Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:No original research. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

2011 Alexandria bombing

2011 Alexandria bombing has an edit which needs input.[1] Discussion is Talk:2011 Alexandria bombing#Rape.Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is inappropriate and SYNTH. It was added to the background section but the source does not discuss the subject. This is often a sign of SYNTH. And I believe it could lead the reader. It appears to be condoning a shooting. The shooting itself was discussed as background in the sources. Shooting random people is obviously not an appropriate response to allegations that someone who shared their faith raped someone but the general tone of the article at times has leaned towards vilifying the Copts in response to some of the being blown up. Since the source does not even discuss the subject of the article (the bombing and not the shooting) then I see no reason why we should risk leading the reader to draw a conclusion. Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User Cptnono (talk · contribs) added in the Background section of the article a description on a previous shooting incident that killed 7 people. I added a statement that expanded on the incident and mentioned the motivations behind the attack, which the shooter and the Egyptian officials state it was in retaliation for the rape of a Muslim girl by a local Christian man. User Cptnono quickly removes the material and claims that including this bit of information, which is part of any incident story, "might be leading the reader to condone the shooting" and would change the article's tone to imply that the victims deserved it. Since when has stating the motivations and looking into the root causes became justification for the attack ?

Cptnono also argued that my material cannot be included since the source he provided for his part does not go into the details of the incident that I added. I responded by saying that Wikipedia does not rely on one source and that my sources met the reliability policies.

IMO, Cptnono's arguments and decisions regarding this particular dispute are based on emotions. Speaking of SYNTH: apparently, the paragraph he included was explicit in stating the faith of the attacker, Islam. Isn't that SYNTH ? That gives the impression that it was religiously motivated when the attacker and the police stated otherwise. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please address the SYNTH argument and not assumptions of emotions. Is the info in a source discussing the subject? No. Is there potential to lead (speaking of emotions)? Yes. Is the info I added in the background section discussed as background in RS? Yes. There really is no argument to be had here unless you provide another source. Cptnono (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow the argument here. I see a "Background" section in the article, which is probably too long, and gives an opportunity for adding material that could justify one position or the other, thus making balance a problem. The solution is to cut the Background section back as far as possible. The point about the 2010 bombing being in retaliation to a rape is in the AP source. If you mention that other bombing it makes sense to mention the perceived cause, per AP. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There must be some confusion. The source provided does discuss the alleged rape as background to the subject. There was a bombing. Sources discuss a shooting. Show a source that shows the alleged rape as background to the bombing. The point in the sources (which we replicate for content and not tone) is that this was the second Christmas marred by violence. Adding in the rape stuff is too much for this article and since it is an allegation that is not sourced about the subject (bombing) then it is probably not worthy of mention. Summary style is discussing the major aspects. The background is major and the shooting was major enough for the sources to mention it. The alleged rape is not major or the sources would have discussed it. Cptnono (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you have quickly changed your reasoning for its removal. Initially you stated that its inclusion might be a potential to lead the reader to condone the attack, but now you're arguing that it's not an important bit of the story. But then, the background part you added explicitly states that the gunman was Muslim (SYNTH ?). It seems to me that you find mentioning his faith to be more important than mentioning the perceived cause of the attack. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not changed my reasoning. The background I added was sourced in piece discussing the incident so you have misrepresented the edit. You have still not explained how your addition is not SYNTH or how it improves the article more than it harms it with potential POV. Please do so since I am going to revert it. No independent editors have commented and I have provided you with policy based reason for removal.Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question

I am concerned about the following line (bold section) in terms of OR and Synthesis:

“Although the idea has attracted much public interest,[2] all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.[3]”

My concern is with “all but a few”…”consider it a fringe belief”. There are 5 citations given to support the statement.[2]

Only one of the references cited mentions the word “fringe”, but that cite does not support “all but a few”. The remaining references use terminology such as “I do not know of a single professor”, “Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon”, “I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt”, “There is, it should be noted, no academic Shakespearian of any standing who goes along with the Oxfordian theory.” And “The Stratfordians can, however, legitimately claim that almost all the great Elizabethan scholars who have interested themselves in the controversy have been on their side."

This seems to me to be a case of WP:ORIGINAL SYN, which is why I have come to this noticeboard. The “fringe” label has caused much dissention at the article and appears to be advancing the position of the main article editors. As a compromise, I would suggest:

Although the idea has attracted much public interest,[2] most Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a theory with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.

I would appreciate input from this noticeboard. Thanks for your comments. Zweigenbaum (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see where the OR is. It would be SYNTH to use multiple sources "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". But in this case, the relevant material does appear to support the wording in the article.

You say "only one of the references cited mentions the word “fringe”". That's better than none and not as good as two, but it's enough to avoid the accusation of OR. "All but a few" seems, if anything, to undersell the contents of the source material, which appears to be saying repeatedly that the number of scholars we are talking about is none. I'm guessing there's a talk page history behind that mis-match.

I'd suggest this may be something more suited to an RfC if that hasn't already been done. --FormerIP (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Allow me to clarify. The first citation simply uses the term "fringe". It does not show the result of "extensive study" [ArbCom] to verify, "All but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider (Oxfordian authorship of Shakespeare) a fringe belief". The remaining four citations say nothing about "fringe belief" at all. They cannot verify the initial claim that "Although the idea has attracted much public interest, all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider (Oxfordian authorship of Shakespeare) a fringe belief." They are simply remarks quoted from a few individuals, and not conclusions--by "...those who have extensively studied the matter"[ArbCom]--whether "all but a few scholars and literary historians consider (Oxfordian authorship of Shakespeare) a fringe belief." In neither the first ("fringe") citation nor the following four individual citations has there been a study to arrive at any conclusion supporting the initial statement claiming to be fact. That is why I maintain that this is OR/Syn.Zweigenbaum (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am involved, but some background may be useful:

The issue has been discussed before, and in response an editor posted brief extracts from 14 reasonably good sources that each use the description "lunatic fringe" (see here).
The recently closed ArbCom case is here.

The "lunatic fringe" posting was made to explain that the article is actually using neutral language. The "reasonably good sources" mentioned above are not used in the article because they are not from scholars who have performed major study within the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Zweigenbaum, but I really don't see it. In terms of "opinion among those who have extensively studied the matter" we are, presumably talking about academics who specialise in Shakespeare. We have quotes from a number of such academics saying that there are no significant Shakespeare scholars who doubt his authorship of the works normally attributed to him. They ought to know. I can't see why you would think there is more to it than that. It seems extremely clear-cut.

From your comments, I think you may be misleading yourself in thinking that evidence of an extensive study is required within the source text used, but this is not the case. All we need to know is that people who have made an extensive study (i.e. people, in this case, who spend their lives reading any and all significant scholarship relating to Shakespeare) have reached a settled conclusion regarding this particular matter.

I am concerned that the current wording in the article may give a misleading impression that there is some dissent on the matter. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC

Thanks again for your comments. In answer to your particular concern, why can't I see that it is a clear-cut open and shut case and there is really no dissent on the matter, you probably are not aware that many academics do indeed doubt the traditional attribution:

Over 300 academics, including over 75 English Lit academics, have listed their doubts here: [3]
See this NY Times survey [4] where a survey of American College Professors who teach Shakespeare responded to the question "whether there is good reason to question Shakespeare's authorship", 6% answered "yes", and 11% "possibly". When asked their opinion of the topic, 61% chose "A theory without convincing evidence" and 32% "A waste of time and classroom distraction". Based on this survey, only 32% apparently consider it "fringe", while 61% were far less harsh, calling it "A theory without convincing evidence".
Brunel University recently announced a one-year Master of Arts programme in Shakespeare authorship studies.
In 2010, Concordia University (Portland, Oregon) opened a multi-million dollar Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre, under the direction of authorship doubter Daniel Wright, a Shakespeare scholar and a Concordia University tenured professor of English.

Back to the matter at hand, I completely agree that most Shakespeare scholars do not believe, or even know about, the Authorship Question, and the references we have been discussing certainly support their lack of familiarity with the issue. But that is far different than applying the "fringe belief" label and claiming that the vast majority, "all but a few", have labeled the issue as such. There is no support that I have found that scholars express themselves on the subject that way. Does that explain where I am coming from and my problem with the gratuitous and misleading "fringe" claim vis-a-vis what has never been established as true? The polemical use of "fringe" and the scientific proof of "fringe" or "lunatic fringe" have nothing to do with one another. To put it a little differently, the term "lunatic fringe" like the term "fringe" itself is not an objective academic category but an expedient dismissal of an inquiry that is highly embarrassing to scholars who have never faced its body of evidence. Thus in the Shakespeare Authorship Question section, "fringe belief" should not be used when it cannot be demonstrated as accurate that "all but a few scholars and literary historians" consider a given theory a "fringe belief". That term is not scholastically defensible at this time, leaving it as pejorative, on whomever's part, and little more. Zweigenbaum (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The "300 academics" mentioned above are not scholars who have formed a career from the study of Shakespeare. There are many thousands of academics who "teach Shakespeare", but they never publish peer reviewed articles on the topic, and while many are literature experts, they have no particular expertise on the relevant history. Naturally some of them have bought into Internet-driven campaigns to promote fringe views. The "NY Times survey" was authored by a well known Shakespeare-didn't-do-it writer, and the survey has many defects (see my ArbCom evidence). Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The "all but a few" wording has been discussed on the article's talk page numerous times [5]. This thread appears to be little more than forum shopping in an attempt at filibustering. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Astrophysics Data System

An editor wishes to cite the Astrophysics Data System for things like h-index and g-index. In his view, use of the database in general does not violate WP:NOR, and adding up entries and making various calculations on them to come up with the h-index and g-index does not violate WP:CALC. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism

In a paragraph called "Left-wing terrorism", Stefan M. Aubrey wrote "Asia featured the Japanese Red Brigades (now defunct) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), who have now migrated to a nationalist terrorist group".[6] Is it original research to paraphrase this as, "In The new dimension of international terrorism, Stefan M. Audrey identified the Japanese Red Army and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as the main left-wing terrorist organizations in Asia, although he noted that the LTTE later transformed into a nationalist terrorist organization"? TFD (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "the main" seems to be unsupported by the text. Better: "as left-wing terrorist...". Itsmejudith (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree: "the main" seems unsupported. Early morning person (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

List of world's most expensive single objects

The List of world's most expensive single objects, lists several "objects", provides sources for their cost, and sorts the objects by their cost. But there doesn't seem to be any source that has actually published a similar list, so the entire thing strikes me as original research. I'm not even sure Wikipedia should have a list with this title at all, if no sources can be found. I don't even see a source which says the most expensive one (the International Space Station), is in fact the most expensive one. In short, the compilation of this list strikes me as original research (not to mention, factually questionable). Mlm42 (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well... WP:Notability#Notability and stand-alone lists states that: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines;" (bolding mine for emphasis). This does not mean that we need a source that has published a similar list... it does mean that for us to consider the topic notable, we need a source that has discussed the concept of "expensive objects"... as a group (as opposed to a collection of sources that discuss individual expensive objects). The question is: do such sources exist? Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There isn't such a source cited in the article, and I haven't found any. All sources I've found discussing the world's most expensive objects appear to be based off of this Wikipedia article (for example, see top10listhq.com). It concerns me how often the statement that the ISS is the "world's most expensive single object" is repeated, without having a real source to back it up (I suspect these claims all originated from this Wikipedia article).. if it's true, why doesn't NASA - or anyone else directly involved - acknowledge it? Mlm42 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you have raised the issue at the list's talk page (good)... if that does not work, the next step is probably to nominate the article for deletion at AfD. Make sure you explain the problem fully (quote the line from WP:NOTE and explain how you have searched for and have not found any sources that discuss the topic as a group.) Be willing to withdraw the nomination if someone else is able to come up with a source. Blueboar (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not just WP:NOTE but this article seems to be WP:OR specifically WP:SYNTH. It depends on so much the definition of a Single object. I might call Deer Island Waste Water Treatment Plant many objects where as I could see List of most expensive Buildings or Public works project viable topics. Palm Jumeirah maybe an expensive project but not single object. Kansai International Airport is another where I would dispute the validity of the list. Its WP:SYNTH pure anf easy The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm as baffled as anybody over the "single objects" title, because I hardly think that most of the things on this list count as objects. But that's another problem. I'm torn on this one. This sure looks like Original Research, in the "I know it when I see it" sense; sort of like somebody compiling their own Guiness Book of World Records. On the other hand, the Wikipedia essay WP:NOTOR makes a good point. Simple mathematical calculations (X is larger than Y) shouldn't be regarded as original research. Compiling, comparing and contrasting independedent related information under a single heading shouldn't be regarded as original research - it's the essential part of writing an encyclopedia. This is an odd little article, but I'm inclined to agree with WP:NOTOR on this one, recognizing that NOTOR isn't "offical" policy. I do think that this article has major problems with the Notabilty Guideline for independent lists cited above - if independent secondary sources are not themselves compiling lists like this, this may well fail an AFD for lack of notability. Fladrif (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

For those interested, I've now started an AfD here. Mlm42 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Nedic regime" as a name for WW2 Serbia

User:DIREKTOR constantly repeating on this talk page that term "Nedic regime" was used as a name of WW2 Serbia by the sources. We cannot come to that conclusion from these sources that he presented. All these sources mentioning term "Nedic regime" as a name of regime, not as a name of a country. Therefore, the way in which DIREKTOR insisting that article about WW2 country is named "Nedic regime" is clearly an example of his original research and no single source is supporting his claim that "Nedic regime" was used as a name of a country. I also opened this question in third opinion request, but it is rather an example of unsourced original research. The problem is that user DIREKTOR also thinks that he owns that article and he not allowing to anybody to change this article name, which is based on his original research. PANONIAN 18:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No WP:NOR, you just linked to his sources which clearly use the term in the context this is the third post I have found relating to this please stop attacking DIREKTOR for having a different POV. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The question here is whether term "Nedic regime" is used by the sources as a description for regime or for country. Country and regime that rule over it are two different things. I am not disputing that term "Nedic regime" is used by the sources, but it is used exclusively as a description for regime. For example, this source and this source are using description "Nedic regime in Serbia", clearly referring to one regime ("Nedic regime") in one country ("Serbia"). User DIREKTOR is claiming that these sources are using term "Nedic regime" as a name of a country, not as a name of regime, which is not evident from these sources. I proposed that article about WW2 country should be renamed to any title with name "Serbia" in it, but user DIREKTOR simply claiming that such country "was not Serbia" and that "Nedic regime" is the "only correct name of that country". PANONIAN 10:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And just for the record, response to my third opinion request is confirmed that DIREKTOR's interpretation is not supported by the sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nedić_regime#Third_opinion_request PANONIAN 10:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Gibraltar (Mediation)

I am currently mediating a dispute regarding the Gibraltar article. There is a dispute about whether or not a reference to "de facto" control is some kind of original research or whether it is clearly indicated in the sources. More specifically, the question presented is whether a determination of "de facto" is an inappropriate extrapolation and understanding of the sources.

I am inviting the relevant parties to make their case below this post, with the sources, in less than 500 words, so that this noticeboard can help reach consensus on this question.

The relevant mediation page: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-14/Gibraltar. Best Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

WCM

There are actually multiple issues and I fully expect others that are irrelevant here may well be raised.

So to focus discussion, the issue that is relevant here is to take a source such as Hill, p216 which states that Queen Anne declared Gibraltar to be a free port in 1706, then as a result of that declaration infer that the British were in de facto control from 1706. That is a violation of WP:SYN as the original author did not make that hypothesis and is therefore WP:OR. Point of fact the author flatly contradicts that on p.203 "What happened in Gibraltar over the years from 1708 and how Gibraltar passed out of the hands of 'Spain' de facto first and in 1713 de jure, was consequent on the thoughts and actions of men not there but in London, Lisbon and elsewhere." This is a fairly clear cut case of WP:OR and WP:SYN. There are other issue of WP:RS and WP:NPOV and I hope that others will respect posters on this page by not raising them here. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Imalbornoz

De facto has a clear definition. These sources support de facto British control before de jure cession in the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.

"Prince George had been killed in the fighting at Barcelona in 1705 and there was nobody in Charles's entourage to take an interest in Gibraltar. The fortress was kept going by supplies and

reinforcements sent by the British Government and Gibraltar was now a de facto British colony, although it only became so dejure as a result of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713." (Gibraltar Heritage Journal, Isaac Hassan, p 73)[7]

"In 1704 the fortress of Gibraltar was won by us in open war with Spain, and with her de facto government. At the conclusion of that war, by the treaty of Utrecht, the place was deliberately ceded to us by Spain and by Europe." (Illustrated Naval and Military Magazine: A monthly journal devoted to all subjects connected with Her Majesty's land and sea forces Vol 1, p 164)[[8]
"Gibraltar [has been an enclave] (as from 1704 de facto, from 1713 de jure)." (International Law in Historical Perspective, J. H. W. Verzijl, pp 443 444)[9]
"Gibraltar became de facto a British possession in 1704 when it was seized by Admiral Rooke during the War of Spanish Succession, and Britain's legal title to the Rock was enshrined in the Treaty of Utrecht (1713)." (Political change in Spain, Edward Moxon-Browne, p 92)[10]
"What happened in Gibraltar over the years from 1708 and how Gibraltar passed out of the hands of 'Spain' de facto first and in 1713 de jure, was consequent on the thoughts and actions of men not there but in London, Lisbon and elsewhere." (Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar, George Hills, p 203) [11]
"On 17 February 1706 Queen Anne, though she had no powers to do so, declared Gibraltar a free port because the sultan of Morocco insisted upon Gibraltar being given this status in return for supplying materials for rebuilding the city and for providing fresh food supplies. This was to Shrimpton's benefit. He imposed his own duties on the traders, and took "key money" from the richer merchants, many of whom were Jews, in allowing them to occupy the best of the vacant Spanish houses, from which he evicted officers of the garrison to enable them to do so." (The Rock of the Gibraltarians: a history of Gibraltar, Sir William Godfrey Fothergill Jackson, p 114)[12]
"Although Gibraltar was surrendered to the archduke, it was utterly dependent on Britain. The displaced Spanish citizenry created a new town around the San Roque Hermitage and revived the abandoned Algeciras to serve as their anchorage. Gibraltar soon became an exclusively English enclave. When the war was winding down in 1711, London even secretly instructed its governor to remove any foreign troops, so as to bolster the British claim." (Wars of the Americas: a chronology of armed conflict in the Western Hemisphere, 1492 to the present, David Marley, p 347)[13]
"In 1706 Anne had declared Gibraltar a free port, that is to say ships of all nationalities, including those with which Britain was at war, were to be free thereafter to trade with Gibraltar" (Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar, George Hills, p 216)[14]

Thank you for your comments. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The precise phrase "de facto" is used in four sources above, so is good to use in the article if it's agreed that those sources are of sufficient quality. Is there an alternative view among historians? There might be, in which case both views should be included. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I note my involvement. The use of de facto does not necessarily mean that OR is not being employed. Note that more than one of those sources say that Gibraltar was not under Bourbon Spanish de facto control but not that Gibraltar was under British de facto control. This allows for other interpretations, such as the official British line at the time that Gibraltar was under Hapsburg Spanish control. (This entire period was during the War of the Spanish Succession, when there were two competing claimants to the Spanish throne).

For the benefit of others, the dispute is as to whether the claim should be included at all, or whether no claim of de facto control should be made. There are also issues of neutrality and the reliability of sources involved. Pfainuk talk 10:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would help if people stood back a bit from the either/or "de facto" or not "de facto". The reader wants to know what was happening in Gibraltar between 1704 and 1713. What was happening? What do the historians agree on? What is still being debated by historians. Just tell the story. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, somewhat as I expected Imalbornoz has clouded the issue by posting a secondary issue that isn't relevant here. Again to clarify the issue that needs to be discussed here is taking facts A and B from sources and concluding C which neither source actually says. So for instance in the example I give above the events of 1706 are used to infer de facto control and that is the WP:OR and WP:SYN issue I referred to. The example I had in mind being the final source above, which is contradicted elsewhere in the same chapter, I refer to it above.

