6th, AlexFekken (talk · contribs) added the following content to the Alibi article: [27] and [28]. No references were provided.

• Since, due to my real life role, I am very familiar with criminal law, I found the added content at odds with established legal principles. Since the content was unreferenced, I moved it to the talk page for discussion: Talk:Alibi#Disputed Paragraph. I initially, erroneously thought it was implying that it was disputed the content was related to Canadian criminal law (looking back, I see that I was mistaken). However, the discussion quickly turned into one about reliable sources and original research. See, for example, AlexFekken's comments and my reply.

• AlexFekken provided examples supporting his theory, and I pointed out that it was still original research.

• A small exchange took place as to how WP:OR applied to obvious facts: [29] and [30].

• AlexFekken next called the policy "close to ridiculous".

• Subsequently, AlexFekken added the following to the article: [31].

I agree with the history given, but the statement "I found the added content at odds with established legal principles" is very odd and not supported by anything. If it refers to the fact that not disclosing an alibi is illegal in Canada, then it is obvious that illegality per se is not at odds with my point that disclosing an alibi creates a risk for the defendant. It is also cannot be at odds with Canadian law in practice because in my discussion (before re-publishing my point) I gave an example of how a defendant in Canada was convicted (and the conviction later overturned) mainly because "evidence" was biased to fit the (lack of) alibi. In addition I clarified very early on that my point wasn't specifically about Canada anyway. So what does this statement mean and why is it presented now as if it (still) were an argument? The fact that it is raised in the opening sentence suggests to me that it probably is the primary reason for disputing my entry. And the fact that it is unsupported and apparently contradicted by the facts further suggests to me that perhaps the "policy issues" are the real coatrack here. AlexFekken (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the first sentence isn't so bad, especially after the following change: [32]. I don't think there are synth issues, and I am not going to get into a primary/secondary source arguement given the other references in the article.

Actually, by introducing the word "conversely" this modification implies (the unproven statement) that this is not controversial in Canada whereas my original statement was neutral in this respect (it wasn't specifically about Canada any more). I would also like to point out that this implied statement about Canada seems to be based on original, unreferenced and unsubstantiated research. So the change does the opposite of making the sentence "[not] so bad". The only possible good thing was moving the reference out-of-line (thanks). AlexFekken (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

However, it seems to me the second paragraph/new subsection is still trying to draw a conclusion from a case example, and I think that's original research. Anyone else have any thoughts? Singularity42 (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the real problem with the long quote is that it is from a web page that 1) is advocating a particular cause and 2) cites Wikipedia on its page. If Wikipedia cites people who cite Wikipedia, there is a credibility problem. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with point one. Although point two would generally apply, the part of the web page being quoted is the part that doesn't cite Wikipedia. Anyway, at the moment the content has been removed as coatracking, so it's not a major issue for now. That being said, I don't think the editor's intentions was to coatrack, and the WP:OR issue may turn up again soon with a different example. But resolved for now? Singularity42 (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the "long quote": I can halve it and still get enough data out of it to support the point that was made. I would be happy to do that if I could see what the problem was in the first place. The good thing of the quote as it stands (stood) is that it shows how both presence and lack of alibi can be used against the defence at the same time. AlexFekken (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it wasn't about the quote being long (my mistake) but about "advocating a particular cause" (I assume the second point has been dealt with as irrelevant?). It is easy to find additional references but of course they will all "advocate" cases or causes where available alibis were used to bias the evidence against a defence. So what sort of reference would you like to see? AlexFekken (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as the argument "the second paragraph/new subsection is still trying to draw a conclusion from a case example, and I think that's original research" is concerned: note that the "conclusion" in question consists merely of putting a conclusion that was made by others in context. So are you suggesting that quoting a source and suggesting that it is relevant to the current context is unacceptable because it is "original research"? AlexFekken (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My summary of events is as follows: AlexFekken (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My original text deliberately did not mention any examples (and therefore the accusation of "coatracking" cannot apply there) because I wanted to make a general and logically perfectly valid point. I was then coerced to provide "reliable secondary source" information because apparently any argument that goes beyond '1+1=2' is "original research" and therefore unacceptable if no secondary source is given. I still maintain that this is close to ridiculous (given the bare minimum of logic required to follow and validate my point), but I decided to proceed and re-write my entry while trying to stay within policy nevertheless.

