Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series

Is it synthesis to present Bible verses prohibiting witchcraft and sorcery in an article which presents Religious debates over the Harry Potter series? Please see Talk:Religious debates over the Harry Potter series#Biblical prohibitions against witchcraft. Elizium23 (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How could it be synthesis to use THE only book of Christianity that Christians go by for instruction in accordance to their religion(s)? Aside from specific denominational dogma or cultic leadership, where else do you think they get their beliefs from? Using verses that specifically mention witchcraft (in more than one Bible version since there are tons of versions out there) and/or sorcery that leave no room for interpretation should be synthesis-free and leave no room for challenge. I would use an online parallel Bible such as http://bible.cc/ and http://onlineparallelbible.com/ to see if the most common Bible versions match up re: witchcraft and sorcery. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be synthesis or original research to just present the Bible verses because we think they're relevant to the debate - though if cited individuals participating in these debates have referred to particular verses then it would be fine to give the text of those verses to save the reader looking them up. Barnabypage (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a big difference between providing Bible verses that specifically mention witchcraft and sorcery and interpreting those verses. Quoting the Bible as a reference is no different than quoting any other book. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree. We discourage using primary sources - and the Bible would be a primary source if the verses are being quoted without having been previously quoted by other reliable sources - because it is often original research. A Wikipedia editor independently deciding which Bible passages apply to Harry Potter is indisputably original research. ElKevbo (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - because using a book as a reference is allowed but using the Bible (also a book) isn't? ElKevbo, what would you consider a secondary source for showing most Christian denominations believe witchcraft and sorcery is against Bible teaching (the book they base their anti-witchcraft/sorcery beliefs on)? Lhb1239 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To include any specific passages, you will need to find a secondary source citing the specific passage in the context of Harry Potter to include. Anything else is textbook WP:SYNTH. Yobol (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the reality check. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bible is a text of ancient historical origin. It cannot be a secondary source for Wikipedia about what Christians today might believe.

Some Christians are what are called fundamentalists, and they claim that the Bible is the only reliable source for their beliefs, and some of them would read it uninterpreted as it stands. But many Christians do not remotely accept that, and they say that what appears in the Bible needs interpretation into present-day understanding and ideas, so that they would not accept a quote from the Bible as necessarily reflecting what they believe, and they would say that their beliefs come from a range of traditional sources of which the Bible is only one contributory part. This means that they do not regard the Bible as "THE only book of Christianity that Christians go by for instruction in accordance to their religion(s)."

I agree with ElKevbo when he writes that: "We discourage using primary sources - and the Bible would be a primary source if the verses are being quoted without having been previously quoted by other reliable sources - because it is often original research. A Wikipedia editor independently deciding which Bible passages apply to Harry Potter is indisputably original research."

I agree with Yobol when he writes that: "To include any specific passages, you will need to find a secondary source citing the specific passage in the context of Harry Potter to include. Anything else is textbook WP:SYNTH."Chjoaygame (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor has his/her own opinions about Potter as un-Biblical, and her/his own selection of Bible verses, which the anonymous editor insists on adding to the article. When we criticize this attitude, we are accused of being anti-Bible, and otherwise subjected to rants. I thing we've got a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on, and would appreciate some fresh eyes. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that WP:IDHT is a two-way street. The conversation so far has been thus: "You don't have any sources to support X." "Here are some sources." "But this doesn't have any sources supporting Y!" "Here are some more sources." "You didn't provide any sources to support Z!" "Here are all the sources supporting the exact things you ask for." "Unless you have sources supporting X, Y, and Z, this material stays out or else!" Elizium23 (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

From looking at the article talk page, it appears that Elizium23 simply doesn't understand what synthesis is, or doesn't care. Including claims that particular Biblical passages are of relevence to the article, without a source saying the same thing, is totally against policy. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, you're not the first to point this out to him in the recent past. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

From looking at the article talk page, I have provided eight sources which do exactly that. What's the fucking problem then? Elizium23 (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The fucking problem is that the fucking citations you provide don't meet Wikipedia's fucking criteria as reliable sources. One can find blogs etc saying anything one wants on the internet (or if one can't, one can write one's own), but it doesn't make it remotely encyclopaedic. Find a reliable source (from someone better qualified to discuss the subject than merely posessing an opinion) that actually discusses the relevance of particular Biblical passages to Harry Potter in a meaningful way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Input on policy

Editors at WP:CENSOR are proposing a policy which states that if an argument arises over whether or not to use an offensive image then editors must find a precedent in RS's for using such an image, or it should be excluded as WP:OR. Per WP:Original images I have stated that an image need only reflect the ideas presented by a source, and that as a tertiary source we create original content, text, images, etc to convey/summarize/illustrate secondary sources, and that it isn't original research if we are not the ones doing the research on the subject matter, but accurately portraying the research which secondary sources have confirmed and verified. Here are some comments from the discussion:

• "We don't use text that cannot be found in at least some reliable source. If this is our threshold for text, it is common sense to expect that our illustrations should likewise be of a type that at least some reliable sources have used ... but the underlying principle for illustrations is no different from text in terms of WP:OR, WP:DUE, etc."-User:Masem

• "Can you cite even one WP:MEDRS which confirms that the video in ejaculation is an accurate representation of the act? This may seem like a silly example, since most adults know what it looks like. But that method of confirming the accuracy of article content is original research. Now suppose that an RS could be found to verify the video. If we represent the act at a level of explicitness that only 1 in 10000 MEDRS uses, we are forcing an extremely WP:FRINGE idea into a mainstream article, in violation of WP:UNDUE."-User:Alessandra Napolitano