Another aspect that is misrepresented here is the proposed edit, this proposed to include text that soon after the capture the British were in de facto control. The opinions among historians vary widely and the documented historical evidence is fragmented and contradictory.

A secondary issue is Imalbornoz's way of working. He decides upon a premise and trawls through google books looking for snippets of text that on face value appear to support his edit. The trouble with that way of working, is that he doesn't have the source so he cannot see the fragment of text in context and it is vulnerable to confirmation bias. Snippets is useful to illustrate a point when you have the source but it often produces misleading results when you don't as we have seen repeatedly. This is not an issue for here but WP:RSN When this is pointed out he refuses to listen and he ignores any evidence you present that, as Itsmejudith has astutely latched onto, that it is still being debated by historians and there are multiple opinions on the matter. We have tried to step back and simply tell the story but that is derailed by the insistence we must include a bald statement that does not reflect the multitude of opinions held by various historians. The latter are WP:NPOV issues, neither of which I would expect to be covered here. In addition, we see selective quoting from sources, such as the secret instruction in 1711 to expel foregn sources, what he neglected to mention was the Governor ignored that instruction as he was unable to expel the Dutch contingent, who remain in Gibraltar till March 1713. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't astutely latched onto anything but am grasping at straws to try and get a handle on the issue. I am going back to the mediator's original question and will try and form a clear yes/no on it. WikiProject Military History is a good place to seek opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anything more than what's in Google snippet view, but from that, the idea that Gibraltar was under de facto British rule appears to be supported by Hills and Moxon-Brown, good sources, and not contradicted by any other sources. I don't think anyone will be able to help any further with that question unless they have access to the full texts. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Again you hit the nail on the head, he hasn't got either source, he is relying solely on the snippet and nothing else. I have Hills and it does not support such a bald conclusion. But to make the point again the edit he wants to put in is that the British were in de facto control immediately after the capture in 1704 not that it was achieved before 1713. The sources do not agree on that conclusion at all - even Hills (1708) as you can see above contradicts it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I think you deserve more credit than you are perhaps allowing yourself as you appear to have succinctly cut to the nub of the matter. But in terms of WP:OR and WP:SYN, its actions like taking this quote:

“

"In 1706 Anne had declared Gibraltar a free port, that is to say ships of all nationalities, including those with which Britain was at war, were to be free thereafter to trade with Gibraltar" ^[1]

”

And concluding that because Queen Anne declared Gibraltar a free port, the British controlled the place, ergo the British were in de facto control. The original source doesn't say that and in fact flat out contradicts it dating the start of de facto control from the period 1708 onward (Hills p.203 "What happened in Gibraltar over the years from 1708 and how Gibraltar passed out of the hands of 'Spain' de facto first and in 1713 de jure, was consequent on the thoughts and actions of men not there but in London, Lisbon and elsewhere."). And again the edit it is being used to support is not that the British established de facto control at some point before 1713 but rather that soon after the capture they were in de facto control. The issue relevant to this board is being obfuscated as well as the edit it is purported to support. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, to try and help your mediator, whose task I don't envy, I would suggest to him that he rephrase the question: how should the period 1704 to 1713 be described? And everyone give your mediator a break, comment on the content, not the editor behaviour. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Only for Itsmejudith and other outside editors (we already know what Pfainuk, WCM, Richard Keatinge and myself think about this): Thank you very much for your time and your comments. To wrap it up, do you think that saying that there was a significant degree of "de facto" British control several years before 1713 is clearly OR or SYN? We have yet to discuss whether it is NPOV or notable and relevant enough to be included in the article (and how), but having the OR issue settled now would be incredibly useful, given the (exasperatingly) circular nature of our discussion. Thank you very much again. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That isn't the question at issue here, since WP:NOR is not the only basis on which the edit concerned is disputed. WP:RS and WP:NPOV also come into play.

I note that the claim that you wish to make is not that "there was a significant degree of "de facto" British control several years before 1713", but that there was full British de facto control soon after 1704. Not the same thing by any means.

There are two key questions on the OR point:

Is it OR to claim that the 1706 declaration by Queen Anne implies that Gibraltar was under de facto British control (even though there was no Kingdom of Great Britain at the time)?
Is it OR to claim that the fact that Gibraltar was not under de facto Bourbon Spanish control implies that it was under de facto British control, regardless of the British position at the time? Pfainuk talk 21:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Itsmejudith. Would it help to provide a text describing events in Gibraltar 1704-1713, based on the facts and sources given by Imalbornoz and WCM above? This would be much longer but more informative and possibly less contentious than the single phrase "de facto". Or would this fail consensus as being too long, in which case I shan't bother? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, Richard, Itsmejudith and WCM: looking for some common ground (and not necessarily for what to edit in the article), do we all agree that it is not OR to say that several years before Utrecht there was de facto British (or English) control? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. One way you might consider phrasing it is to say "by time of the Treaty of Utrecht Gibraltar was under British control.". I think the sources presented agree on that. But a better solution might just be to put in more detail of what happened according to different sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

...OK, I respect your judgement even if I don't entirely agree. So, this is the NOR noticeboard: how about the list (contents to be decided) of what actually happened, perhaps something like "In the next nine years, G came under more effective British control.(refs to the uses of the phrase "de facto") And then onto the list of happenings, which certainly support a large degree of British control but not total control? Itsmejudith, would that be OR in your view? If you think it's acceptable, we can pass away from this page and go back to discussing the details. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's starting to sound like a good compromise, at least something that can be discussed productively on the talk page. It seems to me that, as is pretty common in Wikipedia articles, an either/or dichotomy has been presented, when actually history was a bit more complicated and messy. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so shall we return to our mediation attempts and leave this noticeboard in peace? Does anyone disagree? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith is correct, it was presented as an either/or choice, again the edit is not being accurately presented it was:

“

During the War of the Spanish Succession, in August 1704, Gibraltar was captured by a largely Anglo-Dutch force in support of the Archduke Charles, the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. It was soon under de facto British control

”

The second sentence was tagged on with the insistence it be included and a refusal to recognise that it was inappropriate.

There is already such a list under the Timeline of the history of Gibraltar this discussion is not really a topic for here. Given that we already point out Gibraltar became British under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, do we really need a long discourse of the various opinions on de facto control for what is in reality supposed to be an overview. The simple bald statement you wanted has been shown to be unsuitable, so the first point is whether we then need to go onto to write a long discourse on the subject, when the topic is already covered elsewhere - this is what wikilinks are for after all.

Again what was OR was claiming a action by Queen Ann in 1706 justifies stating Gibraltar was under de facto control. That was the issue to be brought here but it seems that subject is being obscured. We still have to deal with the issues of WP:RS and WP:V, as well as WP:NPOV. 21:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But not here. Shall we take Itsmejudith's suggestion back to our own process? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Only if there is recognition that the edit proposed was inappropriate and the way it was sourced did not meet wikipedia's standard. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The only way the article will make progress is if everyone is willing to focus on the future rather than the past, and on the content of the article rather than on editor behaviour. If anyone is sure they need to take up an issue of editor behaviour, there are venues for that, like Wikiquette alerts or in a serious case ANI. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's take Itsmejudith's "good compromise" (I think it's acceptable to all sides) to our talk page and not tire NORN editors (we might need them later...) Thanks! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification Requested

Could I please have a point clarified. The issue that I considered relevant to this noticebaord is to take a source such as Hill, p216 which states that Queen Anne declared Gibraltar to be a free port in 1706, then as a result of that declaration infer that the British were in de facto control from 1706. That is a violation of WP:SYN as the original author did not make that hypothesis and is therefore WP:OR. Is there agreement that this is WP:OR and WP:SYN? I feel it is important to clarify this point as the reason why I suggested this be brought here has been obscured by raising multiple issues that are not relevant to this discussion. I would ask that those involved allow for outside comment please. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free. However, I think you were the only person who made the exact inference you describe, and it's now a stale issue. I'd quite like to get back to the main point. (The main question on NOR was whether it was OR to use the word "de facto" based on four snippets all of which do use the phrase:

Gibraltar was now a de facto British colony, though it only became so de jure as a result of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713

In 1704 the fortress of Gibraltar was won by us in open warfare with Spain and with her de facto government.

Gibraltar (as from 1704 de facto, from 1713 de jure)

Gibraltar became de facto a British possession in 1704...) And, thanks to Itsmejudith, we have a way forward. Let's return to our mediated discussion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking back again, I made explicitly clear that comments based on those snippets were not reliably sourced per WP:RS as you do not have the sources, you're relying totally on snippets and that is not a reliable source for a cite. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I do sometimes wonder if others are reading the same discussion as I am. It's just taken me less than five minutes to go through and find ten separate occasions where another editor made the inference that Curry Monster describes indeed and went further (Timestamps: 16:34, 8 February 2011; 21:56, 8 February 2011; 18:36, 9 February 2011; 17:35, 10 February 2011; 08:48, 11 February 2011; 14:32, 11 February 2011; 00:38, 14 February 2011; 21:52, 14 February 2011; 22:33, 14 February 2011; 16:00, 15 February 2011), so I find your claim that this never happened to be distinctly bizarre. The argument of OR and SYN, repeatedly ignored, stemmed from this claim. Pfainuk talk 18:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I specifically requested that those involved did not post here, for the specific reason that so many times it seems that outside opinion is deterred with walls of text that raise irrelevant issues. I asked for outside opinion on a specific issue, you've clouded the issue by raising issues of no relevance here. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification Requested - Outside Opinion Please

Could I again please request that I have this point clarified. The issue that I considered relevant to this noticebaord is to take a source such as Hill, p216 which states that Queen Anne declared Gibraltar to be a free port in 1706, then as a result of that declaration infer that the British were in de facto control from 1706. That is a violation of WP:SYN as the original author did not make that hypothesis and is therefore WP:OR. Is there agreement that this is WP:OR and WP:SYN?

I feel it is important to clarify this point as the reason why I suggested this be brought here has been obscured by raising multiple issues that are not relevant to this discussion. I could cite numerous occasions where this claim was made, but will settle for this diff to demonstrate the point. I am sorry to trouble editors here by continuing to request outside opinion and I respect Judith's suggestion to focus on content. However, on several occasions I have registered objections to WP:OR and brought it here for the discussion to be derailed by the raising of irrelevant issues and later the claim is made that my comments about WP:OR were not supported here. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

While Hill does not connect Queen Ann's declaration to the idea that Britain was in de facto control from 1706, it appears from the above discussion that there are other sources that do. So I don't think it is OR for Wikipedia to say this. We just need to make it clearer who holds this opinion. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Its the original claim that I suggested violated WP:OR and WP:SYN, the latter "cites" are not reliable sources as they were found using Google snippets predicated on searches for the words "de facto control". None of those sources are in the possession of either Imalbornoz or Richard. They were only ever produced when the claims based on WP:OR and WP:SYN were challenged. Hence, I would like it clarified that my original comments were appropriate in the circumstances at the time. Further, the claims that were made, were that from 1704 Gibraltar was under de facto British control, the edit proposal has presented here bears no relation to the claims originally made. These changed only once the issue was raised here. Hence, I would like comments on my objection to the edit as originally raised. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian diaspora

Can someone with an eye for original research have a look at this article? I put a citation needed tag for the definitional sentence and this was the response. The entry now opens with -

The topic of this article, which has been given the summary title "Norwegian diaspora" for the sake of convenience, is the community of emigrants from Norway and their descendants who still self-identify as Norwegians. According to Encylopedia of Diasporas, a diaspora is "is the movement or migration of a group of people, such as those sharing a national and/or ethnic identity, away from an established or ancestral homeland."^[2]

For the "sake of convenience"? The definition given is not of "Norwegian diaspora", a term one hardly finds in use, but of diaspora more generally. Is it original research to write in this manner?Griswaldo (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't claim to have an "eye for original research" having had allegations about my own work recently, but would say that the current lead is consistent with WP:MOSBEGIN. Between Norwegian, Norse, and Scandanavian diaspora - I can find about 80 books covering the subject, yet all expect the reader to already know what a diaspora is. The closest I can find to a definition of diaspora with the Norse one in mind is "The Norwegian Domination and the Norse World C. 1100-C. 1400" by Steinar Imsen there it defines the scattering of Norse people as being "diaspora-like" and later goes on to use the diaspora label for the scattered peoples. My initial though is that the Ember, ember and Skoggard source shouldn't be used there as you rightly say it gives the wrong impression that that work explains what the Norse diaspora is. It could be used in the body of the article clearly explaining that it is being used to explain what a diaspora is in general followed up with sources discussing the Norse diaspora in a detailed way. That way the lead can be left unsourced, simply as a summary of sources found within the article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Norwegian diaspora", is not the same subject as "Scandinavian diaspora" and "Norse diaspora". The latter two terms turn up hits mostly to Viking era migration, and the former is exclusive (but for one source) to modern migration. Can you explain this to me, perhaps. There are all of 27 hits in Google Books for "Norwegian diaspora, despite there being a vast literature on Norwegian emigration. See for instance, these thousands of hits. Can you explain to me how one could possible think that this is the mainstream term for the subject?Griswaldo (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a question for another place, I'll answer you there. The question here was about OR (or really synthesis) in the lead. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

<--I would have appreciated being notified that an edit I made was being discussed here. Sharktopus^talk 16:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

White American

There is a debate going on at Talk:White American regarding whether "White American" can be described as an official US government term (as opposed to just "White"). Third-party opinions would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Moe anthropomorphism

In this revert a user claims that pictures can be used as examples. I don't think there is any reliable source which identifies Wikipe-tan as a "moe anthropomorphism". I also think this may be a WP:SELFREF violation.

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"WP:OR does not apply to images that are made to meet NFCC. It is explicitly stated as such per WP:OI" This is from a user on our project about the matter at hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The person you are quoting is wrong. WP:OI states: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. This image illustrates and introduces and unpublished idea/argument: that Wikipe-tan is a moe anthropomorphism. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Moe anthropomorphism (萌え擬人化, moe gijinka?) is a form of anthropomorphism where moe qualities are given to non-human beings, objects, concepts, or phenomena" Wikipe-tan was made for wikipedia as a mascot and is a mascot for the Anime/Manga project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Source? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The source is that it's exactly what she is. She was specifically created as moe anthropomorphism of Wikipedia. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That content was generated not to illustrate "moe anthropomorphism" but rather to illustrate "Wikipe-tan". Just because the intention of the creator was to make a moe anthropomorphism of Wikipedia doesn't mean that we as a reliable encyclopedia should be using some amateur's artwork as an example of such. We aren't talking about someone illustrating the article on Corinthian column with an illustration of such, we're talking about an anime enthusiast wanting to promote their Wikipedia-themed artwork in an article that is not about Wikipedia-themed artwork. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The personage doesn't matter. It's no different than someone creating a new unnamed character; the creator of the first wikipe-tan registed it under a CC license giving anyone the ability to freely use the character however they want. In addition, she is verifiable as a legitimate moe anthropomorphism from both Wikipedia itself (Wikipedia can be used a source for info on itself in rare cases and in this case i think its justifiable), but also from independant third-party reliable sources outside Wikipedia.

NFCC trumps using a copyrighted image because its clear that a free alternative does exist; its on the page. It's also would be expected as trying to describe moe anthropomorphism with words alone would be nigh impossible. If you want to create an alternative and register it under an acceptable CC license for use with that, more power to you. However, the image does not violate OI because you can find copyrighted images of moe anthropomorphism that exibit similar traits. Just because its a specific character does not make it OR.陣内 _Jinnai 22:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. WP:POINT forbids it, but if I make a MS Paint image of Wikiped-tan that I claim is a moe anthropomorphism of Wikipedia and release it into the public domain, that does not mean it deserves inclusion, does it? Alternatively, maybe I should make 1000 instances of different moe anthropomorphisms of Wikipedia and release them all. Then we could have an entire gallery since you don't seem to think it matters that there are no reliable sources which identify the moe anthropomorphism of Wikipedia. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Having 1000 moe anthropomorphisms of same concept is just redundant, thus there won't be gallery since we need just one for example. However, if you're going to make 1000 moe anthropomorphisms of other things, go ahead and do it. If they're good enough, fellow Wikipedians will use them which is great benefit for Wikipedia. Though I should advice that using MS paint mean it's very hard to produce any good artwork. L-Zwei (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I get the opinion of someone who does not have the Wikipe-tan Userbox on their page? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we stop with the personal attacks? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You personally attacked me in the edit summary of your last post, so I suppose you should ask yourself that question. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a Wikipetan userbox(though it doesn't matter), and I see no issues with this. The above assertions of policy by those for Wikipetan are correct. This is clearly illustrates what the article wants to illustrate, and in short of another free example of moe anthropomorphism we should not even be having this conversation.AerobicFox (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't either, and agree that it doesn't matter, and also agree that the illustration is not OR. It is not uncommon at all for someone to create an image for use here. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From WP:OI: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. (Emphasis in the original.) I am saying that the existence of a moe anthropomorphism for Wikipedia is an introduction of an unpublished idea/argument. There are no reliable sources that I've seen which say that Wikipe-tan is a moe anthropomorphism even though there are reliable sources written about such things (there actually is an extensive discussion on OS-tans in one of the cultural books but there is no mention of Wikipe-tan). On the other hand, the image of Gymnogyps californianus can be verified to have the features of the california condor from reliable sources. For example, there's a picture of such in my world book. If you can find a non-WP:SELFREF reliable source that indicates that Wikipe-tan is a moe anthropomorphism then I'll accept that this illustration has some penetration outside of this website's anime fanclub. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That you chose not to believe that the image is a depcition of moe anthropomorphism is your right, but it clearly depicts what moe anthropomorphism is and OI allows for such CC images to be used. It doesn't matter whether an outside RS says that; images are not held to the same standards as text because they do different things. The text needs to be verifiable, sometimes by an independant third-party source, but an image created to help give a visual representation of what the text is that meets the free image rules is allowable and encouraged. By your very narrow definition someone drawing a diagram of a uranium atom would have to have a reliable source saying that the diagram was in fact legit and that goes against what OI was intended for.陣内 _Jinnai 21:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

[EC] That is my reading as well. The "unpublished ideas or arguments" referred to in the policy are the ideas and arguments in the article itself (moe anthropomorphism ), and not the picture that illustrates them. IvoryMeerkat's reading is circular and, as Jinnai points out, would make every illustration invalid without RSs saying they do what they say they do (which would be impossible as the policy contemplates originally made illustrations).LedRush (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it is vaguely OR, but more than that it is very self-serving. Do we have a better - well referenced example? I find the prominent use of the image dubious. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the use is fine and that IvoryMeerkat is misreading the OI language. Having said that, if we can get another free image as an example, that would probably be better.LedRush (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Good luck, finding a free image of a well known company's mascot is difficult, finding a free image of a well known company's mascot that is also an example of Moe (slang) would be even more difficult.AerobicFox (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been mulling it over and I think this is an example of an image that sits squarely in the grey area. The idea of OI is to allow images created to illustrate a clearly defined concept; i.e. a map or a photograph etc. Where the problem exists is is the level of creativity and original work that goes into the image; creating a map using pre-published material and theories is perfectly acceptable. Creating a map with public data and then advancing a theory from it is OR. We're somewhere between the two. The Opera image is not clearly identified as a moe anthropomorphism, but it is better defined as one, has coverage beyond it;s source (I think) - and is a little less navel-gazey. Alternatively I see no issue with the other image on the article - any reason why that does not demonstrate the concept sufficiently? --Errant ^(chat!) 23:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a precedent in that all our browser pages are illustrated with screen-shots of Wikipedia main page in the browser. If we had to choose between Amazon-tan and Borders-tan (or Ford-tan and Toyota-tan) we would risk being non-neutral. For these purposes Wikip-tan or whatever she is called does very well. (If you ask me , should she be the WP mascot, however, I would say no - we don't need a mascot, and if we did it should probably be a woodchuck.) Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

Or a sock-puppet ;) I am just glad to see experienced, uninvolved editors take an interest in this. I have already voiced my opinion in numerous places about the many "gray areas" Wikipe-tan falls in regarding policy. There needs to be a decision about her appropriateness one way or another. David Able 01:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora (2nd_nomination)

It is being asserted that "Norwegian diaspora" cannot be used to mean "Norwegian emigrant community" even though about 15+ Google Book results use the phrase to mean exactly that. This dispute has spilled over to Diaspora.