But obviously any reference that I can give to support my point must refer to concrete examples to be reliable (because of the nature of the statement) and therefore can be regarded as "coatracking" or else lead to an example-driven discussion (or both) that I wanted to avoid in the first place by appealing to basic logic and common sense. So if I keep the discussion neutral then my text will be rejected as "original research" because the conclusion goes (barely) beyond '1+1=2' while it will be rejected as "coatracking" if I provide any form of support in the form of "reliable secondary sources".

The only possible way out of this Kafkaesque situation that I can see at the moment would be to provide more examples. But depending on your mood that could go either way as well: you can then either accuse me of doing even more coatracking or accept that I am trying to make a general point here like I did in the first place. So what do you suggest because I do think my entry should be restored in some form or other, if only to counter-balance the currently created impression that disclosing an alibi is all good, which it obviously isn't. AlexFekken (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't provide "examples," provide reliable sources (preferably legal ones, in this situation) that support what you're wanting to add. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Report re: Quilliam Foundation moved from WP:AN3

I've moved this report here from WP:AN3 for more input. Would be grateful if someone would take a look. CIreland (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jk54 reported by User:Avaya1 (Result: Sent elsewhere)

• Quilliam Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jk54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over a period of about a year and a half now, this user has consistently re-inserted their large WP:OR into the article Quilliam Foundation, despite the efforts of numerous other editors over the history of the article. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=316382567&oldid=315693400

This is what his/her original version of the article looked like before we managed to cut it down http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&oldid=223641695

The user has continually reverted, with no argument, to greater or lesser extents the attempts to remove their Original Research essay, and apparently ignores the discussions against this. It would be helpful if an administrator could help out on this topic somehow, or at least look into the article and watch the article, because the process of reverting their original research has stubbornly continued for over a year. Avaya1 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion board for the Quilliam Foundation. All changes are discussed there and those with merit are applied. The user Avaya1 continually deletes sections of the article with no attempted discussion - there are no examples of this user citing any original work or problematic content - were he to do so and if such content existed it could either be referenced correctly or removed.

Arbitrarily deleting referenced critique of this organisation appears to be a biased approach favouring the organisation in question. With no history of contributing to Wikipedia except from making numerous reverts and vandalism on this article, this user appears to be a sock puppet for the

Quilliam Foundation. Jk54 (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Duff References to Support (arguably) Valid Statement

Request: Is or is not the following statement unjustified or justified by the references supplied

The first references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia

Supposed References :Foster P1 Allen, p. 172-174..

Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OR Trivia...

I came across this, which I believe is pretty clearly an example of OR, but I wanted the opinion of others more experienced with this particular policy. From Conan O'Brien (OR tag and comment which has been "nowiki'd" out is my addition to explain my tagging):

During the filming of the Friday, September 25, 2009 episode of The Tonight Show, O'Brien suffered from a mild concussion after he slipped and hit his head while running a race as part of a comedy sketch with guest Teri Hatcher. Upon impact, slow motion replays clearly demonstrated that Conan had displayed a Fencing Response with his left arm, indicating that a concussion had taken place.^[1] <!--Source needed which uses this term in the context of this situation-->

Refs

(1) Hosseini AH, Lifshitz J. Brain Injury Forces of Moderate Magnitude Elicit the Fencing Response. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 2009;41(9):1687–97.

Now, regardless of the qualifications of a particular Wikipedian or the scientific / academic sources used, it is synthetic OR to make a claim tantamount to a "diagnosis" of a limb's motor response without a source which makes that particular descriptive claim about the event in question, correct? Regardless if the source explains what one is and how to judge it, to then apply that to a given situation becomes synthetic OR, right? A source making that particular claim is needed? I just wanted to make sure I haven't placed an unwarranted OR tag.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You're precisely correct. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We could include a diagnosis if we find one in a reliable source; i.e. NBC has an article about the episode, where a medical correspondent or doctor discusses the injury and response. But we can't interpret the video ourselves. If a medical journal uses this incident as an example of the classic Fencing response, then I guess we could use that as well, but I suspect the immediacy and relevance of this event will have passed by the time that could happen, if it does. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this info original research?

I think this info: "Rather than making an English dub of the original, the American production team put together a "new" production with English-speaking actors spliced in with the original Japanese footage in varying ratios. Due to the very Japanese nature of many of the Super Sentai Series' stories and design, the American shows vary detail to appeal to a Western audience. However, they typically dub many of the action sequences featuring the characters in costume and the mecha (referred to as "Zords" in Power Rangers)." in the Power Rangers article is original research, so I added a citation needed tag to that info, but User:Ryulong removed the citation needed tag saying "obvious enough" and "It is something that one uses their common sense to infer". So is that info original research? Powergate92Talk 18:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is "obvious enough". I especially think the opinionary comment about the series having a "very Japanese nature" which affects the show's appeal to a Western audience needs to be cited. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this disputed, unsourced statement in compliance with Wikipedia content policies?