Any input here is appreciated.AerobicFox (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis of film reviews

Hello, I've just done a GA review of Michael Sheen, where I have told the main editor that there is some OR via synthesis. But I want to double check, since I'm not entirely sure. If it writes "he received strong reviews", and then quotes or links to a couple of reviews to prove this, is that enough to constitute OR? It isn't combining two seperate views to make a statement, it is adding together a number of sources that say the same thing to make a statement. Is that acceptable? Or is it OR? I'm hoping for a response ASAP, thanks! --Lobo512 (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "strong review" is immediately understandable as "positive review". If the sentence read, "he received positive reviews from X (cite) and Y (cite)", that would avoid the implication that all his reviews are positive, which might be iffy. --NellieBly (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Kardashev scale

Kardashev scale contains numbers which are not supported directly. This may not be a problem if the calculations involved were trivial, but some of the assumptions involved in this case could be problematic. Details are discussed here. Shawnc (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lion's Share original research in fable article

Lion's Share article has a dispute. [11] Is it original research to claim these other stories are related without any reliable source saying they are? Lion's_share#Other_related_Eastern_fables When I asked for a reliable source on the talk page, I got only a link to a free 12 page newsletter where someone makes the claim. Just because they are all stories with animals in them, doesn't make them the same. The morals are different. The main part of the article has stories with the same theme. Respect someone more powerful than you, or they'll kill you. The contested section has stories that say don't look to someone else to settle your dispute or both parties end up getting much less as the one you asks takes a large cut. Dream Focus 01:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A request was made on 23 November for the Mediation Cabal to review this article and particularly for someone with an understanding of the field of folklore to give an expert judgment. Dream Focus should not therefore have brought the matter up here. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That request was made 9 hours after your previous request was rejected. [12] So I don't think it'll come to much. Those who specialize on Original Research cases would be greatly welcomed there. Dream Focus 00:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with you, Dream Focus, is that you have all along been too arrogant to read closely what people try to tell you. I said the matter was with the Mediation Cabal. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• There is too much material for other editors to digest. I think the issue concerns this edit which added a section to Lion's share. The section implies that a story concerning a jackal and two otters is an Indian equivalent of the lion's share parable. I assume the reference (archive.org, which I did not have the patience to view) simply sets out the jackal story and does not verify that the two fables are connected. I can see that arguments for and against inclusion of the material can be made (does the jackal take the prize by power or by cunning?), but that argument should not be conducted at Wikipedia. On the one hand, it could be argued that there is "obviously" some connection, so why not include the jackal section. However, I suspect there are lots of other fables which could be considered relevant, and some criteria are needed to decide on inclusion. My current feeling is that before the jackal story is added, there would need to be a reliable source with a clear indication that it is another version of the lion's share story. So, yes, it is original research to add that section—editors needs to take a hard-nosed attitude towards that to avoid all sorts of coatracking that would be possible in most articles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• And another example of original research has just been added then re-added to the article. [13] "There is a close family resemblance..." is original research, since the reference added doesn't even say that, it just confirms that these fables and others are on the same section in the index, and that's only because they involve wild animals, that the reason for that particular grouping. Aarne–Thompson_classification_system#Wild_Animals_1-99 Dream Focus 08:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnuniq, for looking this over. I'm glad Dream Focus mentioned my last edit [14] "There is a close family resemblance..." It was re-added because I inserted a reference as requested. This shows that the tales are all type 51, as I've just emphasised on the article talk page:

I've included a reference for including the Eastern variants in the article. The reference lists tale types in the Aarne-Thompson system. It reads:

0051 The Lion's Share (Wolf divides booty equally and is killed - fox learns his lesson and gives all to lion).

0051*** Fox as umpire to divide cheese (Eats all under pretence of making uneven halves even; remainder is his fee).

In this system 1 - 299 are the animal tales. This tale is 51 (with *** indicating, I believe, a subtype).

To make this clear, tale 50 is a different Aesop's fable, The Fox and the Sick Lion and type 52 is another different Aesop's fable, Fox Refuses to be a Mediator.

As it is hard to find an objective way of deciding to everyone's satisfaction where sameness ends and difference begins, for the present case, where there are not separate articles on the subtypes, I believe we should use this well-established system of typology and include fables of the same type. --Annielogue (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Does that reference [15] or any reliable sources say that any of the tales listed in the Other related Eastern fables have any possible connection to the Lion's share fable? Those tales aren't listed in that directory at number 51. And does it say anywhere why exactly the ones grouped together are grouped that way? Does it claim the themes are the same? Are there some fables with similar themes in different class numbers? Dream Focus 11:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion continues on the article talk page... --Annielogue (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Translations of C³ anime episode titles

Resolved

 – Answering my own question: I found official English episode names on the website of the US licensee. They're still crap, but at least now they're official crap. Anoyatu (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To my eyes, the English translations of the episode titles of the Japanese anime C³ are extremely dubious. Admittedly, my Japanese is not perfect, but I could think up better translations than these, and so could any professional translator. As far as I can tell, the English titles come from fansubs and are not official in any way.

I had originally dealt with this issue by tagging the English title of each episode with Template:Citation Needed. However, another editor removed these tags with the comment Don't mark English translations of episode titles as citation needed even if they're "original research". See WP:NOR under Translations & Transcriptions - it's allowed.

The referenced policy states that faithful translations are not considered to be original research. However, as stated above, I have reason to believe that these translations are not faithful at all. Even if they were, I'm not sure if that policy would apply in this case. I am concerned about the Wikipedia Observer Effect as well.

I see several possible ways to proceed.