Here are three disputed claims underlying the assertion above: 1) 1) that WP:RS do not suffice to determine the meaning of words because scholarly definitions of any word are privileged, 2) that the policy WP:NEO forbids any use of "diaspora" that scholars have not extensively studied, and 3) that WP:SYNTH forbids using "diaspora" in article titles with its increasingly-common meaning of "dispersed community sharing some kind of identity" (and scholars too are using the term just that way, Google "gay diaspora"). All those contentions and claims are disputed. The claim by each side to have a lock on "truth" in the absence of any clear policy either way is, in my opinion, the epitome of WP:OR.

I am hoping a wider discussion will shed more light and less heat on these issues. I hope others will clarify and expand on my brief description above. Sharktopus^talk 22:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not NEO... there are several scholarly sources listed on Google Books that use the term. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Plese reread WP:NEO - where it says that in order to assert notability sources must be about the topic not just use the phrasing in passing. None of the 16 sources in google scholar are about the topic, most of them clearly use the word as an ad-hoc coinage, they also use it about different phenomena.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This post misrepresents the arguments being made. Overall it should be noted that a great number of books deal with the subject matter of "Norwegian emigrant communities" and an extremely small number use the term "Norwegian diaspora". As to the three disputed claims I'd like to rephrase them to accurately reflect the arguments being made.

1) Dictionary definitions of individual words are not sufficient to determine the meaning of compound words or phrases, and certainly not to determine the notability of using those compound words or phrases (e.g. "Norwegian diaspora"). Instead we rely on how reliable sources actually use the compound words or phrases.

2) WP:NEO isn't my argument so I will let someone else cover that.

3) WP:SYNTH applies to the first scenario. We cannot determine what belongs in an entry tittled "Norwegian diaspora" based upon our own combination of the meanings of "Norwegian" and "Diaspora" in some dictionary. We need to rely on how scholars who use the full term "Norwegian diaspora" are using it.

I'm sure others may have even more to say on this. There are a lot of other arguments that don't deal directly with original research of course. In the end I'd like to see this content moved to an entry on Norwegian emigrant communities, just not "diaspora". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Of the 22 books using the term "Norwegian Diaspora"; only 2 use it in the general sense of "Norwegian emigrant" they are Hale "Their Own Saga", and Wist, Øverland "The rise of Jonas Olsen" the other 20 use it in the sense of genuine Diaspora which is a cultural community with strong ties to the homeland and/or to other communities within the Diaspora. There is plenty of scope for two articles here, one covering a genuine Diaspora identified by reliable sources and another covering the general emigrant population - it is notable for instance that no sources regard the second mass emigration from Norway as a Diaspora even though it was a significant emigrant population (and almost depopulated the nation). That emigration to The Netherlands and Central Europe integrated so completely that many individuals are unaware of their Norwegian Heritage, however the third mass emigration to the U.S. and Canada where the Norwegian communities remained apart and united to put U.S. political pressure on Sweden to give Norway independence is considered by sources to have formed a diaspora. Answering the original question, I believe it is OR to redefine "Norwegian Diaspora" to cover general emigration of Norway rather than the formation of specific Diaspora by Norwegian emigrants.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of examples in WP:RS, not just dictionaries, of current usage of "foo diaspora" to mean simply "foo emigrants", "foo emigration", or even just "people who think of themselves as foo although they live in not-foo" -- e.g. scholarly discussion of "gay diaspora." All of these examples are evidence that "foo diaspora" is an (increasingly) common locution, not a novelty or a neologism. This is not the place to vote (again) on a particular AfD, but a place to discuss the general question of "foo diaspora". Sharktopus^talk 09:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

People who think of themselves as foo although they live in not-foo *are* part of the diaspora, that's part of the definition of diaspora (whether dictionary or scholarly). I'd like to see a significant consensus of sources that make the claim that emigrants from foo who consider themselves not-foo because they live in not-foo should still be considered part of the diaspora to justify the definition that you are using - otherwise it is OR on your part. General foo emigration is not diaspora. As for your claims about the Gay diaspora - this phrase has two meanings; in the majority of cases it represents individuals from foo where homosexuality is illegal or socially unacceptable who move to not-foo where they maintain their foo culture and foo social connections whilst having the freedom to also practice their homosexuality - in this case they join the diaspora only so they can gain freedoms not found in foo - just as traditional diaspora members may have fled oppressive regimes, or conquered lands. In the second usage Gay Culture is treated as comparable to national culture and the diaspora is the formation of gay cultural groups who relate back to some larger gay cultural group they were previously part of but are geographically separated from - both of these meanings still maintain fiaspora in the sense that it should and has always been used in - requiring connections between diaspora communities and the original homeland/culture. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

<--Per WP:NEO, one can not form a title of two words "foo bar" based on common definitions of "foo" and "bar" unless there is significant work that talks about "foo bar" by that exact name. The demands of WP:NEO don't apply to well-established non-novel words whose meaning is obvious.

We don't require that any "foo" in a title have only the scholarly special meaning given to "foo." Consider such titles as List of Unicode characters or Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. The scholarly meaning computer scientists give to "list" does not forbid multi-word titles that depend on the word's commonly-understood meaning. Is it WP:SYNTH to title an article with the word "death" plus the name of a person? Should we demand that articles with "death" in the title be limited to a scientific description of the cessation of mitochondrial activity, etc., etc.? No.

The article Diaspora attests to the complex and unrestrictive meaning that word increasingly has among scholars: "a people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location" according to the Encyclopedia of Diasporas, "almost any population on the move" according to a 2010 scholar of the topic. But whatever the scholarly definition might be, Wikipedia titles typically use words in their common, not their scholarly meaning. Conveniently, the two definitions just mentioned (substantially the same as recent dictionary definitions as well) give ample scope for using "diaspora" as a convenient shorthand for "emigration and emigrant communities." Sharktopus^talk 16:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How can you argue that in this case the meaning is obvious when it is clearly contentious? Also which policy suppirts the notion that wikipedia titles use words in the common and not their scholarly meanings? Diaspora is different from "list" and "death" because the concept originated in academia and spread from there into common usage. There is no precedent that words that have a complex genealogy in academia are used as titles with a layman definition.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

When I said the meaning was "obvious" I meant only that most people who hear the word think they know what it means. I don't know of any Wikipedia policy that requires we use words only with their scholarly meanings. Fortunately the complex genealogy of "diaspora" has brought its scholarly meaning almost indistinguishably close to its non-restrictive general use. Sharktopus^talk 16:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation of the sources that describe the recent evolution of the word. It has broadened, but as Stuart Jamieson mentions it still does have the connotation of "a people" that is divided, but maintains a common identity as "a people" in spite of being spatially dislocated.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to quote the definition from Encyclopedia of Diasporas: "Diaspora. A people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location." Note the full stop after the word "location." Their definition then continues: "The people dispersed to different lands may harbor thoughts of return, may not fully assimilate to their host countries, and may maintain relationships with other communities in the diaspora." Note the repeated use of "may" not "must." Sharktopus^talk 17:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This debate seems to hinge on whether the use of the word "Diaspora" is OR in the context of the article... I would say it is clearly not. This is a "descriptive title", as discussed at Wikipedia:Article titles. It uses a common English word (not one limited to academic writhing), and uses it in a way that is in accord with that word's definition (See: dictionary.com). This meaning is not a Neologism.

It is never OR to use a common word in accordance with its definition. Thus, it is not OR to describe the topic in question as the "Norwegian Diaspora". Now, there may be a better way to describe that topic... but that is not an issue for this page. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Diaspora" is not a "common English word" by any means, and it is a word with varying meanings depending on the context. I think the back and forth between Stuart and Sharktapus is quite telling here. The sources that actually do discuss Norwegian emigrants as part of a Norwegian diaspora use the more restrictive sense of the term diaspora that Stuart mentions. The most general meaning, that Sharktapus would like to apply to all "diaspora" entries apparently, is never used in this context. To do so would most certainly be OR in my view. I am not in 100% agreement with Stuart, but that is not in terms of OR, at least not if I'm reading him correctly. Yes this title could be used for a subject matter in a way that is not OR, but what Sharktapus and RAN have been promoting would indeed be OR. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

<--To clarify: "diaspora" is not as common a word as "list" or "death" but it is common enough under its common meaning that the NYT used it yesterday with no definition or qualification to mean essentially "dispersal" or "emigration": "they are still trying to come to grips with being part of a sudden Democratic diaspora that everyone knows about but that the lawmakers themselves do not want to reveal." Sharktopus^talk 17:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What does that anecdote prove? Most of the people who read that piece undoubtedly did not know what it meant. Most of our readers are in the same boat. Now, there nothing wrong with using uncommon words, most technical words aren't going to be common for instance, but the fact that using them ins't a problem doesn't make them "common". The term diaspora is quite clearly not the most common term for "dispersal" or "emigration", as you suggest it was used by the NYT.Griswaldo (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Further to what Griswaldo says, the NYT article uses the term diaspora to discuss individuals who have moved strictly to bring about political change in their homeland (or in this case home state), claiming otherwise is certainly misleading. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not "misleading" to express an opinion that is different from your opinion about what the NYT meant by its use of "diaspora" to describe Democrats. My mentioning the NYT article was in response to the a claim that the word was not common. Sharktopus^talk 22:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No it is misleading; it is a fallacy because you strip away the context and use it to try and demonstrate that your interpretation of diaspora is proven by it - it's not because the context still shows this to be about a subset not the general case that your argument requires. The claim may be that the word is not common, but this doesn't prove that either it simply proves that when the context supports the use of the word it is used - if you could prove that the word diaspora turned up out of context in a majority of copies of the NYT then perhaps it would show it to be common (at least in the NYT if not the English language.) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Your mind-reading powers tell you that the NYT used "diaspora" only because they were thinking about people who wanted to bring change to their home states (not a part of any scholarly definition I've seen mentioned but, hey, go for it.) My mind-reading powers tell me otherwise. You and your team are the folks who want to make a big change to Wikipedia practice by forbidding people to use "diaspora" in titles the exact way it has been done since 2007 or 2008 (Dutch diaspora and British diaspora). How about you and your team prove that what you are claiming is true, which I ahve not seen yet? Sharktopus^talk 03:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't need any mind reading powers because my whole point is that we can't know what the NYT's purpose was and it is certainly not the extraordinary evidence needed to support your extraordinary claim especially when the individuals in the diaspora meet the narrower definition (intent to return home, strong ties with other members of the diaspora, not integrating into the society they are resident in) because of (not defined by) their intent to bring about political change in their homeland. Other stuff exists however I would not class either of those articles as anywhere near examplary. They are a mass of OR, unreliable and broken sourcing and whilst not candidates for deletion need demolished and rebuilt from the ground up. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We can not know the state of mind of any individual Democrat or other diaspora member, which is why the word gets used to describe communities that share a common identity foo living in not-foo (i.e. emigrants) exactly as in our article Irish diaspora: "The Irish diaspora (Irish: Diaspóra na nGael) consists of Irish emigrants and their descendants in countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil and states of the Caribbean and continental Europe." But we are ranging far afield from the original claims put forward by Griswaldo about article titles. Sharktopus^talk 12:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. I don't know what kind of literature folks read in here, outside of newspapers, but diaspora in this sense is perfectly acceptable. If the problem is that diaspora is not dumbdowned enough, a link will fix it. Last year Wilamowitz 's great edition (1895) of Euripides' Herakles was reprinted by Cambridge University Press, and on page 6 of his introduction he refers to the diaspora of the Carians, during the upheavals of the late Bronze age, what he elsewhere called a Völkerwanderung, a term associated then and now with movements: this last term is often used of the great surges of emigration during the 'dark ages', such as that which lead to the Norse settlement of Iceland. Arnold Toynbee's excursus on the concept of diaspora (A Study of History, vol.12.(1961) 1964 OUP pb. pp.211-117) has proven fairly influential, since it more or less generalized the use of the term to cover not only those peoples whose history can be assimilated to the model of the Judaic diaspora (communities uprooting from their land who retain a common bond through religion despite their dispersion) but also others such as the Scots and the Lebanese, who were not uprooted, and do not maintain a common identity via religion, but rather common culture and language. He called this variety a type of 'secular diaspora' and that is the way it is used widely today, in academic studies of all kinds of peoples who, through disposssion, war, drought or from pure economic motives, seek to reestablish themselves in communities across the world, where they retain a sense of their common ancestry.

Checking the Norwegian diaspora page, I see the term is sourced to Margaret Clunies Ross, who is a distingushed scholar of the literature of that early period of the first Norwegian diaspora. Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the problem I have with including the viking material is that it isn't properly part of a "Norwegian" diaspora. "Norse", or "Scandinavian" would be much more accurate, and indeed are much more commonly used, with "diaspora" (you'll find that the Ross reference, consisting of one use in one book, is a lonely exception). The bulk of the literature using Norwegian "diaspora" refers to expat communities of Norwegians who emigrated in the 19th century and later, a time when referring to a shared "Norwegian" culture makes sense.Griswaldo (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Clunies-Ross is very high quality RS, and she uses the term, and we edit according to such sources, whatever our personal take on this may be. 'Norwegian' is the adjective for 'Norway', and you hardly need google to realize that historians use Norway/Norwegian comfortably for the earliest period down to modern times.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not my personal take. "Scandinavian diaspora", "Norse diaspora". They are more common. Norway first became a unified kingdom right around the time that Iceland was settled. Does it make sense to discuss emigrant groups as if they belonged to the same nation of people at that time period? How "culturally" different were they from the people inhabiting what is now Sweden or Denmark? Did they consider Norway a homeland, was it part of an identity that they used to differentiate themselves form Swedes and Danes (etc.)? It is my understanding that the literature prefers "Norse" and "Scandinavian" because the answers aren't all that clear, if not negative. But this is not area I can claim expertise in. In my opinion, "diaspora" as it is used generally today cannot be disentangled from the modern assumptions about nationhood, "culture" and collective identity that it entails (the older use, referring only to the Jews, of course has its own entailments). Using such a term to describe the grand total of disparate communal and familial groups of Norse vikings who happened to inhabit "Norway" before settling in Iceland just seems off the mark. That is admittedly, only my opinion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

<--The original claim that we could not form a title "foo bar" from two words "foo" and "bar" unless the exact phrase "foo bar" the topic of research under that exact name is a claim based on the wording of WP:NEO. The claim that "diaspora" is a neologism has been dropped. Therefore WP:NEO does not apply to this discussion.

Instead, we should look for guidance under WP:TITLE, which recommends short titles where possible and consistency among Wikipedia articles on similar topics. "Foo diaspora" is shorter than "foo emigration and emigrant communities." It is consistent with the usage of "diaspora" on other articles in Wikipedia, including articles on groups such as the Irish where most people agree there is a "diaspora" in the older sense, and in each case the article lede makes clear what the title describes:

"The Irish diaspora (Irish: Diaspóra na nGael) consists of Irish emigrants and their descendants..."
"The Albanian diaspora encompasses Albanians outside of Albania and Kosovo."
"The British diaspora consists of British people and their descendants who emigrated from the United Kingdom."
"The French diaspora consists of French emigrants and their descendants..."

Under part of this policy WP:UCN: a Wikipedia title should use "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." We would need a policy change if we wanted to start privileging "scholarly sources" over "reliable sources." Sharktopus^talk 13:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. How do you interpret "... in English-language reliable sources". I've always understood that the most reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy that also deal with the subject in depth and not simply in passing.Griswaldo (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right that WP:RS favors scholarly review articles as a source for the text of articles, although "some scholarly material may be outdated," but fact-checked news media and even blogs by respected commentators are also reliable sources. The use of "refer" rather than "study" or "examine" in our relevant policy for titles ("most frequently used to refer to the subject") means impartially counting ALL sources that 1) refer to the subject and 2) meet the WP:RS criteria.

Even for notable topics there will be fewer sources that examine them in depth than reliable sources that mention or refer to them. If your goal is to find a usefully common name, you want to go fishing in the bigger pool.

If two different phrases are in competition for frequency, the shorter one or the most up-to-date one or the one most consistent with other Wikipedia articles is suggested by other parts of the policy on titles. Sharktopus^talk 04:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree 100% with Griswaldo and Maunus that Vikings don't belong (aside from perhaps a brief mention) in an article about Norwegian emigration and emigrants. They were not "Norwegian" in any modern sense and we already have Viking expansion. But that's not related to the word "diaspora."

I also take issue with the test proposed above "When the word 'foo' is used, does it most frequently mean 'foo-bar'?" What our policy asks instead is "When people talk about 'foo-bar', do they most often say 'foo'?" These are not the same question; to say "All my dogs are brown" does not require that "All my brown things are dogs." Sharktopus^talk 16:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

<--Just to be clear, it is NOT my intention to make light of scholarship or scholarly contributions to Wikipedia by arguing for a broader use of the word "diaspora" in our article titles. My concern is basically practical. We have a boatload of articles whose general subject matter embraces some or all of foo-emigration plus foo-emigrants plus foo-emigrant-community-culture. Using "diaspora" to title such articles gives us uniformity and brevity, and in fact we already do use "diaspora" for such articles. I feel gratitude toward and respect for our scholarly contributors here, but I think we can re-use "diaspora" in ways that diaspora studies did not (yet) so long as the usage we want has been made common and understandable by non-scholarly but WP:RS media.~~

Yet another WP:RS using "diasporas" in the plural to describe exiles/émigrés/expats in general: The Economist (2003) "Diasporas: A world of exiles". This article defines diaspora as "a community of people living outside their country of origin." One might also usefully google "diaspora tourism" and "diaspora engagement" for many similar usages of the word. Sharktopus^talk 19:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Definition of formal system

A formal system should also be understood to mean that section of the public sector whose operations are regulated by government and for which enforcement is possible because it enjoys legal backing and political will.

Do we have an article that mentions that topic? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

They stuck it under Formal system which has logic as the main topic so I removed it. If there is a proper topic then there should be a disambiguation hatnote. I dont think there is such a subject as opposed to just an understanding from a dictionary. Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new cloud type

The article Undulatus asperatus is based on a proposal by the Cloud Appreciation Society (http://www.cloudappreciationsociety.org) to designate a new cloud type; undulatus asperatus is the term that the group's leader, Gavin Pretor-Pinney, has coined as a name for the type. Although one of the cited references is a National Geographic article, the article is more on the fact that the group has proposed this new cloud type than on validating the proposal itself. The group's leader (and main driving force behind the proposal) does not have meteorological training, and one reference (http://www.physorg.com/news163990239.html) cited in the article states:

"Brant Foote, a longtime scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said the clouds photographed by Wiggins already fit into the existing cumulous classification...."

I'm not sure if it's relevent or not, but the main page of the Society's web site solicits membership for a "minimal postage and administration fee...." of 4£ plus postage (for the membership certificate and badge).

I was actually going to propose this article for deletion but since I have never done that before, I wanted to check that this fits the criteria for original work with no verifiable source first. HiFlyChick (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't prod the article. It can stay as an article about a proposal. We shouldn't imply that the proposal is more accepted than it actually is. The proposal did make the news and at least some of the sources are reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure what you mean about "prod" the article... I find it a little disconcerting that the article is named after a fictional/unrecognized cloud type, whose name and existence was created by a person who has no training or credentials in the field. If not appropriate for deletion, should it perhaps be renamed to have the word proposal or theory or something similar in its title? The very existence of the article under the unofficial/fictional name lends credence to what appears to be a scientifically unsupported declaration by an unqualified individual.