Per [33], trying here. See Talk:Catholic_Church#RFC:_Does_a_sentence_without_a_source_meet_WP:Verifiability_requirements.3F. Gimmetrow 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Routine calculations

The policy allows for this, but it is a little vague. A question has recently come up, which goes something like this. List of Outer Hebrides has a section called "inhabited islands" that list the area and population of the individual islands, both of which are sourced. It would be a trivial arithmetical exercise to calculate the population density from this information. However, so far as I am aware there is no external source that could provide an external verification. Assuming this is the case, does this count as OR?

The presenting issue actually refers to the island of Rùm which is in the Inner Hebrides, which don't have a list of their own at present and I've used the above example to simplify things a little. The compromise we came up with is to state that Rùm is "one of the most sparsely populated of all Scottish islands" rather than give it s specific ranking. Ben MacDui 19:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Entire article without sources?

If I've placed this in the wrong board, please let me know. The article Vokkaliga has had a huge amount of material added, none of which I can determine the sources. There's no way to tell if the material is pasted from another sources, or orginal research. I'm not an expert on this topic, related to India caste system, so I'm reluctant to edit it, other than placing a citation warning. I'm not sure the importance of the article, but I thought someone knowledgable in the topic might wish to take a look as the article appears to be getting out of control. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nearly all of the added text appears to be a copyright violation, taken from The Genesis, Divisions, Movement and Transformation of Okkaligar Community, a paper by V. T. Sundaramurthy. I'm going to revert all the changes by User:117.197.205.211 and leave a warning. Thanks for reporting this!!! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

After ArglebargleIV removed the copyrighted material, someone went in and put it back in. I've left an advisory on ArglebargleIV talk page.BashBrannigan (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

User:Likebox has, over a period of years, attempted to push an original viewpoint into the articles Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Halting problem that is not in the literature. The "original research" is to rephrase the arguments in these articles in terms of "quines", a technical concept in computability. LIkebox acknowledges [34] that "The issue is entirely pedagogical. I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake." Nevertheless Likebox introduces these proofs in the articles.

The issue here is not that the proofs are incurably wrong, although they have minor issues and would require some significant editing. The fundamental issue is that none of the important texts in the field present these things in the way Likebox is proposing. We generally try to follow the texts in articles, rather than creating our own organizational frameworks.

This has all been discussed with Likebox before, as these talk page threads show:

• Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems from 2007
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Formal statement redux, Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#What Is A Rigorous Proof? (November 2007), and Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Likebox edits (March 2008)

It would be very helpful for some uninvolved editors to follow these pages, as Likebox has already (today) reverted the removal of his novel proofs from both pages mentioned above. It is very frustrating for the frequent editors of the page to revert these edits repeatedly while trying to explain (again) that the content isn't appropriate. For example, Likebox has already reverted twice each on Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Halting problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To editors: the issue with the texts in these Godel's incompleteness theorem article is that they fail to communicate the main point of Godel's text, and they fail to prove the theorem. The proof that I presented is a streamlined and modernized version of Godel's original paper.

While the exact text of the proof does not appear in the literature verbatim, it is merely filling in gaps and changing notation on proofs that are 80 years old, and very well understood. There is nothing wrong with the proofs, except that they are different than the usual textbook presentations.

So why should Wikipedia have a non-textbook presentation? The reason is that the textbooks are generally very bad at communicating the result in a way that a non-specialist can understand. Laypeople and undergraduate students have a notoriously hard time with Godel's theorem. The new text is completely comprehensible by a layperson, or an undergraduate.

To deal with issues of streamlining and modernizing scientific and mathematical articles, the Wikipedia guideline WP:ESCA has been proposed. Within this guideline, the discussion on incorporating material that fills in steps in the derivations or proofs of well-known results is to focus on clarity of exposition, and correctness of the derivation. This is to prevent out-of-context quoting from textbooks, and to allow scientifically knowledgable people to fill in gaps in proofs without fear that the way that they will do it (which always involves some arbitrary choices) will be criticized as original research. If the result is well known, the method of proof is well known, then some change in the details of the presentation is not a problem.

These new policy guidelines seem very sensible to me, and I am reopening this issue to see if the policy change will allow text which was challenged before to remain. I am convinced that this text will make it possible for everyone to understand the proof of Godel's theorems. This is a major goal of Wikipedia, and I hope that it can be acheived.Likebox (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)