1. Revert the other editor's changes.
2. Restore the Template:Citation Needed tags.
3. Replace the tags with Template:Original research?.
4. Replace the English translations with my own and identify them as such.
5. Remove the English translations completely.
6. Do nothing.

Any advice? Anoyatu (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

St. Catherine of Alexandria

There is a low-intensity edit war with an editor who started by removing sourced material that asserted thatCatherine of Alexandria was ahistorical ([16],[17],[18]) and has since insisted on inserting his OR rebuttal of the sourced text ([19],[20]. This editor has not grasped the policies against original research and synthesis. As the edit summaries and Talk Page discussion show, we are not against presenting rebuttals to the sourced assertions that Catherine is ahistorical. We just insist that those rebuttals be sourced rather than based on the OR of a Wikipedia editor.

It might help if a disinterested third party were to review the recent edits and advise as to the applicability of Wikipedia policies against original research and synthesis.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I just see the "you are a non-believer". Yawn. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mormons. Catholics. Muslims. Atheists. Taoists. Anyone. There is only one quick solution and that is to alert editors who understand both Catholicism and Wikipedia policy. WikiProject Catholicism? WikiProject Christianity? User:John Carter should be able to help. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the reference to "you are a non-believer" is meant to imply but I'll just assume good faith, ignore it and move on. I was hoping to involve someone other than the regular editors of religion-based article. However, I have worked with John Carter in the past and respect him so I'll ask him to get involved if the edit war continues. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is dispute r.e. the above article as to whether the process for including scientists in the list involved original research. To briefly explain; the inclusion criteria used is whether a scientist disgree's with one or more of the three principles agreed on (by the scientific community) as the consensus in relation to global warming. I have no issue with that criteria; it seems reasonable and logical. However; the inclusion of scientists is judged by reading their published works and deciding whether those works oppose one of the three criteria. I feel this is original research on the part of editors (dependant on their own view of what the work is saying) and that instead we should look for secondary sources which note the scientist as opposing one or more of the viewpoints. The counter-argument that is being made is that sceptical sources have a tendency to claim as many scientists, on dubious pretext, to their cause as possible. I am unsure this is a valid argument because we can use the usual editorial control on source use (i.e. avoid biased sourcing, and look for clear obvious information). However I am making no headway in explaining this viewpoint to editors on the page (you can find a more lengthy discussion on the talk page) and help would be apprciated --Errant ^(chat!) 12:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The space above was too small for EX to mention that the article has been through AFD 4 times, and some DR's, in which OR has been heavily discussed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (4th nomination) for the most recent. Also, EX is misrepresenting the counter-arguments William M. Connolley (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How am I mis-representing the counter-argument? I tried to be clear/fair in presenting it, but feel free to expand on where you think it is incorrect. My impression from the AFD and article history is that this is one of the typical problematic areas where the key issues are simply not addressed; primarily through factions of editors stalling each other :) This isn't the first contentious topic I've observed "from the outside" as it were. However; that does not escape the issue that someone has done OR to produce the current list, and that issue must be resolved. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're free to bring things up here. But asserting that there is a fatal problem that must be resolved is just your personal opinion. This is why I pointed out the AFDs, which basically concluded that your point (which isn't your point, of course; many have said similar) was worthy of consideration, but didn't actually need fixing William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A bit of low level OR is typically allowed in Wikipedia as far as checking list inclusion in specifically 'List' type articles is concerned. I don't see the current system has caused any real concerns about the inclusion or exclusion of specific people though of course some checking is done. Using the criteria of some of those lists on the web we'd include a load of people who really are not 'skeptics' by any stretch of the imagination, in fact they've asked to be removed from some lists and their requests have been denied. Dmcq (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I do agree in a large part there - but I feel the problem we come is answering the question "does this scientist oppose X view" - and rather than relying on dubious third party lists, or our own judgement, we could find good secondary sources that simply say "this scientist opposes view X". *shrug* --Errant ^(chat!) 12:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. That might cut the list down a bit I guess. I can see the skeptics camp might be annoyed because some obvious candidates aren't included. Yes in an ideal world that would be better though one would still need common sense to check their contributions before including them. Certainly anyone who isn't described explicitly in such terms in a reliable source should at the very least be very carefully scrutinized otherwise as one doesn't want WP:BIO problems. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

All this achieves is pushing off the "does X believe Y" question from what they actually said into assessing whether we trust what other people have said. Its OR, again, just disguised. Looks like we may be doomed to repeat all of the discussion on the talk page here :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No I'm saying in all cases what they wrote should be actually checked. Even if somebody says they're skeptics it might just be someone claiming a scientist supports their views. If somebody doesn't actually say that then one would need to be extra careful checking what they said to make sure one wasn't reading something into it just which isn't there, in those case it should be more on the lines of the blindingly obvious. Basically I'm affirming I don't have much problem with what happens. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we include people like George Chilingar, Marcel Leroux, and Nicola Scafetta who are almost certainly skeptics (based on a simple reading of their writings), but who are so low profile that their views on global warming have appeared in the mainstream media fewer times than you can count on one hand. So by original research we select a quote and paint them (presumably correctly) as a skeptic, but it would be hard to justify the conclusion that their skepticism is notable given the near total lack of coverage of their skepticism in reliable secondary sources. This is more a BLP / WEIGHT issue, though we reach this problem in part because the decision on who to include is based on our reading of primary sources rather than a review of secondary sources. In the case of Chilingar we have the added issue that his name appears on this list even though his article contains no discussion of his global warming views at all. Dragons flight (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if their views aren't at all notable even in their own context they should definitely be removed. I think that falls under blindingly obvious! The Nicola Scafetta seems to be just that they have their own theories on some aspects rather than much dispute so I wouldn't say that was blindingly obvious either. I don't know what to make of the Leroux article, it doesn't sound like a neutral point of view article so I'll pass on that as not having enough to get a preliminary idea. BLP would dictate in such a case you just leave them out if you can't get better. Dmcq (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed Chilingar and Paltridge from the list as both target articles lacked any prose about their views on global warming. The discussion related to this is here if any one wants to comment. Dragons flight (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes that looks fine and I agree the Marcel Leroux one definitely looks safe to keep in the list. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As I pretty expected, I was reverted and both Chilingar and Paltridge were put back in the list even though there is no global warming content in their respective articles. Dragons flight (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I had a look through the reasons and basically they both have written books which seem blatantly to deny the scientific evidence. I do however think it should be possible to find some review pointing this out rather than just reading through their books. If what they have written has not merited any note in a reliable secondary source why are we taking any note of them? Dmcq (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A week on since the last comment, and the original poster's comment ("I am making no headway in explaining this viewpoint to editors on the page") seems still relevant in regard of the view that this article violates OR. (As to any particular bits, adjustments were made.) I think it is fair to summarize the situation at this point as: 1) there has been no showing of OR (at least none that has not been corrected), and 2) the previous point supports a finding of no OR violation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Gallon