It isn't an OR issue... but WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:UNDUE both apply here. If the proposed cloud type gains acceptance, then we can have an article about it. Until then, no. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have nominated the article for deletion (with a recommendation that it be moved to user space pending some indication of acceptance by the meteorological community.) Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

History of video game consoles (seventh generation)

There is a long debate occurring on the video game project page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/RfC_on_video_game_console_grouping) regarding the use of the term "generations" in the History of video games and related articles. Some editors have objected to the term for lacking sources. Other editors have found some sources which use the term (this one talks about generations 1-6: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/nakamura/iar515p/gallagher_innovation.pdf) (this one defines generation 7: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=epBIhmdsfxMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA184&dq=wii+seventh+generation&ots=9IbZE7z3EL&sig=AL7od0tw-uzu0EsBXc9cMqo3S_o#v=onepage&q=wii%20seventh%20generation&f=false). It is accepted that many sources can be found to place each console within a certain generation (for example: "The SNES and Genesis dominated the fourth generation of home consoles". However, certain editors have argued that it is original research and/or synthesis unless we can find one source that includes one entire list of every console and names all consoles in every generation. Others feel that as long as sufficient reliable sources can be found to name a certain console in a certain generation, that is sufficient for its inclusion as a member of that generation (and discrepancies should be handled by weighting the minority and majority positions appropriately).

The discussion is somewhat more complicated as some have also argued that the term "generation" must have a standard definition which we then apply ourselves to the consoles. Others have argued applying a definition to the consoles would be original research, especially if it conflicts with the majority of reliable sources.

So, I pose two questions:

1. Is it original research or synthesis to use different sources to create a complete list of consoles' generations?

2. Is it original research or synthesis to apply a definition to consoles in a manner that sources do not?LedRush (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Yes, and Yes. Console "generations" are poorly defined. No two sources really agree on how to delineate them well. Combining sources to determine the criteria is clear OR. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not surprised by your answer to question 2 (which I, too, believe is clear OR), but I am not sure I was clear on the other question. No one was proposing combining sources to determine any criteria. The criteria are laid out in that first citation above, and virtually every source agrees on which console goes in which generation. The question is whether you need one source that lists every generation and every single console in each, or could you use the second source above to say "this is the seventh generation"?LedRush (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop saying "virtually every source" when its clear that isn't the case. There are some sources that agree, possibly even a majority for some generations, but not "virtually every". Also, there is no clear method that distinquishes how to classify every generation.陣内 _Jinnai 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Virtually every source does agree. I think the Odyssey2 is the only one I've seen that doesn't conform. If you'd like to show me some others, that would be nice, but your last attempt ended up supporting my arguments (and one of the links isused above).LedRush (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you give an example of question 1? I'm not sure I fully understand. Marcus Qwertyus 00:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's say we take the two citations above and assume that they are RSs and otherwise meet all WP criteria for making an article. The first lists major consoles from the first generation to the sixth generation, but doesn't mention the seventh generation as it was published before the seventh generation began. The second source lists some consoles from the sixth and seventh generations. I guess the question is two-fold:

1. Can we use the second source (again, assuming it meets all other WP criteria) as a source for the article on the History of video game consoles (seventh generation) (or is it Synth/OR because it doesn't list all seven generations)?
2. Can we use the the first source as a source for generations 1-6 on the History of video game consoles article and the second one as a source for generations 6-7 on the same article, or is that Synth/OR?LedRush (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To restate this issue, the problem is that we have several, very reliable sources that give the fact(s) "Console 'A1' is in Generation 'N1'", "Console 'A2' is in Generation 'N2'", and so forth for about 40-50 hardware units (An) and generations (N1-N7). Now, there are a handful of differences in certain assignments, but, say, 80% of the time, they're consistent. Some have suggested that because WP adapted the term Generation, the press has begun using it more, which is certainly a possibility, and avoids the CIRCULAR argument.

But what we're have a problem is here is that there is no source that says "Generation 'N1' is defined by this property". They'll list out the consoles they believe are in those generations (if they do so in the first place), again with the small differences noted above, but there is no single accepted metric of what a "Generation" is.

The way I've tried to compare this is to the paleontology eras (Mesozoic era, Ice age, etc.), or even modern human history ages (Dark Ages, Industrial Era), where there are standard definitions that have been agreed to by experts, which generally say "This era is bounded by the years Y to Z". That means, in those cases, if an event occurred in that range, we can say (if its necessary) that it happened in that era. We cannot say the same thing with the sources we have that outline what belongs in a generation but don't turn around to define what a generation actually is. This leads to speculation and original research when describing anything else that is not specifically defined to be part of a specific generation. Case in point are the next major portable gaming console releases, the Nintendo 3DS and the "NGP" (Next Generation Portable) both due to release this year. We're having edit wars on the various generation articles because people, well naturally, think that because they are new units, the generation number must go up by one, thus starting the yet-to-be defined eighth generation. If the definition of generations was clearer from the existing sources, it might be possible to make stronger assertions on this, but that definition just doesn't exist, and the one-way labeling of consoles to generations just doesn't help enough.

This is why some of us consider it original research and while certainly not getting rid of the term "generation", we want to order our articles by a less speculative metric, specifically through year of release which is indisputable. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly alright. Synthesis would be to use one source that says 6th gen consoles have X, Y, and Z and another that says console A has X, Y, and Z features to assert that Console A is in fact 6th gen.

Another no no: don't find a source that says "all consoles released after x date are x gen" and then cite the release date as a the reason for it being x gen. Marcus Qwertyus 01:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. What about this: Source A defines Generation Y as being characterized by X attributes. Source B says that Console 1 is in Generation Y. Source C says that Console 1 doesn't have X attributes. So, would either the following (1) or (2) by OR/Synth?:

(1) Editor concludes that Source B is wrong and that Console 1 is not in Generation Y.
(2) Editor further concludes that applying the definition to Console 1 makes it Part of Generation Y-1(the one previous to Y).LedRush (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked your wording a bit. Both would be synthesis. From what we know so far Console 1 is 7th Gen. It is 7th gen unless more sources explicitly say it is 6th gen than sources explicitly say it is 7th gen. Marcus Qwertyus 04:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, well, we're completely on the same page, so far. Above, Masem argues that we don't have a definition for generation (we actually do, one based on year of release, competitors, cpu-power and marketing in the citation above), but if we did, we could call the 3DS and NGP a next generation (assuming they fell within this definition). I believe that this is also OR/Synth because you can't use a definition to interpret whether or not something is part of an eighth generation. However, if we have sources that claim that these consoles are in the eighth generation, then we could cite those sources.LedRush (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is 6th gen compared to what? Since there is no clear distinction - and in fact many disagreements as you go back in time to gen1-3, what is gen N, then how can we say that X is gen 6 means that its the gen 6 we have defined? We cannot know what they mean by Gen 6th because enough sources do disagree that without context its impossible to say when they say "Gen 6" are these consoles, and not these. There is a lot of assumption going around. The biggest differences are academic sources, industry sources and press sources. FE: the PlayStation 2 is listed as 5th, 6th and 7th gen depending on who you ask. The differences come because each has their own determination of what a "generation" is. Even those that agree which generation for PS2, may disagree for other systems like the Dreamcast or Nintendo DS.陣内 _Jinnai 02:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You are conducting OR with these claims. As stated above, you just use the generation the best/most sources use, and if there is large enough dissenting opinion (which I highly doubt as I've only seen one source contradict the sixth generation (because it conflated generations 1-2) and I've never seen one dispute the Dreamcast's place in it), you can mention the dissenting opinion, making sure not to place undue weight on it. But you can't conduct your own original research to dispute reliable sources, and your insistence on doing that is a bit exasperating.LedRush (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not the same. You're talking about essentially cherry picking pieces from various sources to contract a timeline of generations because not many support the current framework and they don't say how they came to it, plus there is some evidence of CIRCULAR, although not central problem. The bottom line is your trying to ram through a timeline that is disputed because its no real effort been shown how each generation is definined and there is not, by any means, a way to say clearly that when the majority of RSes talk about generation N they are meaning the generation division that exists in Wikipedia; indeed for older generations the opposite is the case. It's been clearly shown the curently labeled generation 1 is not supported by "nearly every" source; in fact not one source I came across supported it.

It would be a different matter as not needing a clear way to define "generation" if all the sources agreed, but they don't. Also there are several industry experts who claim that the use of generation model used here is not used in the manner done by Wikipedia, just that people talke about "next generation" all the time which begs the question, is it really as widely supported as you claim?陣内 _Jinnai 06:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am not cherry picking anything to contract a timeline of generations. Even opponents of the grouping like Masem concede that 80% of the time the sources match (I think this is a conservative estimate). When I have asked you for sources which contradict out generation layout, you have failed to provide more than a couple of outlying nits, which should be discussed in the articles themselves. Also, could you please show sources that say that the industry doesn't use the generation model we have (not that this would be dispositive evidence of anything)? And you are conducting OR for your claims. We have sources that lay out the sixth generation, and they agree with each other, and you say it doesn't count because in your own research you cannot confirm that they are using the term "generation" to mean the same thing.LedRush (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Masem has said 80% are consistant, but that doesn't really say much. It's also just a gestimate on his part and I'd say its actually a bit high. When I have asked you for sources you've produced not even 1 single source that backs up those claims save a few that list X ad a Y generation, but don't define what it is. OR does not have anything to do with claims - it has to do with article content only, which the division of content also is part of. Not all the sources agree about the 6th generation and even the one Masem used above do not agree with the 6th generation as they don't list the Dreamcast as part of it. You are the one conducting OR by assuming that they just left it off because it was an old model of the 6th gen because there is no clear definition of 6th gen. As far as we can verify that source says only 3 consoles were part of the 6th gen. Since they're not the same and there is no clear definition, we cannot simply say that they're leaving the DC out. That is why you're picking sources here and there to construct your argument.

As for showing you what a generation is, you should know that proving a negative is not something that can be done. However, you've not yet proven that it is used by a large consistantly and even if it is, academic sources disagree with you.

Finally even if there are a few that agree on what a "6th generation" is, there are a lot of older consoles where this agreement breaks down and yet you want to use OR to place consoles in various segmenets regimenting all the way back to a 1st generation in a way that RSes disagree with.

Finally, those searches you produced elsewhere to prove you point are not talking mostly about video game generations as we are talking about here by and large, but a group of people known as the "video game generation".陣内 _Jinnai 17:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not OR to use one source to say that a certain console is 6th generation and use another source to say that another console is also 6th generation. However, it is OR to say that Source X lists these three consoles as part of the 6th generation and therefore contradicts any other source that adds a new console to part of the 6th generation. It's not just OR, it doesn't make any logical sense. There is no contradiction here accept for the one you are creating by using illogical assumptions.

And I don't know what you're talking about regarding the "video game generation", please link to it. I also don't know what you're talking about when you say I want "to place consoles in various segmenets regimenting all the way back to a 1st generation in a way that RSes disagree with." All I want to do is say that when a RS calls a console a certain generation, we can call it that generation. You want to investigate whether the definition they used is consistent (OR) or whether that creates problems for listing other generations in your mind (OR).LedRush (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is OR because there is no clear definition of generation and therefore you cannot know what they mean by generation and how their classification of generation goes, unless they spell it out. While there are a few sources that do this, there are RSes that contradict on how they are classified and no there aren't many of those types and most of the more scholarly ones do disagree with those presented above.

"All I want to do is say that when a RS calls a console a certain generation, we can call it that generation." that's the crux of my problem because you have not shown evidence of how most of the sources when they say "X generation" mean the same thing as the majority of other sources.

It's hard to prove a negative (that they aren't using generations differently) which is why WP:V requires the opposite: that those wanting to add contriversial claims - and this certainly qualifies as one - prove otherwise. Neither you nor anyone else has really shown that when as source talks about the 6th generation, they are basing it on the same generation model as everyone else. You get to it largely though combining source A + B to = C which isn't supported by the facts, ie they all agree on the same generation model.陣内 _Jinnai 20:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

When you have tried to show that there are different definitions of generations, you have proven the opposite. Please show sources that prove this position of give up this tired argument. We can clearly show that sources say that a certain console is from a certain generation, so verifiability is not an issue. And there is a clear definition of a generation which is stated above. You may not like it, but it is there and from a RS. Also, if you apply this definition to other consoles, you are conducting OR (as proven above). If several sources say that a certain console if from a certain generation, but you disagree based on your own feelings or definition of generation, that is also OR (also proven above). LedRush (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not. There is no way you can say that because X source says something is 3rd gen and Y source says its 3rd gen they are talking about the 3rd gen. Furthermore, you cannot say when a source omits consoles in a listing its just doing so because it doesn't need to for whatever reason because there is no industry standard for what makes up a generation. You are trying to introduce OR to video game history through synthesis.

That standard you use does not agree with the current model and is not considered an industry standard as far as sources can be shown; indeed there are sources that you have shown that would disagree.That source is a RS, but it is not some overwhelmingly used source that other RSes point to when citing generation. In addition, there is no definition of 7th generation and there are sources. It should be given the weight of every other source otherwise that's a WP:NPOV violation.陣内 _Jinnai 22:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if two different sources say that two things are third generation, it is OR to say that they must be in conflict because of some standard of "generation" you want to apply to them.

And the definition of "generation" used in the RS above works fine with the model...but you cannot use OR to dispute it. And there are many sources for the 7th generation, so I don't know what you're talking about now. You have seen sources for what constitutes the seventh generation above, so you need to be more careful with your statements.LedRush (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are flawed on a fundimental level because you're assuming that when everyone talks about a generation they all are speaking with one voice. There is no industry standard and that source Masem claims cannot be used to say others agree with it because, again, you'd be assuming without a clear industry standard that when X says something is Y generation they would be using that model. That's the big blantant load of OR.陣内 _Jinnai 04:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not assuming anything. I merely use the sources and cite what they say. However, your argument involves original research because you are trying to pull outside information to conduct your own investigation into whether or not people are talking about some fake "generation" labeling that we have no evidence even exists. Your argument is entirely based on speculation and the assumption that there is a shadowy underworld of generation labeling that exists outside of our knowledge, and therefor every source that cites a console as being part of a generation can't be trusted unless it lists every single console from generation 1 until now and includes a perfect definition of what constitutes a generation that is so concrete that if you were to conduct your own personal investigation into its validity, it would pass your test. I would like to remind you that the uninvolved editors above have already indicated that it is not original research to use the sources in the way that we currently do, and that it is synthesis to use a definition from one source to impeach another source or to dispute the generation based on an outside definition. If you don't believe me, why don't you ask this board AGAIN about how the generation name is applied in the article and see what the uninvolved editors say. They have already thrown out your arguments and verified the current system, but maybe you don't like the way the questions were asked, so try again. The bickering between you and me will not solve anything. The reason I came here was so that we could clearly label what is and isn't OR so we could discuss things more clearly. But you're simply ignoring others' opinion on the OR issue and dominating the discussion so that no one else would want to give any input.LedRush (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming that when someone says 3rd generation they mean the same thing as someone else. If you didn't, you wouldn't want to cite those sources saying there are plenty of sources saying that there are 3 7th gen systems. You are assuming they all use the same criteria for backing up those claims. Your argument is entirely based on the speculation that when someone says something they mean the same thing as someone else when no industry or standard (and no academic standard) has been shown to exist. Your assuming that it does. I would like to remind you that other univolved editors have also claimed it is very much so original research and that you are the only one who truly thinks there is absolutely no original research and no issues period. You are clearly the minority opinion here. If you don't believe me ask again, making certain to put a notice on everyone who was involved in the RfC that its up again. You are simply ignoring others opinions because you refuse to listen to what has been said here and elsewhere. Yes there are some others who believed you, but it wouldn't have gone to an RfC if I was the only one.

You had one editor here agree with you and one editor disagree and chose to ignore the one who disagreed and focus solely on the one who did. Therefore you cannot claim that there is no OR going on. Even Masem has voiced doubts on the use of the sources being used as they are as OR.陣内 _Jinnai 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We are not getting anywhere. When neutral observers come in and tell you you're wrong, but you refuse to listen, I don't know what I can do. I assume from your long diatribe misrepresenting my views, that you've decided once again not to provide any evidence that we should automatically disregard any citation that does not contain within it a complete list of all geneartions of consoles (which appears to be the only source you'll accept, though you've rejected the one that has 6 out of 7 on it). Perhaps it's time for mediation? Is there a simpler solution that we've been ignoring as we argue our points again and again and again?LedRush (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The same could be said about you since you seem to ignore the first editor who came here and said both were OR.

I don't have to provide evidence. You do. That's what WP:BURDEN is about. The burden is on you to show that its not reliable as multiple editors, ie not just me, believe it is OR. The sources aren't directly supporting the claims. Proving a negative is not something that is expected because it is nigh impossible.

As for what I'd accept, I don't need a source stating what every console is. However, If you or someone like Masem - not me - can show me that the source that lists criteria for 1-6 is widely accepted by those 80% you claim are in agreement, then that's good enough for 1-6 generation. If you can show also that if those same sources agree on the 7th gen, that's also good enough. The problem is you haven't done anything to show that the source is widely accepted. Finally, if and when you show that the current history and many of the spinoffs will have to be rewritten it does not have the same generation scheme as Wikipedia's article does.陣内 _Jinnai 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you have mistaken proving a negative (which is sometimes hard, but it is hardly impossible) with disproving a positive. I have shown numerous sources which refer to certain consoles being in the same generation as each other, and simple google searches reveal more. I have easily met and surpassed the burden, and now it is your burden to disprove the hundreds of RSs which almost completely agree with each other. For example:

Wii, PS3 and xbox360 are in the seventh generation: [15]

Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in the seventh generation: [16]

Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in the seventh generation: [17]

Book entitled "Seventh Generation Video Game Consoles" lists PS3, Wii and xbox360 in its title [18]

Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in seventh generation [19]

Wii. PS3 and xbox360 are in seventh generation [20]

Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in seventh generation [21] This source has a good overview of all the generations, and defines the differences between generations as being marked by, among other things, performance metrics and storage media.

Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in the seventh generation [22]

Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in the seventh generation [23]

If you don't like a couple of these for any reason, don't worry, there are hundreds more that can be given. I now await all the sources that claim that the Xbox 360 is part of a generation other than the seventh. Of course, we would need to find several before we could merely make a mention in the article that some small minority of sources disagree, and dozens before it begins to actually challenge the wall of sources that say it's seventh, but I await your examples regardless.LedRush (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And the problem is they disagree. You are once again cherry picking which items to list here as to what they say should go in the seventh generation. I just had to go down to your 4th example (the first 3 are unreliable sources and thus what they say cannot be used to verify common usage) to find that that one lists more units that you do. I didn't bother with the rest because its clear from those that you're just picking stuff from whatever source you can use, not reliable sources and then cherry picking the results out to match your own view.陣内 _Jinnai 17:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

While I would be happy for you to tell me why you think the sources aren't reliable, I can assure you that your personal attack on me is untrue: I am not cherry picking anything. I set out to find sources that list the Wii, PS3 and Xbox360 as part of the seventh generation, and have done so. Please provide some sources which say that the Wii is in some other generation, or merely accept what the vast majority of RSs have noted, that the Wii, PS3 and Xbox360 are seventh generation consoles.LedRush (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No what I'm saying by you cherry picking is that you are just saying that you already have an assumption - only the Wii, Xbox360 and PS3 are 7th gen and then when the source adds more to it then that, you don't go and mention that because it contradicts you claim that there is agreement on what is considered "7th generation". That's how it appears because all I had to do to find that was read down a couple paragraphs, ie it wasn't buried deep within the book.陣内 _Jinnai 19:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how you are misunderstanding me, but it is clear we have a disconnect. I stated that "I have shown numerous sources which refer to certain consoles being in the same generation as each other" and then showed sources that demonstrate that the "Wii, PS3 and xbox 360 are in the seventh generation." Now I am asking you to please find me some sources that say they are not in the seventh generation.LedRush (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You showed some unreliabel sources that showed that, which cannot be used as proof here, and sources that showed ""Wii, PS3 and xbox 36 and others are 7th generation"; finally you showed some reliable sources that did exactly what you claim. Point being you have shown that there isn't an overwhelming agreement you claim.陣内 _Jinnai 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so the reliable sources, (and unspecified unreliable ones) all say that the Wii, the xbox360 and the PS3 are in the seventh generation, right?LedRush (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why I say you're cherry picking. I said some said that - in addition to other units - while others only said those 3. Ignoring that others said more than those 3 and thus saying "everyone agrees" when there is no universally used basis for 7th gen proves my point - there is no clear definition for 7th gen. When X talks about 7th gen they mean something else than Y. If they did, there wouldn't be such disagreements.陣内 _Jinnai 17:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you concede that everyone agrees that the Wii, PS3 and the 360 are in the seventh generation, right?LedRush (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Since they don't all agree on which consoles are 7th gen nor which criteria makes up a 7th gen I cannot agree because there is no definition. It's like saying all of them are "bold" consoles. What is "bold"? There's no definition for it. We had this discussion about computer role-playing games and console role-playing games. You are trying to make me say WP:SYNTHESIS can be completely ignored here and I won't agree to that because they don't all agree. You can't simply say "well since they all say X, Y and Z are, but thy don't all say A, B and C are we can just pretend like no one says anything about A, B and C" when there's no clear evidence what makes X, Y and Z the same. That is violating not just OR, its also violating WP:NPOV (you'd be trying to push an agenda that the other consoles some list aren't 7th gen).

If they had ALL said ONLY the PS3, Wii and Xbox 360 were 7th gen, I might be more willing, but its clear they aren't. I'd also though by the same token not allow 3DS and the PSP2 statements to say "next generation" = 8th since that's a buzzword that the industry commonly uses when something new comes out.陣内 _Jinnai 23:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this response of yours is a perfect example of why we can't get anything done on this topic. If you are unwilling to concede such a basic point, there is really no point in discussing this with you because you have no basis in reality. All I was saying is that each of the above sources agreed that the Wii, PS3 and the Xbox 360 are in the seventh generation, nothing more. Because each clearly does this, and you deny it, I don't see how we can agree on anything more. I think mediation is the only way forward.LedRush (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You want me to concede to allowing sythensis? You want to simply ignore that some people group other systems in their listing of 7th gen because it goes against your statement that virtually everyone agrees on what systems make up 7th gen. No, [b]I will never agree to allowing synthesis in Wikipedia.[/b] You are saying they all agree to that; if they did why do some also have DS and PSP? Expalin that and how those systems fit into the equation because some of the RSes you have use those then explain how you can ignore those RSes and pretend they don't really include those and just have the PS3, Xbox360 and Wii listed as 7th gen.陣内 _Jinnai 15:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but when you so greatly distort my views and fail to merely look at the references, I can no longer assume good faith on your part. Every source I provided includes the Wii, PS3 and the 360 as part of the seventh generation, and you can not concede that simple point. If you want to make bigger points, they are lost by your disingenuous refusal to accept an undisputable claim: that each of the references provided above includes the Wii, PS3 and 360. It is clear that we cannot engage in intelligent conversation until you either adjust your attitude or until we enter a formal mediation process.LedRush (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to unless you admit that they did not all agree on what consoles make up a 7th generation and therefore there is no overwhelming majority. The way I look at it, is it seem to want me to admit that so you can say "They agree on those systems so then those systems must be 7th generation" which is not what U am willing to say. Call me sceptical, but I can't really assume good faith on your part because of the way you've been trying to twists words around.陣内 _Jinnai 06:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your refusal proves that you are not discussing in good faith. I want you to admit to an undeniable, provable fact. You seem to accept that what I am saying is a provable fact, but you want me to agree to your analysis/argument regarding those facts as a prerequisite to admit them. That is not how honest discussions work. If something is a fact, it's a fact. We should be able to agree on that and then let the best arguments with those facts prevail.LedRush (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The best way I can describe this issue is this. The way we are presently using the "generation" terms, we're talking console hardware, software, events, etc. that are encapsulated into these "generations". That's all fine and good, but then we have the problem of delineating the bounds of what those actual generations are. There is no question we have sources that say "Console A is in generation N", but we have no consist definition that says "Generation N is defined by Fact X and Fact Y". If all we were talking about in the generations article were console hardware, certainly the "Console A in Gen N" would be fine, but these are more than that, and thus we're making an original though making the jump from hardware generations to overall generations. At least if we did this by years, we have a factual basis for included things in certain periods without any original research beyond exactly how best to split up the years. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I've not heard the issue put in these terms before (or if I had, I'd missed it). I would stipulate to the renaming of the articles around year dates if:

the articles remain organized largely as now: namely, by the consoles in each generation as they are now defined
there are no efforts to scrub the term "generation" (second generation, thrid generation, etc.) from the article and an agreement that using the term "generation" to describe the consoles of a certain year grouping is not original research (assuming RSs say that x console is in y generation).LedRush (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that we obvious still need to break up things chronologically, the selection of which years is up to us, but as you say, it makes the most sense to use the years as defined by the current splits because consoles within those splits are most often compared against each other (eg no one compares a PS3 to a Dreamcast). And we can still say "Consoles releases from Y to Z are often considered the "Nth generation" of hardware. 99% of the articles are left untouched, and heck, in the navboxes we can still leave the designation, like "YYYY-ZZZZ (Nth generation)" for clarity. If in the future the generation term becomes better defined (even if WP is the one that influences that), the switchback would be trivial. This also deals with th problem of the 3DS and NDP, with the current "7th gen" article being retitled as "(2005-present)"; until people start saying they are eighth gen (if they ever do), they happily fit the metric without new OR. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As an interrum change, that's fine. Long-term, they should go the way of pc games, unless we also want to start changing them to go the same way as video games. It seems like their is a bias here in giving console/handheld games "special treatment" when compared to pc games when they too have had historic divisions.陣内 _Jinnai 02:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How are PC games done? I can't see a way different than the current one that makes sense for video games, but perhaps something could be ok.LedRush (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say a basis for starting would be to look at History of personal computers.

Beyond that, there are couple other sources like:

this one (yes its primarly about educational games, but in order for them to talk about pc games, they have to go into a general background history)

NASA guide similar divisions here

I would show you more, but the rest are unreliable or use the terms PC game and video game so losely that they do not distinguish one from the other (including many of the reliable sources), even for early games.陣内 _Jinnai 01:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I went there and looked at the articles and I don't see any helpful structures there. In fact, any disruption to the current format would have to have quite dramatic and compelling reasoning as the history of video games loses much of its meanings when consoles from the same generations are not discussed and presented in relation to each other. But this is a discussion for another time and another board.LedRush (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I can if you want show a majority of sources linking PC games with video games in as one in the same for purposes of historical dissucion. My point being there is no generally accepted timeline. There are a multitude of them.陣内 _Jinnai 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that these "generations" have no firm definition. You can't say that "a third generation console is one that has a 16 bit CPU bus" or something like that. The definitions are by enumeration. There is indeed some kind of general acceptance of the term "Seventh generation" as meaning "The Wii, Xbox 360 and the PS-3" - but that's not a definition, it's an enumeration of members. It's as if biologists were to define the term "mammal" as "A mouse, a rabbit, a fox, a chimpanzee..<several pages>..or a sealion". That definition-by-enumeration is problematic because if you discover a new animal (or a new game console is released) you have no way to decide whether it's a mammal or not (or whether it constitutes an additional member of the list of third-generation consoles). For biologists, that would be a horrible way to proceed - and so it is for us. If we split console history up by generations and someone writes a new article about a 1970's Czechoslovakian game console - then how do we fit that into the "history of..." articles? We'd have to find at least one contemporary RS that said "The XYZZY-2000 is a fourth generation console"...but suppose we can't find such a source? (That wouldn't be a surprise - because it's Czechoslovakian). How do we know which 'generation' it belongs in? If the generations had firm definitions (such as Vehicle size class does for automobiles) - then there would be no problem. We'd merely have to look up the specification of the machine in RS and we'd know where to place it.

Sadly, we don't have such a clear-cut definition, so we can only place consoles into their proper place into the "history of..." articles if we can find an RS that assigns them (more or less arbitrarily - and certainly at the whim of an individual magazine writer) to a particular generation - otherwise we're screwed. Splitting the history into time periods is a much more sensible approach because it requires us only to find the year the machine was released in - and that's a much simpler proposition.

Let's put this in a concrete example. Suppose Nintendo announces a successor to the Wii (The Wii-II or something) - let's suppose it's less powerful than the PS-3 or Xbox-360 (a reasonable supposition)...but it's new. Is it eighth generation or still seventh? We can't say because we don't have a RS yet...instead we're left waiting while the fanboys of the various consoles duke it out with the reviewers. Argh!

SteveBaker (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If the above two comments are indicative of the types of changes to be accepted, I do not consent to any compromise but will instead push for arbitration on this issue. Despite obstinant claims to the contrary, there are RSs with definitions for the generations, and these definitions do seperate the consoles effectively.

Also, I don't understand why we would want to break up the sections of the history of video games articles that compare the consoles from different generations. We have tons of RSs which compare intra-generation properties without a mention of the PCs and their games. Jinnai's last comment, specifically, looks like an attempt to subvert Wikipedia's policy on articles and introduce a huge amount of OR. I do not want to compare the PC games to the difference generations unless there are RSs for it. As I said above, any disruption to the current format for the history of video games would have to have quite dramatic and compelling reasoning as the history of video games loses much of its meanings when consoles from the same generations are not discussed and presented in relation to each other.LedRush (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually on the Wii, I've found some RSes that acknowledge that there is still ongoing debate what "generation" it should be; those were late last year and acknowledged that it is ongoing in the community as a whole, ie forums. Point is, even for the supposed 7th gen where everyone agrees, everyone doesn't. There is now not even 1 generation you can show that everyone agrees.

As far as next step, I'd hate to say it, but it seems that since you seem to want to be ignore core policies to push a POV and ignore anything that contradicts it (like the PC divisions which they DO divide into terms similar to how some use video game console generation). This discussion hasn't helped and RfC seems if anything to be in favor of my proposal - to divide similar to PC games (while acknowledging some consoles are listed as X generation in the prose), but somehow I think you'll not acknowledge that.陣内 _Jinnai 22:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please show me these RSs which contradict which generation the Wii is in. The fact remains, virtually every source agrees on the generations, and your months long crusade against this position has produced no evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, your insistence on conducting OR in defense of your positions is further evidence that you don't have any. I still don't know why you'd want to rip up the history of video games articles into different divisions than currently exist and therefore make them lost most of their meaning.LedRush (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WRONG. You have chosen to ignore or dismiss any source I propose; its frankly for this issue impossible for me to assume good faith with you because any source I do produce you say it doesn't state what I say when it clearly does; in addition you also refuse to acknowledge that you are using synthesis to come with your nailing down of every console to a specific generation. I'm not alone; others also agree with me so quit saying its my personal crusade. If it was, then why do others agree with me and why cannot you show a clear method of how to define a 7th generation? Frankly you've done very little at all to prove that your position isn't sythensis and instead just keep spouting the same mantra. I've done more to prove my point by showing sources and the fact that you dismiss them out-of-place shows your on a crusade to keep this the status quo.陣内 _Jinnai 02:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The only uninvolved editor here agreed that what we currently do on the history of video games is not OR or Synth, but what you propose is. It doesn't get clearer than that. I give a scholarly article which defines generations, and you ignore it because it isn't precise enough for you. You try to conduct further OR to dispute that RS. Almost every source agrees on which consoles go in which generation, yet you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge WP policy on the issue.

Despite your lack of good faith, your inability to listen to uninvolved editors, and your refusal to follow WP policy, I conceded above that we can lose this extremely well sourced and undeniably compliant term (generation) so long as the general structure of the articles remained, as several people before had suggested. However, you took the opportunity not to seek compromise, but to further insult me and try and cram bad article decisions that will obfuscate more than enlighten our readers. I ask, yet again, for mediation if you cannot deal with this issue in an open and honest way with room for compromise.LedRush (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't ignore it. Let's stick with facts, not your conjecture. I acknowledge that it does list video game consoles by generation. However, unlike you, I do not assume without any proof that anyone else uses that model for generations and I especially don't assume without any proof' that we can ignore synthesis and take 2 sources which in no way have any connection nor do they list the same basic facts (even for 6th generation) and make the leap that another source = 7th generation because it lists a few (note not all) of the consoles that source list. Those listing a console as X generation on other sites have been shown inconstant enough (even by your results, let alone others) that it cannot be claimed they use that site as a basis for their "generation" listing".

I also, unlike you, don't assume without any proof that the source listing 3 6th gen sources and 3 7th gen soruces is merely leaving out some 6th generation consoles. You cannot verify that that is the case and therefore any leaps to make that source stick is synthesis because the latter doesn't even define what is a 7th generation console.

You have completely ignored uninvolved editors, when there were some that showed up in the RfC (one of whom SteveBaker recently posted here) nor uninvolved editors who disagreed with you here such as HandThatFeeds when he did not agree with you. You dismissed their claims like you are trying to mine, except unlike them, I'm not willing to roll over and let you continue to violate WP:NOR simply because it is the status quo.

As for the compromise, as I said, for an interrum change that's fine, but all it does is have a window dressing over the real issue - that there is legitimate dispute about video game history - including whether to seperate consoles, handhelds and PC games (yes many video game histories do not distinquish between PC games and video game console games).

That is the crux of my argument. You are merely assuming info to help fill in the gaps and assuming sources are commonly cited (without mentioning them specifically) of something that has shown a history of having inconsistency in how it is chronicled and using those "assumptions" to create scenerio that leaves the status quo largely intact. I am not saying no one uses generations, but as [User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] points out, it seems largely analgous, to the "Supercar" definition; something that is appears to be a peacock term that doesn't have hard rules consistently applied across most, if not all, sources.陣内 _Jinnai 10:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If you spent half as much time reading WP policy or doing simple research into this subject as you do in writing vitriolic diatribes filled with illogical and unsupported arguments, you'd sound far less silly than you currently do. I have provided much proof above, and anyone here merely need scroll up to see it. I have made no assumptions and conducted no original research. Perhaps when you can find your own RSs which contradict the numerous others presented that directly conflict with your opinions, you can post them here. But be careful, last time you did that you helped my argument more than you hurt it.

However, your insistence at ignoring WP policy, your continued uncivil behavior, and your refusal to even acknowledge any evidence which contradicts your view leads me to believe that mediation is the only way forward.LedRush (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr, but I have been peaking in on this discussion. If the "proof" is that current gen consoles are in the 7th generation, it ignores the problem that this debate is much more complicated than just the current generation. Unfortunately, if the generation divide was created by Wikipedia, it should be easy to find sources that place current generation consoles in a specific generation; it's finding older sources that place prior consoles in numbered generations taht would prove more problematic. —Ost (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There are tons of sources for the earlier generations as well (you can check the links to the content discussions on other pages). There are also a few sources for the definition of the term "generation". The issue is that some editors believe that we need one RS with every single generation laid out and a definition of "generation" that they like or else it is OR and SYNTH.LedRush (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

From the sources I have seen, your interpretation of the problem seems to ignore that many of the sources exist after the Wikipedia article or that sources use terms like "next generation" or "previous generation" inconsistently. This is more an issue of prior SYNTH rather than current SYNTH, and if nothing else it would be nice to have some consensus on the demarcation of the generations. I agree that multiple sources should generally be used to create a complete picture of the generations and also understand that if there were prior synth, it may be too late to change as it has become common vernacular. If there are exceptions in the definitions of generations, would it be possible to create an article that lists conforms with most of the sources and has an additional section that discusses the controversial categorization of some consoles? —Ost (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

For my argument I don't depend on any sources which use either the term "next generation" or "previous generation": I only depend on sources which say a certain console is in a specific, numbered generation (e.g., second generation, third generation, etc.). If you agree that it is not synth to say source #1 says that these consoles are in X generation and source #2 says that these different consoles are in Y generation, than we are in agreement.LedRush (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So, we almost had a compromise, and it looks like it got derailed... or at least side-tracked. Is this salvageable? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise, but it seems that Jinnai has taken a new, and much more extreme position and is using this discussion as a pretext to enact it. In light of this information, I am afraid that any compromise on these points will lead to a serious deterioration in both the quality of the articles and the accessibility of them to new readers.LedRush (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the one that's been proposed at least. I am standing by that at least video games should conform to what computer games have been forced to conform to, inspite evidence to the contrary (i submitted it inspite being dismissed by LedRush who i believe is biased against anything that fundimentally changes the nature of the articles setup). Also, while it seems some editors at WP:V were fine with this not violating WP:CIRCULAR, the larger body beyond it also seems more concered.

As I mentioned though, I'm not against in the proposed setup (which was proposed by someone other than me originally) that mention could be made that console X is generally considered Y generation.陣内 _Jinnai 03:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

While I see Jinnai's words, I'm not sure I understand what he's trying to say. It seems that he's ok with saying that certain consoles are regarded as being in certain generations, which is good as it is completely verifiable info in RSs. However, in dropping his OR claims, it seems he has made one of circularity, an argument which I have not seen before. Perhaps I have not seen it because it is demonstrably false. The first citation in this topic is from a 2002 book which clearly defines what a "generation" of video gaming consoles is and has a table placing some popular consoles within each generation (at that time there were only 6). As that book was published in 2002, and in January 2003 the history of video gaming article [24] was a stub which had been edited about 10 times and which did not use the term generation, I am not sure how there is a circularity issue.LedRush (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to allow something like "console X is generally labeled as generation Y" as a good faith attempt to find a compromise. However, I stand by that sectioning it by generation when there for many consoles disagreement, especially as one goes back in time and there is no clear criteria what makes up a "7th generation console", plus there have been others (not myself mostly so stop trying to twist the facts and make it look like its everyone vs. me) that say that there is some violation of CIRCULAR, even if some sources reported it beforehand, they didn't do so for every system before we started using generation. I went and showed this at WT:VG. The bottom line is there's no clear classification system for what is nth generation. I'd really prefer that we not include any generation info for specific consoles, but as i said before, I'm willing to make a good faith compromise.陣内 _Jinnai 01:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your compromise is laughable. We have huge amounts of verifiable, reliable sources which state info. It is a serious breach of WP policy not to allow a statement like "system x is general considered in generation y". You've compromised nothing, except possibly, the possibility that I can consider your arguments are made in good faith.