In the article gallon, users DeFacto, and to a lesser extent Dbfirs, have each tried to redefine legal terminolgy in a manner that potentially changes their meaning (diffs here). They insist on writing "The gallon was removed from the list of legally defined primary units of measure ... but only as a supplementary or secondary unit." The words "primary" and "secondary" do not appear in the EU directive nor do they appear in associated British or Irish legislation so in this context they are undefined. They only appear in one document, and then in the context of "primary indicator" and "secondary indicator" rather than "primary unit" or "secondary unit". In the section Talk:Gallon#Supplementary vs Secondary I tried to explain the reason why the words "secondary" and "primary" should not be used, but he is not receptive to what I wrote. Do others agree with me that introduction of the words "primary" and "secondary" in way that DeFacto has done is WP:OR on grounds that it potentially introduces a novel meaning to the legislation? Martinvl (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have not tried to "redefine legal terminology". What I have tried to do is attempt to describe in the article the practical effects of the directives/laws without obfuscating the issue by using nothing but the exact (ambiguous) wording used in the directives/laws. As I understand it, the point of an article is to describe the subject matter of the article in accessible langauage, using secondary sources where possible as support, and not to add nothing but verbatim quotes from primary sources, especially when the language is ambiguous, or evem meaningless, to the layperson.

To say that the "gallon was removed from the list of legal units..." sounds like it ceased to be a legal unit, or even that it became an illegal unit. That isn't the actual case: all that has happened is that the gallon has been replaced by the litre as the legally defined primary unit for certain uses.

Paraphrasing and using different phraseology isn't OR.

-- de Facto (talk). 16:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The words "primary" and "supplementary" are used in the references provided. Why can we not use these words in the article? It is original research (and false) to imply that the gallon is somehow "illegal" in the UK (though I don't think that was the intention). Dbfirs 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

May I put a few things into perspective - The reference provided was an explanation of the impact and it used the words "primary" and "secondardy" in respect of "indicators", not "units". Nobody has ever said that the gallon is "illegal", only that it is "not authorised" for a large number of uses. All that I have done is to be very careful about using the language tjhat appears in the original text where the word "supplementary" is defined. Martinvl (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

List of tallest residential buildings in the world

The article List of tallest residential buildings in the world appears to contain significant original research. The key issue is that the definition of residential building used by the article states that 90% of the building must be for residential use. Several of the buildings involved do not appear to have a reference for the relevant percentage. Longwayround (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

CTBUH (Council on tall buildings and urban habitate) defines a single function building as, "A single-function tall building is defined as one where 85% or more of its total floor area is dedicated to a single usage" The link is [21]. CTBUH is the most reliable source pertaining to the skyscrapers. The list of tallest residential buildings is here: [22].

Please refer to this link of Emporis, [23] for the definition of residential buildings, the statement that i have given "90% residential use" is not an original research but it has been referenced in Emporis.com. At the time when the article was written i have taken this sentence from Emporis, but at that time the list differs from the current list.

As far as the reference related to each building is concerned, it is very difficult to find any reliable source that must says that the particular building's 90% use is devoted to residential purpose.One can find the source saying the building is a residential tower.

I think my point is very clear now.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The list at Emporis [24] includes the [Burj Khalifa]. The preamble to the list states:

This overview is the most accurate compilation of its kind and uses in-depth research results and reliable building information. It is based on data standards as outlined by the Emporis Standards Committee (ESC). This listing is verified and updated continuously and includes high-rise buildings which have been topped out, including those still under construction or on hold and whose occupiable height is devoted at least 90% to residential (and combined parking) uses.

This building had been excluded from the article due to a (possible WP:OR) calculation that it contained approximately 36% residential space.

For some reason, the CTBUH list [25] does not include the Burj Khalifa. One of these lists must be wrong. Longwayround (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

VHD (file format)

Resolved

On 5 December 2011, Pol098 (talk · contribs) made these edits to VHD (file format) § Virtual Floppy Disk (VFD).

The following edits are subject of my query:

One: He has written:

The VFD uncompressed flat-file format is similar or identical to uncompressed "raw" formats used by other programs, often with extension .IMG or .IMA; however, extensions are not standardised, and incompatible compressed .IMG images are often used.

...But instead of a source, he has supplied:

The compatibility of the various "raw" floppy image formats and the ability to mount them as virtual floppy disks is quickly and easily verified by construction by anyone with access to a computer running Microsoft Windows with Internet access. Download vfd21-080206.zip and extract to a directory. Make or download a .VFD file made for Microsft Virtual PC; one such, easily found, is named win98seboot.zip, extracting to win98seboot.vfd. Run vfdwin.exe from VFD21, install, open win98seboot.vfd or other VFD file, allocate drive letter A:. The floppy image is then available to Windows Explorer as floppy drive A:. Rename with extension .IMG or .IMA, image mounts as raw image file in exactly the same way.

Two: He has written:

Version 9.20 (current in December 2011) of the 7-Zip archiver will open raw floppy disk images as if they were directories and allow files to be extracted (but not added). The same file can be renamed with extension .iMG, IMA, or .VFD; performance is identical

...But instead of a source, he has supplied:

7-Zip compatibility is not included in the standard 7-Zip documentation, but is included in a message by the program's creator. Verification by construction: download 7-Zip (for Windows the portable version which need not be installed can be used). Obtain a valid 720kB or 1.44MB uncompressed raw floppy image with extension .IMG, .IMA, or .VFD, e.g. win98seboot.vfd mentioned previously. Copy the file with all 3 extensions. Open all with 7-Zip, extract contents.

Are these original reasearch? Or are they not? Fleet Command (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Best Life Now

Your Best Life Now

Anonymous user 198.228.196.231(last digits change from time to time, possible sockpuppet?) has continually added the following section to the page in which he attempts to argue against an author's position listed in the criticism section. I have removed it several times and he continually readds:

Counter-Points to Criticism

Adam Key states in his youtube video at time 2:14 :

"These are the words of eternal life where there is no other name under heaven, not Billy ..., not Joel Osteen, not any person only Jesus can get you to heaven."

Since Osteen has never proclaimed himself to be either Jesus Christ nor a substitute for Jesus the above statement is clearly a slanderous lie against Osteen.

One has to wonder about other parts of Key's message if it contains such a massive lie. Essentially Adam Key is using wikipedia to launch a slander campaign against Joel Osteen which is clearly a wikipedia violation. Also a real evangelist, which Mr. Key's claims to be, would know that there are Bibical admonitions against sinning including lying and slander.

In addition, Key put graphic overlays on his book showing Osteen's book cover image depicting him with a 'blacked in' missing tooth. This suggests that Key is motivated in part by a 'sour grapes'[8], disgruntled malcontent, and jealousy motivation rather than an objective content discussion mindset. This type of image defacement which, by the way, is insulting to all folks with missing teeth represents a new low in 'cheap shots'. This grade school level vandalism of Osteen's image is not material to Key's argument but is definitely mean-spirited and un-Christian like, especially for a claimed "Evangelist".

While Joel Osteen may chose to focus on thinking that may better the mindset of Christians so that they may better meet daily challenges he does not deviate from the core Christian tenet that a belief in Jesus Christ will 'save' the believer (on Judgement Day - when all are judged by God after death.). Anybody can listen to the very last sentences of every Osteen TV session to know that. The cited reference clearly states that:

"Q: How would you describe your message?

A: It's a message of encouragement. I always try to put a seed of hope into people's hearts. I'm not there to teach them doctrine necessarily, but to let them know that God is a good God, and has a plan for their lives. Hopefully, that will restore their faith, or draw them into faith. So I am absolutely trying to bring them to Christianity. "

So clearly he's encouraging perhaps unlearned newcomers to learn more about Jesus and initially does not give them a more detailed accounting. Newcomers who proceed down the path of study of Jesus will learn about how everybody is a sinner and needs to repent etc. So obviously there's a difference of opinion here which most would keep in a gentlemanly and Christian context and not couched in a slanderous lie hit-piece video as Adam Keys has done

What Osteen choses to focus on while retaining key tenants of Christian beliefs should not qualify him for invalid, ignorant, rabid disdain and bad-mouthing spoutings. Why not recognize the shortfalls in one's own non-objective position (i.e. lies) and correct it rather than go on an attack of another 'fellow Christian'?

One may ask: " 'Why Not Leave It At Your Own Preaching' and let the discriminating listeners determine whom they wish to listen to?" rather than writing an attack on a fellow believer which some may muse is very uninformed and un-Christian like?

These thoughts were better encapsulated by a commentor responding to another youtube video by hetgow critical of Osteen. Poster "ftsthunderflash" posted 3 years ago (2008) the following relevant comment:

"It is sad the fact that I keep seeing believers criticizing other fellow Christians just because the book, a sermon, or a prayer didn't include nor mention certain topics the way you'd like it to be done, when in youtube you can easily find real false prophets teaching their followers the..., yet I don't see any of you defending the real gospel, nor posting any comments about this. If you don't agree with Osteen, just make your own books & don't watch his videos!"

This comment represents a valid counterpoint to the criticisms made by Key. What "ftsthunderflash" is essentially saying is "Can't We All Get Along (for Christ's sake)!".

Key obviously ignored Osteen's own statement" "I'm not there to teach them doctrine necessarily, but to let them know that God is a good God, and has a plan for their lives."

Key then went on to slander Osteen with a slanderous lie unbecoming a Christian and especially a self-proclaimed evengelist.

Key's sad effort is pitiful in it's denial of reality, major lie, and desperation to get attention by using the public acclaim of Osteen.