And repeating demonstrably false claims doesn't make them true. We have only seen a very few sources which disagree on a few consoles concerning their placement in generations. Per Wikipedia policy, this issue should be addressed in the article by describing and citing the significant minority view. There has been no evidence given that I have seen that there are multiple sources which disagree with our current presentation of the generations, and therefore none would even rise to the level of meriting mention. Jinnai's positions are so far away from standard WP policy that it's hard to compromise with it without subverting Wikipedia itself. However, I think the compromise that Masem and I reached is a reasonable one.LedRush (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Cultural reference on Chuck

This is what happens in the episode "Chuck Versus the Final Exam": Chuck sits in a steam room, a guy comes in and says there's a message for Ivan Drago, Chuck talks to himself and says "Ivan Drago is here, seriously?" (says that kinda annoyed) The article says that this is a cultural reference to Rocky IV, were there is a character Ivan Drago. Ambaryer says on his talk page that this is so obvious and that Ivan Drago is so identifiable with Rocky IV that it is no longer original research. I believe that WP:OR's "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." applies here, and this requires a secondary source. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If the character had been named "Austin Powers," "Jack Bauer," or "James Bond" there would be not question of the reference, as they are all identifiable with those particular properties. The case is the same for Ivan Drago, which even Wikipedia automatically links to Rocky IV with no need for a disambiguation page.Ambaryer (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A Google search, quickly returns plenty of sources confirming this as a cultural reference to Rocky IV choose a particularly reliable one and source it - problem solved. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Cohen biography

Resolved

– Article is correct. User appears to have misread 2009 for 2010. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Final concert" in the 2010 North American tour was not held in San jose. It was a two night presentation at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas on Dec. 10 & 11, 2010 (I was in attendance). The San Jose concert was held on Dec. 9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.2.243 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Honda D engine

Resolved

– Page was protected on March 17th. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

i get lost in this maze of administration pages, this one is the closest i've located for my concern: it looks like i've become instantly unpopular after a major clean-up of the said article, starting here, along with a comment posted in its talk page at Talk:Honda_D_engine#Major_clean-up (and, as a bonus, this one). My reason for posting here is that i feel that the page is not monitored closely, so i am calling to its attention, if anyone cares and has the time. Thanks in advance for any assistance. I wonder whether the page should be semi-protected. --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Spector & Associates

Resolved

– Article was nominated for deletion on March 16. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Spector & Associates please visit the page... It should be removed no info ? Jonathangluck (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Conducting surveys or a tally on Wikipedia

A user on the Bigfoot discussion page has suggested we create a tally intended to have scientists list their names on either a "for" or "against" list regarding the possiblilty of Bigfoot's existence. The user intends to show that the majority viewpoint of the scientific community is actually in favor of the possibility that Bigfoot is real. I have informed the user that such a survey or tally would probably be a gross violation of WP policy, but I have had no luck in finding anything specifically addressing the issue. Would this violate WP:OR as well as any other policies? If so, could someone cite the relevant text? Thanks Racerx11 (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is just silly and not worth taking time discussing. There are umpteen websites that the user could use - Facebook for example - and they could just go ahead and do it. But who's going to check the "scientists'" identities and credentials? At the end, the results won't be usable on Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course the whole thing is silly, but is the answer to my question; there is, or there is not specific language in WP policies that forbid creating such a survey or tally on a Wikipedia page? In other words, what prevents someone from using Wikipedia to solicit opinions for the purposes of their own research? Racerx11 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Proofreading

Over the past year or so I have greatly expanded the Proofreading article. It is now based entirely on my own experience over many years and as such it is original research. I deliberately wrote it in a polemical vein in hopes that it would generate a good discussion-level and be a rallying point among proofreaders everywhere. But nothing of the sort happened. Although it has respectable page view stats, the article has generated almost no discussion in general and none whatever about my expansion of it, and few even accesses that page at all. And the article remains unrated. I suspect that its actual readership is nill because most viewers are looking for practical tools and advice for their own projects. I doubt if they are on the page for more than a few seconds.

Lately editor Ckatz has begun to delete the sections I wrote on the grounds of original research, and adding various template messages (there are now three). To my knowledge he is the only other regular follower of the article except myself. Since virtually the entire article is original research, I propose that either it be reduced to a stub (which is what it would be minus my contributions) or all his deletions be reverted; or 2) the entire article be reduced to a stub and my past contributions be legitimized in the form of an external link to a copy of my contributions that I created on Google's Knol website; or 3) the article be reduced to a stub and left that way with no such link. BruceSwanson (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing to stop you taking any of those three routes; you don't need approval from this noticeboard (though it might be a good idea to raise your points on the article's Talk page). But it strikes me that the best solution all round, which would mean your work was not wasted while answering Ckatz's concerns, would be to start adding references. I'll also mention WP:OWN, merely because someone else is bound to if I don't! Barnabypage (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good advice, but there are no references for me to add -- that's the problem. Also I raised the issue here because I doubt anyone (other than Ckatz) would see it if I posted it on the discussion page. BruceSwanson (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of books on proofreading and I imagine professional journals or newsletters too; do none of them make any of the points you made? Barnabypage (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is that I engage in legitimate research for free. True, I could get a smattering of references from various legitimate-seeming sources, but what a thankless task. The books are unreadable, dishonest, and beyond the bare fundamentals of little practical value. It simply wouldn't be any fun going through them -- never mind citing them -- and after I was done no one would thank me for it.

The important question here is: does anyone actually read the article? If you look at the stats for Paul McCartney and then look at the stats for his discussion page, you realize that by comparison very few people ever look at it or comment on it.

Based on that extreme example, we might make an assumption that the proofreading article is in fact being read every day in spite of its lack of discussion activity. Taking that readership and the lack of discussion as a measure of acceptance, we might actually re-frame this evaluation onto the three template-messages at the top of the article. If the goal is to remove them, then the article itself must be changed based on their principles. As a practical matter that means reducing the article to a stub, if only for the moment. On the other hand, if the messages can be left in place, why should Ckatz or any other single editor delete on their whim sections from the article that exemplify those messages? It makes no sense. Either enforce the messages and then remove them by changing the article, or leave them and the article in place. Right? BruceSwanson (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

re..."What you're suggesting is that I engage in legitimate research for free"... um... YES... that is exactly what we are suggesting ... that is what editing Wikipedia is. If you don't want to do legitimate research for free, you should not edit Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the research would be fruitless. BruceSwanson (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if it resulted in a better article? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Would readers be best served by deleting my original research, leaving only a stub (with or without an external link) until someone (feel free to volunteer) performs the drudgery of expanding it from published sources? Or would they be better served by ignoring the original research rule, leaving the template messages intact, and reverting Ckatz's deletions?

Our readers would be best served by having an article that was grounded in good research and backed by citations to reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, IAR is for exceptional circumstances, and this strikes me as a pretty mundane issue. I'm not sure what BruceSwanson means by "the research would be fruitless". Either there are sources or there aren't, and if there aren't, reducing the article to what can be sourced is appropriate. If sources are to be found, great, use them and there's no problem left to solve (at least on that one issue). --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple calculations

I am currently in a discussion with an editor at an RFC at Talk:List of states with limited recognition.

The key question is about the number of states that recognise a given entity, whether and how it should be listed. I have concerns with NPOV here, but I will leave those out on this forum and deal strictly with OR concerns. The example we are using is Abkhazia, but this is purely for the sake of discussion since the principle applies to several entities.

So, there is dispute as to whether the article should say that seven states recognise Abkhazia. Abkhazia is recognised diplomatically by:

Russia
Nicaragua
Venezuela
Nauru
South Ossetia (recognised only by the above four, plus Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria)
Nagorno-Karabakh (recognised only by Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria)
Transnistria (recognised only by Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia)

All of those can be sourced, and the basic facts of this list are not (I believe) disputed.

It is argued that it is a simple mathematical calculation (1+1+1+1+1+1+1) per WP:CALC to get seven here. My OR concern is that interpretation is required in that calculation: specifically, the interpretation that South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria should be included given their own relative lack of international recognition. This is demonstrated by the fact that, while the value of seven is unsourced, it is trivially easy to find another value, four, in sources: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. Even the Abkhazian government gives the number as four (though they explicitly count UN member states). All of these were written since December 2009 (when Nauru recognised Abkhazia); based on the recognition dates provided by the article International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the methodology above would give either six or seven during this period.

The question: given the above, is it original research to say that seven states recognise Abkhazia? Pfainuk talk 20:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably best to think of it as avoidable. If the states are listed then readers can count for themselves. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not OR, but it is POV, because it implies that all the states are recognized states, and therefore overstates the degree of recognition. TFD (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, given that some of the nations are not themselves widely recognized, I'd veer away from providing a number based on that list. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that there is no OR here because as Pfainuk said we have sources for all of these 7. The issue of POV/NPOV is separate and we discuss it at the RFC talk page. I would like to say that the article where I propose to use this information is List of states with limited recognition and the number of recognitions is the main metric illustrating the topic of the article - so it is not advisable simply "to avoid" mentioning it - I hope that we would find some compromise solution over the exact way of presenting it. Also, it should be noted that the latest proposal is to mention the number 7 in one of the columns of a table, whose first column (after "name") is "status" where all 7 entities are listed and their differences in status are also described. Also, the column where number 7 resides has a clarification note explaining that figures presented include both entities with wide recognition by the international community and entities with limited recognition - after all these are the subject of the article. Alinor (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Triple Goddess (Neopaganism)

There's a dispute whether Karl Kerenyi should be used as a source in the section Triple_Goddess_(Neopaganism)#Origins. This section of the article reports the argument of Ronald Hutton that the Neopagan Triple Goddess is a modern creation, largely of Robert Graves. Kerenyi is then cited as an opposing view that there were triple moon goddesses in ancient Greece. However, Kerenyi was not writing in response to Hutton (Kerenyi wrote in 1952, Hutton in 1998) and was not writing about neopaganism. As far as I know, no source dealing with neopagan ideas of a triple goddess cites Kerenyi. So using Kerenyi here strikes me as an instance of WP:SYNTH. This dispute is discussed at length at Talk:Triple_Goddess_(Neopaganism)#Karl_Kerenyi_on_Triple_Lunar_Goddess; more input welcome either there or here. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

List of the biggest selling R&B/Hip Hop albums of all time in the United States

I came across this page today and want to know if it is OK, it looks like it could be a verbatim copy of the "Recording Industry Association of America.", however I can't find any source for the material. Mtking (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This query is in regards to List of the biggest selling R&B/Hip Hop albums of all time in the United States. This list curently lacks references. The page history shows it was prodded in 2007, but removed by Crypticfirefly (talk · contribs).[33] Contributions show user as currently active; I will make contact and invite the user to this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a blast from the past. Back in 2007 it was proposed for deletion on the grounds of being "indescriminate" (sic). I disagreed. If, on the other hand, the info can't be verified, that's a different problem. Has anyone tried to find references for this? I'm afraid I don't have time to be terribly active regarding such things these days. Crypticfirefly (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Accurate representation of a source

A dispute has arisen on whether a source is being represented accurately. The discussion is here [34] The text, presently in the article, reads: the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult", which implies criticism. The paragraph in its entirety is: “Though the TM movement, which claims to have taught six million people worldwide, has over the years had to weather allegations of being a cult, today meditation, in all its many forms, has become as acceptable as yoga and herbal medicine. There is one particularly non-spiritual reason for this: medical science. While claims about its benefits were for a long time purely anecdotal, clinical research is providing evidence that meditation has real health benefits for those who practise."

Discussion concerns whether the sentence the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult". used in an isolated way is an accurate reflection of the source per WP: NOR: Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Thanks.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To expand, the material in question is in the "Characterization as a cult, sect, or religion" section of Transcendental Meditation movement. I had deleted the additional material because it concerns neither the TM movement nor the characterizations of the movement as a "cult, sect, or religion". I'd be happy to see the material on "meditation, in all its many forms" in an appropriate article, like Meditation or even Transcendental Meditation technique. Will Beback talk 01:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To complete the text's history (alluded to above)-- I made the initial edit on 10/19/10 when I added the following text and ref:

The London Times reported in 2005 that over the years the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult" and become as "acceptable as yoga and herbal medicine". Source: London Times, A Peace of His Mind, Sharon Krum, Sept 3 2005[35] [36]

Will Beback then changed the text on 2/8/11 to this version:

The Times of London reported in 2005 that over the years the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult". Source: A Peace of His Mind|first=Sharon |last=Krum|date=September 3 2005|work=The Times [37]

Will Beback's edit summary says he "removed content about meditation in general" he goes on to say on the Talk Page: "We only add material relevant to the topic at hand, not everything contained in a source or even everything in a sentence." [38] See complete discussion here[39] In my opinion the remaining text appears to mis-represent the source and creates POV. What do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember the topic is Transcendental Meditation movement, and specifically characterization of the TMM as a cult, sect, or religion. The article is not about the practice of meditation. What does this have to do with that topic? "today meditation, in all its many forms, has become as acceptable as yoga and herbal medicine. There is one particularly non-spiritual reason for this: medical science. While claims about its benefits were for a long time purely anecdotal, clinical research is providing evidence that meditation has real health benefits for those who practise." The health benefits of meditation are covered at great length in Transcendental Meditation technique, Transcendental Meditation research, and more generally, at Meditation and Research on meditation. Keithbob and Luke Warmwater101 seem to be suggesting that anytime we cite a source we need to summarize everything that source says on any topic. That's obviously not how an encyclopedia is written. Instead, articles and sections are devoted to specific topics, and we report what sources say about those topics. The source in question is about TM advocate David Lynch - should we also be summarizing, in the section on cult, sect, or religion, what the author says about him? That'd be absurd. Will Beback talk 21:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

.

The discussion above does not answer the issue: whether the source, as reported in the current version of the paragraph is represented correctly as per WP: NOR. Please refer to the original question at the beginning of the section.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The source says

...the TM movement, which claims to have taught six million people worldwide, has over the years had to weather allegations of being a cult...

We summarize it as:

The Times of London reported in 2005 that over the years the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult".

That seems accurate to me. What is the exact inaccuracy that you're concerned about? Will Beback talk 03:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Will Beback is correct to note the source's distinction between the TM movement and meditation. When this difference is kept in mind I don't think what the source says about the TM movement is being misrepresented. After reading the section, though, I'm not sure that using the source in question adds that much to the article, since there are already many other sources discussing the nature of the TM movement that give more substantial information than the quote from the Times piece. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. There are stronger sources in the article already. Will Beback talk 03:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. I certainly agree that deletion is the best option. I still have a lingering question, though. Is it appropriate for me to take information from a dependent clause and use it in Wikipedia without giving any indication of the overall context? For example, what if the source said, "Though the jury found him guilty of killing his wife, they didn't agree to a finding of murder because it was done in self defense." If I were to just use the information in the dependent clause, I could put the fact in Wikipedia that he was found guilty of killing his wife and not mention the rest. Would that be appropriate? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In that example, obviously completely inappropriate, but there are many non-controversial cases where it would be fine. E.g. "Though they did not market it until 1992, Kola Koka had begun to develop their Lite product in the mid 1980s", in an academic book about the food industry, would be good for a statement "Kola Koka marketed their Lite product in 1992". (Notice, entirely made-up case.) The grammar is the same but here there is no misrepresentation. That's why we have to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the sentence from the article seems like a reasonable compromise.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree and am glad everyone is comfortable with this. Thanks to everyone for their participation in the discussion. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Rousas John Rushdoony

I am in a dispute with another editor the article section Rousas John Rushdoony#Racism and Holocaust denial - in particular, whether it is permissible to have the sentence beginning "In 2000, Rushdoony stated concerning this passage in his Institutes..." This clearly comes under WP:PRIMARY, which states "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care" and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." My question is whether the insertion of this quote is interpretive. St Anselm (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, StAnselm inserted this material to counter statements by multiple reliable secondary sources that Rushdoony was a Holocaust denier himself, who used "atrocious, secondhand, and unverified" sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yellowstone and Yellowstone Lake

User:Lkmen, currently blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on this, has repeatedly added the following (with variations) to both the Yellowstone and Yellowstone Lake articles. [40] A number of editors, including myself, have reverted these edits on WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR grounds. Additionally, we've given Lkmen advice about how to proceed with this controversial material until such time as the wider community reaches a consensus on it. [41] Lkmen has not followed that advice and has consistently contended that this material does not run afowl of our OR, NPOV and RS policies. [42]

== Yellowstone in Major Religions == === In [[Islam]] === Some '''[[Muslims]]''' believe that Yellowstone was mentioned in '''[[Qur'an]]''' 18:86. They believe that there was before '''[[Mohammad]]''' long time ago, a great leader or prophet was named '''Thoo al Qarnain''' who went to the far west until he reached a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and then he was able to see the sunset on this lake or spring of water, which means that this lake or spring of water is large enough to see the sunset on it, like what they see when they watch the sunset on a sea. They also believe that he found a people near it, then '''[[Allah]]''' had commanded him to rule these people by the law of '''[[Allah]]''' according to the Qur'an. So they believe now that these people were the ancient predecessors of the '''[[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]]''', who were living near Yellowstone lake for about 11,000 years. All these beliefs were based on '''[[Qur'an]]''' 18:86 '''"Until, when he reached the far west he saw the sunset on a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and he found near it a people".''' They also support these beliefs by how the lake looks like from the sky. They believe that the lake from air looks like a standing strong man pointing his shield towards the west or the sunset. <ref>Qur'an 18:86</ref> <ref>http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86_%D8%B0%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%86_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A6%D8%A9&oldid=6397751</ref> <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8B7DxRU2Rc</ref> <ref>Dr. Ghali's translation of the Qur'an 18:86.</ref>.

To that end, I am assisting Lkmen in a task he should have performed in seeking a wider audience for evaluating this potential contribution with the following general questions:

Would the sources cited above be considered RS in the context of this content and its use in the Yellowstone and Yellowstone Lake articles as Lkmen proposes?
Is this proposed content OR in the context of Yellowstone?
Is this content consistent with our NPOV policy or as many contend (I included) believe that even if it is not OR and supported by RS, it would violate our balance policy in the context of Yellowstone?

I trust Lkmen will look to the wider evaluation and consensus of the community on this material when his block is removed two days from now. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Youtube and other Wikipedias are not relible sources. The Qur'an verse does not outright mention Yellowstone. If the Qur'an actually did say "hey, there's this place called Yellowstone on the other side of the planet," I wouldn't see a problem mentioning it. If someone notable said that the Qur'an mentions Yellowstone, and that belief was notable, then it'd be worthwhile to mention. But as it stands, a user's personal exegesis of any text is original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can contribute to YouTube and ar.wikipedia.org. Therefore, citing them as sources is just saying "someone else in the world said that". I'm not sure if Dr. Ghali is a reliable source, but see the next point.
The phrase "Until, when he reached the far west he saw the sunset on a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and he found near it a people" could refer to any of thousands of places in the world. Unless a reliable source also says so, to say this refers to Yellowstone specifically is surely WP:OR.
It's probably not NPOV to mention it at all, unless this is a really widespread belief among Muslims, and we don't give it undue weight. For starters, we shouldn't mention only one religion. Native American beliefs, for example, would certainly be at least as notable in this context. However the point is moot without sources. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mike, Ian.thomson and Suffusion of Yellow, I hope you all will notice that my latest edits did NOT have all these info. My new edit is: (In Qur'an: "Until, when he reached the far west he saw the sunset on a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and he found near it a people". < .ref>Qur'an 18:86.</ ref >.)

As you see here: It is NOT WP:OR because it is a quote from Qur'an. And, it has 100% WP:RS because if any reader on Yellowstone wants to know what does major religions say about Yellowstone he will look for descriptions of places in its holy or text books. So, if he or she wants to know what does Islam say about Yellowstone he/she will look at Qur'an as No.1 source to know such a thing. Qur'an is 100% WP:RS about what does Islam say about anything. So, my edit is WP:RS and NOT WP:OR .

Now, does that verse talk about Yellowstone literally or through descriptions? Yes it does for sure. This very clear. No doubt about it. Why? Because Yellowstone is the only place in the (far west) that has (a hot spring of water which has a black clay) and (it is large enough so you can see the sunset on it) and (there were people living near it in the ancient times). If you, or anybody in the world can tell me of any place in the far west has these descriptions other than Yellowstone I will stop this edit. Lkmen (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Quotes from the Qur'an may or may not be OR. Without sources, interpretations are. The interpretation "this is about Yellowstone", while not expressed in your latest edits, is certainly implied by your placing the quote in Yellowstone National Park and Yellowstone Lake. It doesn't matter if your interpretation is correct or not, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We could argue at length about sunsets on Yellowstone Lake, the color of the clay, the geographic distribution of ancient peoples, and so on, but that would just be my OR vs your OR, which would get us nowhere. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: It is NOT about interpretations. These are clear descriptions in a clear quote. But, let us put it this simple. If any person can tell us about any place in the far west that has these descriptions other than Yellowstone, then I have no right to argue or re-add that quote in Yellowstone pages again. It is this simple. It is NOT about anybody interpretations. Lkmen (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless the Qur'an actually says "Yellowstone" or gives unambiguous geographic coordinates, then it absolutely IS interpretation - you are interpreting what it says to mean Yellowstone. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Are literal names and unambiguous geographic coordinates every thing in WP?! What about clear descriptions in a clear quote?! Lkmen (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is that your claim that it is a clear description of Yellowstone is a personal interpretation - and that is not permitted. If it was a widely-accepted interpretation, supported by multiple reliable sources, then that might be different - but it isn't -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If these descriptions were NOT really clear about Yellowstone alone, then it should be very easy for people to tell us about any other place in the far west that fits these descriptions. If nobody can do such a thing, then it can NOT be only a personal claim or interpretation. Lkmen (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's still not relevant - it is still a personal interpretation, and there is no onus on anyone to disprove it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and your logic is faulty - an absence of disproof is not proof -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Forget now about personal interpretations, proving and disproving. Can any person only denies that these descriptions has things to do with Yellowstone because there is another place fits these descriptions in the far west?! It is that simple. Lkmen (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all. Even if there were no other interpretations that anyone here could think of (and see below - there are clearly lots of possible interpretations of that line), that would still not mean you could add it, because it is still unsupported interpretation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Even if it was acceptable as a source and interpretation, where in Yellowstone is this black clay? It's not mentioned in the article here. I don't recall seeing much black ground, clay or otherwise, at Yellowstone. The place isn't known for having black clay. It's famous for its bright colors, yellows, oranges, bright white, etc. There's probably some black ground somewhere there, the place is huge, but there probably is somewhere at Lassen Volcanic National Park, which also has large hot springs. Are you are saying Yellowstone Lake is the hot spring referred to? Yellowstone Lake is a regular lake, not a hot spring at all. It doesn't really matter though, this is an interpretation of an ancient statement that could be understood many ways. Pfly (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just out of interest, I can immediately think of some possible flaws in the mooted interpretation. Firstly, what does "far west" mean? West is a fairly unambiguous direction, but "far" is relative and entirely subjective - it's not that long ago that the distance between London and Rome was considered to be very far indeed. Hot spring with black clay? A quick Google search finds this, which says "The region's hot mineral springs covered with a black clay...", talking about a place in Tunisia - and I'm sure there must be hundreds more, as volcanic clays are frequently black and hot springs are associated with volcanic areas. And why does it have to be large? You can easily see the sunset reflected in a small pond - try it yourself. And there were people there? There were people in lots of places -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was just going to post that link about El Kef. Also [43], a long page about this exact line from the Quran, with many diverse interpretations. Nothing about Yellowstone. Pfly (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

1. It is a fact that north america is the far western continent. + It is a hot spring with black clay large enough to see the sunset on it. You can see the sunset on a sea or on a large lake, but can NOT see it on a small lake. I am talking here about the sunset NOT about reflections.

2. (Lassen Volcanic National Park, which also has large hot springs) Is any of these springs large enough to see the sunset on it?

3. Is Yellowstone Lake a hot spring? Where in Yellowstone is this black clay? Here on this amazing video about Yellowstone National Park HD | 3:44 min you can see that the lake is hot, see the black clay and you can see the amazing sunset on that hot lake at the second 44: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAY5vpcap2Q Lkmen (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Look, have a read of that page linked above - it's clearly debatable what is meant by the sun setting, by the black/murky issue, whether there was any clay, whether there was a big lake, and where it all took place - it is blatantly not obvious that it's Yellowstone. Anyway, I won't argue further - if you can get a consensus to support you, you can add your interpretation to the article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Interpretations again?! These are FACTS. Clear (unique) descriptions (together)+very well known unique place that fits these clear (unique) descriptions (together)=FACT. 1+1=2. It is that simple. Did you watch that video on YouTube? Lkmen (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You might have missed the bit where I said "I won't argue further - if you can get a consensus to support you, you can add your interpretation to the article". Good look with the consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To be more direct: Ibn Kathir says that verse is about seeing the sun set into the ocean: Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Quran Tafsir, on 18:85-90. (he found it setting in a spring of Hami'ah) meaning, he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact it never leaves its path in which it is fixed. (Ibn Kathir thought the sun orbited the Earth) Pfly (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Boing! you wont argue further. OK. But did watch that video?

2. Pfly, Ibn Kathir is mistaken here for sure because spring is NOT ocean. Did you see that video? Lkmen (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"But did watch that video?" Oh, I know what Yellowstone is like, it's a beautiful place - but that doesn't change anything -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean, did u see the black clay, the hot lake and the sunset on it at the second 44 on that video? Lkmen (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I already know there is hot water there, earth of all kinds of colors, and lovely sunsets - but you're missing the entire point that that means absolutely nothing when it comes to that fact that it is still your own personal interpretation, which is clearly at odds with a number of other notable interpretations. And that really is all from me now - goodnight -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Yellowstone Lake is not a "hot lake", it's a frigid cold lake with a few local warm areas. The clay in that video looks white when the sun is shining on it. Also, that's a sunrise. See this photo and look up where West Thumb is located. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ibn Kathir was arguing that one should not read these verses literally, because if you do they say the sun actually set into a muddy/warm spring (that is, the sun actually goes into the Earth) and that Dhul-Qarnayn traveled to the westernmost point on Earth (then went to the easternmost point). Ibn Kathir finds this impossible: (Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun,) means, he followed a route until he reached the furthest point that could be reached in the direction of the sun's setting, which is the west of the earth. As for the idea of his reaching the place in the sky where the sun sets, this is something impossible, and the tales told by storytellers that he traveled so far to the west that the sun set behind him are not true at all. Unable to take the Quran literally here, he came up with the ocean interpretation. He may well have been mistaken, but are you seriously claiming that you understand the Quran better than Ibn Kathir?? Pfly (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Arabic is my 1st language also. It is midnight now. I want to sleep. So, to be cont... Lkmen (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You are saying that Dhul-Qarnayn traveled to Yellowstone Lake and that this is obvious fact according to Quran verse 18:86 and in no way your own interpretation. You really don't see how preposterous that is? You may continue tomorrow, but I am finished. Pfly (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

WOW! Is this nonsense for real?--MONGO 00:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Pfly, MONGO and every body, if this is preposterous and nonsense, this should mean that you can tell me about a place in the far west (north america) that fits all these descriptions other than Yellowstone. Still waiting : ) It is that simple : ) Lkmen (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish. And I went to Dr Ghali's translation for myself and he says nothing of the sort "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, (The western part of the then known world) he found it setting in a muddy spring, and he found a people at it. We said, “O Thulqarnayn, either you will torment (them) or you will take to yourself towards them a fair (way)." I'm far more inclined (and it isn't very far) to take Brendan the navigator's land of fire and ice as Iceland than any of this stuff as being Yellowstone, I'm afraid this is just a teensy bit too unspecific. Plus I'd prefer that such descriptions be written before the place is already well known. Reliable secondary sources needed rather than some utube video. Dmcq (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is really simple. Even if a religious text used the word Yellowstone, we wouldn't use it because it would be a primary source. We would only use reliable sources that referred to the passage in the religious text and said that the passage might be referring to in this case Yellowstone or Yellowstone Lake. And it would have to be shown that this is a 'significant' opinion in the religion. In addition, Lkmen, you are clearly arguing against consensus, but that's another issue and trivial compared to the OR issue. Unless you can show that multiple reliable sources (by our criteria at WP:RS) make this connection, I would ask you to drop this. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding yet another voice to the chorus of "yes, it's a textbook example of OR, just please stop re-adding it." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Operation Dwarka‎

Recently and editor with a history of disruptive editing on article Operation Dwarka‎ and a Pakistani ship PNS Ghazi has again been trying to add sources which are totally irrelevant to the article. He is trying to add a source which has no mention of any Pakistani naval operation or even the word Dwarka as shown here. I have tried to engage him in discussion on talk page but he does not seem to be interested in sorting the matter on talk page and continues to revert. He also removes the two sources already on the article which provide eye-witness account and neutral observation respectively. I have given him multiple warnings for removal of content including OR in article but he continues reverting. I would request administrators assistance to prevent further disruptions on the article. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Lesbian

In the article Lesbian there is a sentence in the third paragraph that I want to verify is not original synthesis/research.

Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality.

We've been discussing this for weeks and it badly needs resolution. I read through the article myself, and I believe it to be original research. However, User:Moni3 is adamantly defending the statement and believes that the sources say it. I've had more than my share of this discussion and I want to move on to other things.

You can find the discussion at Talk:Lesbian#Men have historically shaped, Talk:Lesbian#Break, and Talk:Lesbian#Break II. --Fennasnogothrim (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific about what you consider OR in that sentence? Without looking at the sources, I'm skeptical that "people have often thought that lesbianism didn't exist" wouldn't be supported. To what sources is the statement cited? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement is not directly cited. It is in the summary of the article, and I assume it should be supported or somehow stated in the article. The passages cited by Moni3 support a similar statement, but not exactly this one. e.g., women played a huge role in defining Islamic tradition (supported in Talk:Lesbian#Break II), so men did not completely define "standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships" (and that's a gross understatement for the example I gave).

Moni3 was correct that the larger context of the source I used (Women and Gender in Islam) supports the notion that in the Abyssinian era (and in certain times and places afterwards) Muslim scholars and Islamists (mostly men) interpreted the Qu'ran and Hadith in ways that undermined womens' rights. The statement is plainly wrong, and will undoubtedly cause future conflicts, if it is interpreted to mean women never defined such standards.

The statement also asserts, without cited evidence, that "[men] often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality" because "Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships". Moni3 has not pointed out, and I have not yet found, a cited statement in the article that states this specific causal relationship.

--Fennasnogothrim (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, move on then already.

The discussion has dragged on since March 17. I posted in the talk page discussion 14 examples of cited passages or sections that support the statement. I've asked for input in rewriting the sentence to summarize the same points but have received no sufficient reply to this. The talk page discussion is quite clear, in my opinion, that to remove the sentence, which seems to be Fennasnogothrim's goal, Fennasnogothrim needs to provide sources to make his/her point. While a source was introduced to alter the wording of the sentence, the source in totality seems to support the sentence staying in its current form. --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please let's come to some sort of compromise. Please agree to a compromise wording which would encyclopedically say basically "Early sexologists viewed it thusly, and then predominant lesbian sources reacted in this way", and then move on, as opposed to doing it the other way around? That way, it'd be chronological and phrase it as the points of view of others, not that of Wikipedia.

I should clarify that it's not just the tagged sentence, but also its immediate context which I am referring to. I thought about ways of generalizing the placement of the tag (I didn't tag it) but I don't know how. I don't know that I should tag the whole section. Chrisrus (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can the definition be derived from the source that does not contain it?

C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974

Whereas the page 19 of this book On Google Books contains the following words:

"Communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the existing economic and political system through the use of terrorism in the hope that the violence will inspire the masses and incite them to rise up and destroy the capitalist system.

no definition of "Communist terrorism" as a separate category is found on this page and in the book as whole. In connection to that, can the following text (taken from the Communist terrorism article:

"Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system.[ref name="C. J. M. Drake 1"]C. J. M. Drake page 19[/ref]"

use the Drake's book as a source, and, generally speaking, can the definition of some phenomenon be derived from the text that does not contain it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We have a consensus on the RSN board over this sources usage, and on the article talk page. This is really beating the carcass. Everything in the content is also found on page 19 of the Book. There is no original research here. I have also added the full quote from the book. Tentontunic (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If the definition in the article is based solely on that one single sentence from Drake, then it clearly goes beyond the source, and would be considered OR. However, it sounds like this is not the case. It sounds like the article's definition is a summary of what Drake is saying throughout that page (and perhaps on other pages near it). If it accurately summarizes Drake's views, then it is acceptable as far as OR is concerned. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Drake's views (expressed on this and adjacent pages) is that terrorism (a generic term) is associated with different ideologies, including liberal, anarchist, communist, nationalist, etc. However, I found no confirmation that Drake proposed the term "Communist terrorism" (or "liberal terrorism", "anarchist terrorism", "nationalist terrorism", etc) to describe a separate category of terrorism. Therefore, I do not think that the text we discuss accurately summarises the Drake's views: Drake speaks about the aims of terrorists who subscribe to some concrete ideology, however, he proposes no typology of terrorism, and no subcategories of terrorism. In addition, whereas I have nothing against summarizing the author's view, the text is written in such a way that it creates a wrong impression that Drake proposed a definition for this type of terrorism (which is obviously not the case). --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To demonstrate my point, this:

"Communist terrorist groups are the groups that subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system."

is a correct and adequate summary of what Drake says, and it contains no views he did not express.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The original was far better, and it did not misquote Drake either. You really ought not have changed it when it has a consensus. Tentontunic (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The original text creates a false impression that the term "Communist terrorism" has been used by Drake, whereas he neither proposed nor used it[44]. By writing this text you did misquote the source. BTW, there was no consensus for the first version either.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course there was a consensus, both on the RS board and on the talk page, an admin also agreed there was a consensus when he did the edit protect request. And the term communist terrorism was used by drake, it is right there in the quoted passage above. Tentontunic (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The RSN consensus was that the source is reliable for communist terrorists. In addition, as you probably know, consensus can change. At least three users (TFD, Zloyvolsheb and I) expressed a concern about this fragment. And, in addition, if I don't miss anything, Drake proposed no definition of the term Communist terrorism", and speak about the goals of Communist terrorists (along with other terrorists), so the word "Communist" is clearly an adjective, and no new terms is defined by Drake. If I am wrong (I, as well as everybody else, can be wrong), please, provide the quote from Drake where he defines the term. Otherwise we will have to conclude that my version transmits his opinion more adequately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Might I ask who this "We" is? Thus far one uninvolved editor says it is fine as is. Your singular opinion on what you think drake has written carries little weight i`m afraid, the source says what it says and is quite clear and unless a consensus forms to support what you have written we shall go back to the consensus version. Tentontunic (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Under "we" I meant myself, you, and all other reasonable persons working on this article. Regarding the uninvolved user, they wrote "If it accurately summarizes Drake's views, then it is acceptable as far as OR is concerned." The question is still open, however if this condition has been met in actuality. Please, provide the fragment from the Drake's book that demonstrates that it has.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

But it does accurately portray what drake has written, and given he wrote it the nI would have to assume is in fact his view. This is why there was a consensus for the content inclusion in the first place, first at the RSN board, and then on the article talk page. I do not think it is for us to "Know" what drake meant. Tentontunic (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If one does not "know" what a source says then one cannot report it accurately. Anyway, see WP:CONSENSUS. It changes. TFD (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "But it does accurately portray what drake has written" Good. Could you please provide the quotes that demonstrate that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Image used in Murder of Meredith Kercher

There's an interesting discussion here about whether File:Kercher Knox house Perugia Italy.gif constitutes original research. My own view is that it does; the point has also been made that the notes on the diagram seem contradictory. Responses there or here would be equally welcome. --John (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There's some history on this image in the discussion. Apparently it's been deleted at least once, maybe twice, as being too close in dimensions to a published map of the flat. Wikid77 then created this version, basing it on that diagram. From their description, it's supposed to reflect the general layout of the flat, but does not accurately reflect the scale or true shape of the various rooms. The article has some incredibly (overly?) detailed description of events which can overwhelm some readers. I think this image adds useful information to the article by providing some reference for those descriptions. As currently depicted, it is only labeled with the names of each room plus the location of one piece of physical evidence (glass). It does not reference any WP:RS for the information used to create the image (the FOA advocacy site is NOT reliable).

My view would be to keep the image in the article but in the image description add links to reliable sources used to create the image and remove the FOA link. Ravensfire (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:OI "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." Can anyone explain how this diagram promotes unpublished ideas or arguments? --Footwarrior (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I find the exact nature of the image somewhat strange. On the file page, Wikid77 describes it as "merely a rough concept of the area", and a note in the image itself states that "positions are approximate". It is said to be a "conceptual diagram" as opposed to a "map" due to the absence of a scale legend. With regard to WP:OI: there is perhaps no blatant illustration of "unpublished ideas or arguments", but the fact that the file has been user-generated is a possible concern in light of the description's emphasis on the word "rough". I also don't really understand why the rooms have to "narrowed ~16%" when the actual rooms were "nearly square" - it rather distorts a user's visualisation of the apartment and leaves room for potential misrepresentation of the crime scene. On the file talk page, in response to the suggestion of using an actual scale diagram, Wikid77 states, "then the exact wall dimensions and locations of all furniture would be subject to endless debate, as questioning the accuracy to scale" - but that would seem to be a greater problem with this "rough concept of the area", which allows no room for scale. If the image were to incorporate accurate proportions, it would be far less problematic. It would be a great help if fresher eyes at this board were to make their own conclusions. Super Mario Man 19:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the image could be improved, but the article or image talk page is the correct forum for such a discussion. And as I have already pointed out, Wikipedia policy allows creation of original images. The editor who opened this noticeboard incident apparently didn't understand WP:OI policy. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional sourcing would seem to be one method through which the image could be improved and made to appear authoritative - Grifomaniacs makes some recommendations at the file talk page Super Mario Man 02:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Original image

Besides being incorrectly licensed, the image is total baloney and is apparently not even based on an actual account of the event. Marcus Qwertyus 22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what is the problem with the license. I used this image that is released in public domain by its author, and released my photo-shop image with the same license.

Of course the event was just April Fools' Day prank, but all the sources I used had some images. So I decided that wikipedia's article will benefit from an image too.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that the picture used in the article is accompanied by the caption: "An artist's impression of the Jafr alien invasion" and that it bears a clear resemblance to the picture used in the BBC article. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question (SAQ)

I am looking for third-party guidance on clarifying a minor point related to a specific definition used in this article and the source which is cited for that definition. It relates to NOR as it involves the creation of a definition which does not closely match the sources cited.

In the initial sentence of the current SAQ Overview section, the term "anti-Stratfordian" is defined as follows: "a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories".

The actual first sentence of that lead source ("The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms" 2008) defines anti-Stratfordian using the phrase: "Reluctant to accept William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the true author of plays and poems published in his name".

In light of the above definition, I felt that current reconstruction of the definition was inappropriate and offered this definition: "a collective term for those reluctant to accept William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of the canon published in his name."

I offered detailed reasons which led to a LOT of rigorous discussion, but no resolution in addressing the direct point as to why a dictionary definition is preferable in this case or not. This can be viewed here: [45] under the final section entitled "Loose ends".

My simple summary of my own reasons in asking for the edit are as follows:

1) It is axiomatic that a definition should follow closely the source which is cited as a reference for that definition, especially if that source is an actual dictionary.

2) The current definition involves a combination of thoughts and ideas not represented in the source, and possibly crosses the line on WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTHESIS.

3) The definition as currently written also happens to be factually incorrect, as there are recognized "anti-Stratfordians" who express generic doubt without adhering to any specific "alternate authorship theory" or candidate. The most media-notable group of these, featured Time a 2007 story in TIME magazine (and others as it contains several high profile Shakespearean actors and the former artistic director of the Globe Theater) is known as "Doubt About Will". There were also historical anti-Stratfordians including Henry James, Sir George Greenwood, and Mark Twain who demurred as to choosing a specific candidate or authorship theory, but who met the definition as cited in the dictionary used as the source.

Advice please...

Note: This entire SAQ page was subject to an arb com a few months ago. I was not involved in this in any way, and had never commented on the SAQ before that decision or after until this specific issue. I do recognize, however, that past history may have made the remaining editors very wary of even the slightest suggestion of change. I respect that wariness and I do not view this wariness as any sort of negative reflection on any editor, but rather as understand-able and reasonable in light of the past history of this article.Rogala (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Original article[46]

I think this has been adequately discussed but feel obliged to add a note here, just to assure Rogala that this issue has been given comprehensive attention also on the original talk page.

We have:-

(1) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories.

You proposed:-

(3) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who doubt that the Shakespeare canon was written by William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.

The first definition is positive, focusing on the aspect of alternative authorship inexorably (logically) consequent upon a denialist position.
The second is negative, restricting the definition purely to the denial of WS of Stratford as author.

It follows that (1) is comprehensive of all positions whereas (3) is partial, even if underpinned by a convenient source (about which more presently).

It is implicit in (1) that WS's authorship is denied, for that is the premise sine qua non for asserting an alternative author.
It is not implicit in (3) that sceptics have invariably offered (Wadsworth), alongside their dismissal of WS, an alternative proposal.