What is needed in these cases is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as it looks like it could be long term.. However before you use that you need to try and communicate with the person doing this. Have you ever tryied to ommunicate on the ip's talk page after an edit? At the very least you need to have something about this on the articles talk page saying what is wrong with all this stuff as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You can then refer to the discussion when reverting and if you ask for page protection. Dmcq (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Argument still going on about the median

The business about usage of the median in a number of articles is still going on at Talk:Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Consensus_on_median_in_summary. It's been here before an then went to mediation and then the person who took it to mediation dropped out so the mediation stopped and it is back on a talk page again. The basic issue is whether it is okay for Wikipedia to take a bunch of figures from different sources and methods and about slightly different things and shove them all together in a poll of pools like some newspapers do. Dmcq (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

eurabia

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

hi, could someone please take a look at these edits by user dishcmds, [26] [27] [28] [29] ? do these edits constitute original research? he is using the term "social-political neologism" without the support of reliable sources. he clearly infers the term by using sources which do not mention the term itself, as demonstrated by this conversation on his talk page [30].-- mustihussain  08:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've concentrated on the neologism, which appeared dubious and found this source [31], which I supposed as fairly good. I added it into the article. You know, with neologisms is hard to work. There is a boom of them even in my mother tongue. They often serve to narrow interests of certain social groups or even individuals. Maybe my attempt will appear insufficient to you. If so, apologize me for it. Chomsky (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Acculturation

Recent series of edits by numerous users have added a great deal of sourced content, but with it are many unsourced claims and unencyclopedic prose. My concern is that a lot of this may be original synthesis of cited sources. Much of this new text has subsequently been copied and added to other articles; [32], [33], [34]. See also talk page at Acculturation [35]. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that for example the sentece Interestingly, Pearson saw fit to change the spelling of his own name from Carl to Karl later in life. should be either rewritten and provided with a source or removed. I think, that acculturation is possible and the case of the Jews is not typical. In the Academic American Encyclopedia acculturation is more than twenty years ago supposed as a theory on the field of anthropology with quotation of Herskovits, Linton and Redfied. But it needn't be a sign of original research, because of the year, when this source was published (1991). Chomsky (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Referencing statement about web browser with an article about its rendering engine

To explain the question I'll give a quick summary of the issue: in a Galeon article I used a Slashdot post as a reference that Galeon (as other Mozilla-based browsers had problems with online banking. The post itself linked to The Register's article about Mozilla Suite usage with online banking and listed several Mozilla-based browsers including Galeon. Another editor removed the reference, stating that Slashdot isn't a reliable source (which is generally established across Wikipedia) and that The Register's article doesn't mention Galeon specifically (also true). Given that the fact that Galeon uses Mozilla's web engine is stated and referenced, can I use The Regiser's article about Mozilla's problems with online banking as a reference? Or would it constitute WP:SYNTH violation? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the links you gave, but from what you have said the issue seems clear: no, there should be no mention of a problem with online banking experienced by a particular browser unless a reliable source makes that explicit statement. For one thing, while I have no knowledge of the issue mentioned, it is likely that a software update will fix the problem, and that may occur tomorrow, so it would be necessary to say that a particular version of a particular browser had a problem (but what problem—all online banking?). It's information that is not really suitable for an article at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You got me wrong. This is not about the breakage in a software version, that could be fixed. The problem applied to all ever existed versions of the now discontinued software throughout its 6 year time frame. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As the World Turns

This article has a lot of problems, but I wonder if I was tagbombing every section of this article. I can't put my own words to explain issues of this article; however, every section is uncited, and some have better chances of irrelevancy, such as Kennedy's assassination. --George Ho (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But the tag on top of the article is uneccessary because 1) not the entire article is problematic (for example the summary has no issues) and 2) that exact same tag has already been in all the sections that are problematic so putting this tag on top of the whole article is redundant and does nothing other than making the article look silly. Farine (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you watched the show? If not, how is summary (you mean "Premise") not problematic? How is this show "conservative"? Is that encyclopedic or not? I still don't understand why this whole article may not have issues. By the way, let's wait for administrators to decide. --George Ho (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What you're referring to is the "Premise" section which is in the body of the article. What I'm referring as the summary is the head of the article or if you prefer the lead of the article. Farine (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is possible that the lead may summarize originally researched statements; without concrete proof of statements, we won't know when events occur until reliable sources are found. I have added inline cleanup on one statement; any objections? --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As another editor has mentionned it to you in your talk page, it appears that you just go out placing all sort of tags on articles but without doing anything to actually improve the content itself of the articles. Tags should be used only as a last recourse such as in particular ambiguous cases or when a content needs a citation. But not overdoing it like what you're doing. When you clearly see POV or OR content (such as some of the examples you've provided on the ATWT article) you can rewrite/delete it yourself by justifying it on the edit summary. No need to insert the "Multiple issues" tag for such situations. Doing so will show that you're actually taking concrete actions in solving the problem instead of taking the easy road by criticizing (but not doing anything about it) and decorating articles with all sorts of uneccessary tags that could easily have been avoided. Farine (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

....What's your point? Am I a random editor who tags things for no reason? President Kennedy may have hurt the fans of this topic. However, I don't know what else to say; either it is relevant or irrelevant. I just... fine. Remove them if you want. Just prove it is not OR. --George Ho (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying that you're tagging for no reason; just that you're overdoing it and that you're not doing much to actually solve the problem. When I come across POV or OR content on an article, I take actions against it either by rewrite it or removing it. I don't just go out in placing tags and templates without have tried first to do something about it. While the templates may be justified in the cases of the President Kennedy and Title Sequences sections because (we're dealing with whole sections), but you could have easily solved yourself the various minor problems on the "Premise" section such as, for exemple, removing the word "conservative". The inline tag on the lead about the ratings for 1958 is justified, but the Multiple tissues template on top of this section isn't; it takes more than one inline citation tag to justify the use of such template. Farine (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

cajun

'While Lower Louisiana had been settled by French colonists since the late 18th century, the Cajuns trace their roots to the influx of Acadian settlers after the Great Expulsion from their homeland during the French and Indian War (1754 to 1763). The Acadia region to which modern Cajuns trace their origin consisted largely of what are now Nova Scotia and the other Maritime provinces, plus parts of eastern Quebec and northern Maine. Since their establishment in Louisiana the Cajuns have developed their own dialect, Cajun French, and developed a vibrant culture including folkways, music, and cuisine.' [uncited]