I might add that, probably inadvertently, (3) is more or less the 'official' position of the authors of the Declaration of Doubt' (i.e. the neo-Oxfordian tactical orthodoxy). That at least is what editors long familiar with the material see, i.e., an edit that would recast the authenticated WP:NPOV cast of the article towards a nuanced, subtly so, set definition preferred these days by only one of the parties whose ideas are analysed.

The present formulation, (1), is multi-sourced to Baldick 2008, pp. 17–18; Bate 1998, pp. 68–70; Wadsworth 1958, pp. 2, 6–7.

What you have done is take one sentence from Baldick, discuss Bate, and ignore Wadsworth who is, to date, the most comprehensive historian of Anti-Stratfordianism. You replace a multi-sourced formulation with just one of the RS, ignoring what the others say.

You cited Chris Baldick's The Oxford dictionary of literary terms, (p.17) in support of your edit. 'Anti-Stratfordian Reluctant to accept William Shakespeare (1564–1616) of Stratford-upon-Avon as the true author of the plays and poems published in his name.'

Just as Steinburg, higher up on that page was shown to have omitted the full context of Gibson's book, suppressing by some curious lapsus that decisive 'may' which undid his interpretation, so you did not apparently read to the end the whole of the definition given in Baldick (terrible name to wear, though eminently Shakespearean in its bawdy ambiguity! It gives the many Richard Cocks of this world a run for the money.)

'a succession of amateur scholars and conspiracy theorists in the 19th and 20th centuries proposed various alternatives as the 'true' author. Although disagreing among themselves on the central point of attribution, they shared common ground in their refusal to accept that a provincial glover's son . .could have written such magnificent works himself: all anti-Stratfordian theories attribute the poems and plays to a better-educated or more socially distingushed contemporary, and most of them propose that William Shakespeare was used as a front-man to disguise the true identity of the hidden genius.'(2008 pp.17-8)

In making his laconic definition Baldick seems to support (3). In expatiating on what he means by that terse summary, it is clear that he underwrites (1).
Even Greenwood, who had no alternative candidate specifically to propose, believed subscribed to a theory that someone else did write the play. His theory was both negative and positive, since, in addition to shellacking Arden's buffoon, he determined that the author was 'a courtly cultured aristocrat', on thoroughly at home in the Inns of Court. He has an alternative candidate theory, at least in profile. He just didn't find evidence allowing him to finger exactly who in the court was responsible.
I might add also, as an editor who feels discretionary judgement is often required when one is overwhelmed by many sources, in order to ensure precision and avoid the kind of flood of quibbling complications that instrumental citation can produce, that Baldick's 'reluctant' strikes me as an unfortunate epithet, and 'historically' imprecise. He seems to have the extreme minority position of a Henry James uppermost in his mind, and not the vastly majoritarian drift of positive proposal in anti-Stratfordian literature. 'Reluctance' is certainly not what other historians, amply surveyed in the article detect as the basso ostinato of anti-Stratfordianism. Rather it is an alacrity at catching after 'true' candidates to replace the upstart. Every sceptic has had no doubt that someone else wrote Shakespeare. That is not clear in Baldick's definition. It is pellucid in Paul Prescott's definition:

Anti-Stratfordian' is the collective name for the belief that someone other than the man from Stratford wrote the plays commonly attributed to him.’ Paul Prescott, ‘Shakespeare in Popular Culture,’ in Margreta De Grazia, Stanley Wells (eds.) The New Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare, Cambridge University Press, 2010 pp.269-284, p. 273)

Like our definition Prescott accentuates the point that the Anti-Stratfordian is someone who 'adheres to a theory of an authorship alternative to Shakespeare's'. In Prescott's words, paraphrased: someone who believes someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays. It is certainly therefore misleading to simply put over that the issue is simply doubt about Will, and not also a strong conviction that someone else, most often identified, fits the author's imagined profile better.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I thank you for the volume of background material and extremely thoughtful response. I can state for the record that you have been an extremely helpful resource in this entire matter.

That being said, I truly want to see how "disinterested third parties" see this matter. If they say I am somehow "out to lunch" I respect that fully and this will be resolved quickly with their added inputs to the consensus.

My viewpoint is that when one contrasts the need to parse a) the 'complex in nature' and 'volumetric in size' background material presented here by Nishidani (which I agree is excellent material) vs. b) the simplicity of using the definition as clearly written in the DICTIONARY source already cited and approved by the FA process, it makes a prima facie case for simply using the dictionary definition.

To put it a simpler way: Why not use it ?

To digest and SYNTHESIZE all of the material above, and then create a new definition is IMHO not needed and probably treads close to WP:OR and begs the question of some sort of obscure POV issue as well. That was my entire point, but I leave the matter to other commentators to judge.

Rogala (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"To put it a simpler way: Why not use it ?" Because if you'll take the time to read past that first sentence you'll see the information that is actually used for the statement, as is obvious by reading the cite: "… anti-Stratfordian theories attribute the poems and plays to a better-educated or more socially distinguished contemporary, and most of them propose that William Shakespeare was used as a front-an to disguise the true identity of the hidden genius." That statement is partially on page 17 of the source and partially on page 18. Coincidentally, the cite actually contains that range of page numbers. There is nothing inaccurate about the edit at all, and this is a waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be brief. There were 7al sources for the sentence, you chose just one. The definition we have also reflects points made by Wadsworth (I have added Prescott, and if needed, several other new sources can be added if you wish, to show that the formulation we have is rather standard) to show why that formulation was correct, and not a matter of WP:OR. Of course, I endorse your request that third eyes (no ambiguity intended) put into their tuppence worth. I'd be interested myself to hear from them, after they work comprehensively through the relevant debate on the talk page, and check all sources there. Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There were three sources originally under #20 on the SAQ talk page. I commented on the first two, neither of which support the current definition and both of which were also the most timely (2008 and 1998). Let's please just let other editors view this and comment and stop re-hashing it here.

Warning for Viewers - Source #20 for this definition (as originally entered in the SAQ) has just been altered to demote Baldick from the lead source and inserting a different source by Prescott. Please take note of the original [47].Rogala (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for an alarmist warning. I noted on the talk page and here, and Tom has now seconded the fact by quoting the key section, that you engaged in a selective citation from your source. We are having problems with editors who trim and selectively misuse sources here, and then complain that those who note these things are engaged in WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or both. This is rather tiring, to have to deal constantly with new editors who use the same techniques, and often, the same prose style, to make points that everyone else on the page appears to dismiss.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(An aside): I am glad you brought this up, rather than me. The term for this in the business world is "group think" and I am well familiar with it. The SAQ world does seem to show some of the classic symptoms of this phenomenon. Once this "definition issue" is disposed of, one way or another, I plan to exit (for little awhile) from the SAQ page and work on a page which is less "tiring"...to quote you. After the past few days, I have come to the conclusion that it is still too contentious an atmosphere despite the arb com and FA status.

Since you have been with wikipedia from its inception, dear Rogala, you should have acquired more of an inkling of the fact that the very mechanisms of the encyclopedia militate against 'groupthink', since there is such a thing as collegial review. At FA it is strenuous, and delightfully sceptical. It means that people who have vast experience of reading between and behind the lines of every word on an extraordinary variety of articles, experienced NPOV proof-readers, put the 'group' through the wringer, and until every tittle and jot of suspicious slanting is expunged, the prospective article won't get past GO. What your remark about Groupthink tells me is that you consider (a) the baker's dozen of editors who have raked over the page these last months are a cohesive coterie of the like-minded and (b) the gunslinging wikihands who shot through residual oversights, flaws, tendentious phrasing and then approved it as a neutral, comprehensive and eminently good example of wikipedia's work were gudgeons (well that's a nice period word) taken in by our groupist conspiracy of the unlikeable like-minded. A just-so story, very much like the just-so stories the article discusses. Personally, I welcome anything from anyone out there, Oxfordians, Marlovians, if it (1) shows a command of the scholarship and (2) is not a gambit for endless talking past the community of editors here in order to insinuate that the encyclopedia is unfair or provide the 'small but highly visible and diverse assortment' of Oxfordians who watch these pages with further proof that their grievances are a fair response to the cruelties of the world's infamous indifference to 'truth'. So don't give up, but please focus on issues that have a good grounding in both policy and the relevant scholarship. Your willingness to argue this in terms of RS was, whatever the merits of the point, commendable.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Rogala, I believe I qualify as a "disinterested third party" having had some disagreements and some agreements with Tom and Nish. I certainly do not think you are "out to lunch" and I can see your point but I think you are making a mountain out of anthill. Your version is too long and cumbersome in the context. I don't think it is an OR issue since the wording has the same meaning as that in the cited ref. Poujeaux (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Poujeaux. For the record, I actually cannot quite figure out why there was such serious objection to my edit proposal to begin with. On the surface, this should just not be a "big deal" at all in terms of a proposed edit. Out of an abundance of caution, I explored it on the talk page at length after the conversation flowed this direction due TR originally bringing up a question on the sentence following it...and, well, here we are. I must admit to a tiny bit of curiosity as to exactly why a change this small is so strenuously opposed, but I am much more interested in CONTENT than guessing at the unknown.

Why am I persevering in exploring it ? Just a stickler for "precision of language" I guess...due to a background in engineering I suppose, or serious masochistic tendencies...some "couch time" probably needed for that on my part.

You wrote: "I don't think it is an OR issue since the wording has the same meaning as that in the cited ref." May I ask the question to you in this manner (sort of a "yes, no or maybe"), considering that you think that the paraphrased dictionary wording has the same meaning as the current definition in the SAQ: Do you see any reason NOT to use the closely paraphrased dictionary definition from the actual source originally cited instead ? Thanks for the feedback.Rogala (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to respond to the points raised, rather than repeat yourself. It has been pointed out several times that the simple statement currently in the article is in total agreement with the several sources cited. Further, in the above comments, you were supplied with a link to the full text cited rather than the one sentence you have chosen. The text shown at the link (on page 17 of the source and partially on page 18) fully justifies the current wording. A definition of a word like "triangle" can be precise, but it is pointless to look for a precise definition of the intrinsically vague term "anti Stratfordian". Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, this is a long post, but, at the end, I propose a final resolution which adopts Nishidani's latest suggestion, so I hope it will be worth it to anyone who endures my long-winded text. (BTW, I was desperately trying not to take up valuable space here as I was hoping for third party feedback and guidance on this point regarding WP:OR, but, so as not to be perceived as ignoring YOUR specific request as an admin, I am going to FULLY respond before I propose the resolution inspired by Nishidani.

1) In the Oxford Literary Dictionary, the first sentence in every entry is the definition as is clear even from a cursory look at a few entries. The rest is background explication but is definitely not part of the formal definition which is invariably the very first sentence. Please feel free to a) examine every single definition in the book to verify that pattern, if need be, or b) look at the first 20 pages which should prove ample, or c) perhaps just check one representative example. The first full entry on page 126 is relevant.

I pointed out SPECIFICALLY that this was the lead sentence of the lead source as follows in the SAQ talk page. Here is the quote: "The first sentence of the SAQ Overview should use the definition of "anti-Stratfordian" as provided in the first sentence of the lead source which was cited - 'The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms'. That's it."

2) Regarding the second source (Bate), I already pointed out the following on the SAQ talk page: "BTW, the second source (Bate from 1998) does not define "anti-Stratfordian" on the pages cited. He does use the phrase "the theory that William Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the works of Shakespeare" in that section though, and he relates it to anti-Stratfordians a few lines down."

3) The third (of three) sources originally listed is Wadsworth 1958, pp. 2, 6–7. I do not happen to own that one, and my online check of the source using this tool [48]indicated that it did not actually use the phrase "anti-Stratfordian" at all on page 2, 6 or 7. The first time it DOES use a close phrase, per the online tool at least, it is "Stratfordian" on page 111. The tool may have a problem, so I cannot provide a guarantee on that one.

But I provided you with the full transcription of the relevant text 2 days ago on the talk page here. As you can see, Wadsworth's definition of anti-Stratfordians chimes in perfectly, it thoroughly supports, the edit you contest:

'Paradoxically, the sceptics invarably offer as a substitute for the easily explained lack of evidence concerning William Shakespeare, the more troublesome picture of a vast conspiracy of silence about the real author . . .In addition, they are all strong believers in the wonders of class distinctions . .Almost invariably this violent dislike of the man of Stratford is balanced by a frenzied worship of the sceptic's own candidate . . .'Wadsworth (1958:6)

Much of this extensive argumentation could have been avoided if you took full cognizance of all of the data provided by your interlocutors, instead of seizing on what interests you as evidence for what you propose. Nishidani (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

4) Today, an editor plopped another source into the mix for the first time. This is Prescott as provided by Nishidani (note I have NOT looked at the original source for this, but I accept Nishidani's word for it): "Anti-Stratfordian' is the collective name for the belief that someone other than the man from Stratford wrote the plays commonly attributed to him". On this I have no comment to make other than these points:

a) If it permissible propose new sources that better support one's viewpoint than the original sources, ex post facto, in an article which was just FA approved, I was indeed unaware of it. That is my ignorance. I will remain mindful of this standard if I ever choose to re-engage on the SAQ article or talk page in the future, and

b) I think examining the current definition (#1 below) versus the three I suggested earlier on the SAQ talk page (#2-4) versus Prescott (#5) is the best way to see which one is the "odd man out".

1) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories,

2) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works long attributed to him,

3) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who doubt that the Shakespeare canon was written by William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon,

4) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those reluctant to accept William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of the canon published in his name.

5) anti-Stratfordians-a collective name for the belief that someone other than the man from Stratford wrote the plays commonly attributed to him

I therefore formally propose a resolution to this whole issue: Let's use the definition Nishidani termed "pellucid" in his own analysis (#5 above from Prescott) with this simple (close) paraphrase which I am listing as #6:

6) "anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who believe that someone other than the man from Stratford wrote the plays and poems commonly attributed to him".

Rogala (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the current text, or are you merely attempting to improve it?

Content is based on reliable sources, however, when discussing an issue such as whether a particular explanation is adequate, it is perfectly acceptable to point to reliable sources that are not cited in the article. Re your new proposal, the phrase "man from Stratford" is a synonym for "Shakespeare" and is too informal by comparison with the rest of the article (and the generally accepted style for all articles). What that leaves are these two alternatives for a quick definition of "anti-Stratfordians" (first the current article, then the proposal):

a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories
a collective term for those who believe that someone other than the Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems commonly attributed to him

In the context of the article, the second is just a long-winded way of saying the first. Apparently there is something about the second that appeals to you, but the distinction is not worth making, and it is entirely pointless looking for a precise and rigorous definition of a vague term like "anti-Stratfordian". A definition of "triangle" can exclude things like squares, but "anti-Stratfordian" means what the speaker wants it to mean. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"Is there something wrong with the current text, or are you merely attempting to improve it?"

It is factually incorrect as there are those who do not ascribe to any of the alternate authorship theories, but do "doubt" or "question" or are "reluctant to accept/believe" that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the canon. The single most notable anti-Stratfordian group in terms of recent media coverage ("The Doubt About Will" group) are the prime current example. There are also other historical examples as well...including several of the most prominent skeptics of the past.

The consensus of the other editors against correcting this factual error, and the unwillingness to simply use any one of the actual definitions in the sources cited (one of which is a DICTIONARY for terms such as this) is incredibly odd to my mind. Others can decide that for themselves...

If no one else sees it that way, I suppose it is a "dead issue" for now....until such time as others might care/take notice of such things.Rogala (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Others cannot see a "factual error" at all. And in any case, your most recent post clearly indicates that the claim of "original research" was just a way for you to promote what you consider to be The Truth. Vague doubts about Shakespeare do not constitute "anti-Stratfordianism" any more than mere doubts about American culture or policies constitute "anti-Americanism". Imagine that someone put up a petition asking people to sign a statement that one had reasonable doubts about American foreign policy. Do you really think that the signatories could legitimately all be labeled "anti-American". Now that would be OR indeed. One has to reach at least a certain point of serious scepticism before the "anti" prefix becomes meaningful. We have already dealt with the point that the current phrasing does not require that an anti-Statfordian must "ascribe to any of the alternate authorship theories." The phasing allows the "anti-Stratfordian" to deny W.S. without affirming anyone else. Paul B (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

@Paul B, you wrote "We have already dealt with the point that the current phrasing does not require that an anti-Statfordian must "ascribe to any of the alternate authorship theories." The phasing allows the "anti-Stratfordian" to deny W.S. without affirming anyone else."

I acknowledge your viewpoint, but ask: To what then, are these people "adherents" (as in the SAQ phrase "adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories"? Can you explain that one word if your contention is correct? If they are "adherents" they must be "adhering " to something, right?

It is my contention that an original theory has crept into the article via a technically incorrect (and ORIGINAL) group definition (as in "not supported directly by the definitions in the sources cited") which has been used to facilitate generalizations about that group. That, in my HONEST OPINION, crosses the line into synthesis. I did not claim that it was intentional and I do say it can EASILY be corrected by merely using the definition provided by the sources ORIGINALLY cited plus some simple changes to the following sentences (the use of "often" and "usually" as proposed by TR).

If the current cohort of editors and the third parties who view this page think I am wrong, so be it....then the issue will die of its own accord, as I will not pursue it further at this time. Please be aware that I well understand the need for consensus.

@Paul B, you also wrote: "your most recent post clearly indicates that the claim of "original research" was just a way for you to promote what you consider to be The Truth."

My most recent post was an answer to a DIRECT question from Johnuniq in the post immediately preceding it. Please read the sequence again if that is unclear. Johnuniq queried "Is there something wrong with the current text, or are you merely attempting to improve it?" Please know that I would not have started this entire notice board thread if I was merely trying to improve it. I am trying to point out a case of OR while also citing a factual error.

Please also be aware that I "promote" nothing other than RIGOROUS standards of word choice consistent with being 100% accurate.

The fact that you just called me a liar or at least ascribed me guilty of some sort of calculated misrepresentation is offensive. In my opinion, you are being personally pejorative as opposed to commenting substantively, and I regret that you have taken that approach. Please be aware that I am requesting that you retract that statement as a matter of both fact and civility and that I do intend to seek redress through the appropriate WP avenues for dealing with this sort of ad hominem if you do not.Rogala (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You are crossing into difficult territory since you have just claimed that an editor "called [you] a liar or at least ascribed [you] guilty of some sort of calculated misrepresentation". Please fully retract that before making any further comments. The alternative is to make a report at WP:WQA where you quote the exact text that you find to be a problem, and explain why it justifies your description. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarification - @Paul B: Am I somehow misinterpreting this comment by you: "your most recent post clearly indicates that the claim of "original research" was just a way for you to promote what you consider to be The Truth" ? Are you, or are you not stating that I misrepresented myself by posting in the NOR notice board? Please remember, it was you who encouraged me to do so here. If not, may I ask what you are saying? I am asking this per the "try and talk it out" advice of the WP:DR Dispute Resolution guidelines.Rogala (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My explanation of that statement is simple. I meant that you personally believe that a particular wording is more accurate, and that you came to this board because you hoped that NOR rules would support your aspiration. I am not the only person who has said this. I don't think any editor can reasonably accept that you do not have a personal investment in this wording given the vast amount of time and space you have devoted to what everyone else considers to be a non-issue. No other editor - pro or anti Stratfordian - has had a problem with this. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that this discussion has devolved into what all SAQ discussion devolve into, and that most of it belongs on the SAQ talk page. Would an administrator please make the appropriate edit? As I said earlier, this is a sad waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It is becoming more obvious what a waste of time this is, but I suppose there's no help for it. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

^ (Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar, George Hills, p 216)[49]
^ Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember and Ian Skoggard (ed.). Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Volume I: Overviews and Topics; Volume II: Diaspora Communities. pp. xxvi. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1] (Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar, George Hills, p 216)[49]

[encycxxvi-2] Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember and Ian Skoggard (ed.). Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Volume I: Overviews and Topics; Volume II: Diaspora Communities. pp. xxvi. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1]

[2]