To great a discussion about Acadia without actually justifying whether Acadia and Cajun or actually the same.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.108.67 (talk • contribs)

They are actually the same. The word "Cajun" is an anglicization of "Cadien," itself a shortened pronunciation of "Acadien." This is disputed by no one. Heiro 01:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The material is also amply sourced in the body of the text. It doesn't need specific citations in the lede. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Route 66 (TV series)

I don't know which words I can use. This is tagged as an "essay", but even unsourced analyses can be "original research". --George Ho (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:International median household income

This template, Template:International median household income, which is transcluded in a few articles, appears to contain synthesis of different sources. In particular, the definition of "household" differs between the sources (for example, the Canadian source apparently excludes single-family households, while some others do not - hence boosting Canada's position in the table), which means they really shouldn't be put in the same table. I don't know how to deal with this, but it's possible this template should simply be deleted. Can anyone help? Many thanks, 137.82.175.12 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this just about scrapes in as being the reported figures. A prominent warning should be added to the table about the figures from different sources being incompatible and giving one example, that one you gave is good. The table should not be sorted on the figures, it should be sorted on something like the country name, nor should it even be sortable on the figures. Extra details can be given in the notes. Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a template either. Things which are a bit iffy like this should just be used in one article I believe where the problems can be properly addressed. Templates can be used in different places and lead to problems with context being added to the stew. Dmcq (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

One-third hypothesis

I removed some text from this article which contains alleged examples of the hypothesis: cases where a minority group made up approximately one-third of a certain society. However these examples didn't have reliable sources describing them as examples of the hypothesis, so I thought they were original research. User:Mdd disagrees, and wants to put the text back in the article. The proposed text can be seen at Talk:One-third hypothesis#Original research. What do other editors think - is this an example of original research or not? Robofish (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There is misunderstanding here: I agree with Robofish. The text should not be in the article. As a compromise I have added the text to the talkpage. -- Mdd (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, this discussion can probably be closed - there isn't actually a dispute here. Robofish (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Robofish, I agree. -- Mdd (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

open source

I have started to work on clearing out some large amounts of unsourced statements about the history of the term, but anything regarding Open-source culture is close to impossible to find sources for which do not just link back to the Wikipedia article itself. The term "Open-source culture" does seem to be notable given Google searches, but without any sources talking directly about the term, I do not see how the section should be fixed. Suggestions? Belorn (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the main reason why you can't find references to "open-source culture" is that there is no such thing. There is Hacker (programmer subculture) instead, and it already has its article. P.S.: I don't see an "Open-source culture" entry in the open source article, where did You get it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, should have pointed out which section it was in. Open_source#Society and culture. Belorn (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no use of the words open-source culture as a term. Instead, the wording is used as a way to describe the usual operation of the open source supporters. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I interpret "Open-source culture is the creative practice of appropriation and free sharing of found and created content. Examples include ..." as a declaration that describes what Open-source culture is. If the intention is only to describe the usual operation of open source supporters, I should be able to reword it to talk about "the use of open-source" and "the use of open-source techniques". That way I can remove the (mis)interpretation the current text gives me about something called Open-source culture. Belorn (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see a citation that says something close to that definition. I personally find using the open-source in that context quite obnoxious and opposed to what open-source people do with code. Dmcq (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is more in language skills of the original author. As I get it, this sentence was supposed to describe something like the Creative Commons philosophy, not the piracy practices it makes think of. Again, it looks like a definition of a term, but it has nothing to define. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Usage share of web browsers

The article contains this table:

Usage share of browsers for September 2011

Source	Internet Explorer	Firefox	Chrome	Safari	Opera	Mobile
Net Applications	50.9%	21.1%	15.2%	8.0%	2.7%	6.0%
Statcounter	38.9%	25.0%	22.0%	6.6%	3.1%	6.7%
W3Counter	35.1%	26.1%	20.9%	6.0%	2.4%
Wikimedia	35.5%	23.8%	19.3%	11.0%	4.8%	9.2%
Clicky	41.3%	26.3%	21.8%	9.3%	1.3%
Median	38.9%	25.0%	20.9%	8.0%	2.7%	6.7%

Questions:

• Is the calculation of median a routine calculation?

• The sources reflect different demographics. Some of the sources attempt to compensate for skewed sampling by using CIA data per country to estimate global usage, others merely report the distribution they experience, i.e. they do not attempt to estimate global usage shares. Some sources count unique visitors, others count page views. There is no source cited which supports calculating the median under such circumstances. Is the applicability required under WP:CALC met by the calculation?

• The median is calculated across several sources which have been selected by WP editors. There is no source cited as supporting the specific selection as representative or compatible. Is a calculation across multiple sources improper synthesis?

• The sources do not offer the same observation sets, specifically some sources do not count or report mobile usage share. Thus, the numbers are not immediately comparable. As explained in a note, editors reduce desktop browser share by multiplying it by the current overall(?) desktop share versus mobile. Is the correction a routine calculation? Is the correction improper synthesis or is it adequately (directly) supported by the sources?

If you feel like chiming in, I respectfully ask that you comment on the article talk page where an RFC has been opened. --Useerup (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I highly urge other editors to comment on this, since it has been becoming old and WP:LAME.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Median is a routine operation allowed by WP:CALC. Application of the median doesn't constitute neither WP:SYNTH, nor other WP:OR violation. I would also note, that the relevant discussion (which started back in October 2011) can be found on Talk:Usage share of operating systems, though it is long enough. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff could you please move your comment over to the article talk page instead? Having a discussion in two separate venues becomes unwieldy. If you agree then please move your comment and delete this comment by me. Thanks. --Useerup (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Some questions: How do we determine the overall desktop share versus mobile share? What about browsers that are neither desktop nor mobile (such as the PS3)? What does "mobile" mean? Is that just phones and tablets? Does it include laptops? Does it include portable gaming devices (such as the PSP)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We? We don't! If we did, it would be OR! That is done by the company who is collecting the data and thus again there might be a bias. (see the talkpage/maybe archive where somebody wrote to netstats about the Wii web browser) mabdul 21:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The source provides three pieces of statistics for the same date ranges:

• Desktop shares;
• Mobile shares;
• Desktop/Mobile split.

So the end result are calculated as (desktop/(destop+mobile))*desktop1, (desktop/(destop+mobile))*desktop2, ... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Useerup, I see no sense in such move: this thread already existed before I commented. It's rather naive to hope everybody will go to talk page instead of posting here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the thread above, you were the first person to begin debating here. The comment right above yours was encouraging user to go the the talk page and debate. My comment immediately above that one also encouraged editors to debate on the talk page. It was a kind request but I see that you don't care.--Useerup (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Come on, You posted the discussion on the Noticeboard and expected comments elsewhere? Seriously? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I now realize how naïve that was.--Useerup (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

To editors reading this: Please ignore the above sidetrack discussion. If you feel you can contribute to the discussion about the median (for or against) I would really appreciate that you debate at the article talk page where an RFC has been opened. Thanks in advance! --Useerup (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Death certificates

Hello. I currently have an article nearing completion in my sandbox, concerning Owen Maddock, a deceased engineer and racing car designer. I have been contacted by someone claiming to be his daughter (I have no reason to doubt that they are, I just haven't seen any proof yet) who has stated that the date of death that I have used (July 23, 2000) is incorrect, and that the correct date should be four days earlier (July 19, 2000). The sources I have found that give the date of death as the 23rd are an obituary published in the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper and the web resource OldRacingCars.com, which is run by respected historian Allen Brown and is a standard reference across the motorsport community. I have found no other source that gives a specific date, and certainly none that state that the 19th is the correct day. However, the daughter has claimed to have a copy of his death certificate to verify that the 19th is correct. I was wondering what the general opinion was regarding the use of a death certificate to verify a date of death was? From my reading of WP:PSTS it would appear that they are fine: date of death is merely a fact, and requires no interpretation beyond that which a reasonably intelligent lay person would be able to make given access to the material. However, my concern is that a death certificate, while publicly available, is not easily verifiable by another party. Although it would only cost an interested party £10 to procure a copy from the local Register Office, I'm not sure whether this constitutes "published" or not. It seems no less reliable or accessible than the average academic journal article or published book, and quite a bit more reliable than some. Pyrope 14:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how we can count it as "published" within the meaning of the act. If this Allen Brown is so respected, maybe she could get him to correct the date? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you take the meaning of "publish" to be one of the four offered by the NOAD (to prepare and issue for public sale; print in a book or journal so as to make it generally known; prepare and issue works; formally announce or read) then it meets at least two of them, and arguably a third. As for its reliability, where births and deaths are concerned local and national registers are about as reliable as they come, especially as a death certificate has to be signed by a doctor or other qualified authority. Death certificates (as birth and marriage certificates also are in the UK) are merely transcriptions of the official record that resides in the county or other local authority Register (caps intentional). If we cite to a book then you still need to pay or otherwise jump through a hoop to obtain a copy of the book to check that the citation is accurate, and we accept them as kosher sources. However, I think that for transparency and accountability your idea of approaching Allen Brown might well be the best one. That way we have an easily-accessible third party verification to back up the claim that the certificate says what they claim it does. Thanks for the idea. Pyrope 15:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe a death certificate is a primary source and very reliable. You've secondary sources talking about the date of death so it is okay to refer to it. It is a pity if it is harder to access than some other things but that's life. You would need to actually see a copy of the certificate though before sticking in a citation to it. Dmcq (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the primary and secondary sources disagree. I assume that may be an original typo, or else a miscommunication in the rush to get the obit published in a timely fashion, but it would appear that the usual reliable sources have slipped up in this case. As for me needing to see the certificate, that's sort of what set me pondering. Why do I need to see it? What right do I have to demand to see it before accepting it? I am not about to set myself up as any more reliable and important than any other registered editor, and if another Wikipedia editor says that they have a particular document in their possession then who am I to doubt them? I know that my own collection of reference materials contains some that are very hard to come by. Does that mean that if I use them I then have to provide copies to anyone who questions their veracity? Quite apart from the precedent that would set it would also contravene copyright laws in most cases. A conundrum, but more philosophical than I have time to get into right now! I think Orange Mike's suggestion, above, would provide a nice compromise. Pyrope 15:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a general rule about citations that one should have looked at what one is citing. Your reputation as an editor depends on that. If you don't then if somebody else checks and finds it is all made up then you have laid yourself open to a charge of deliberate vandalism and could be blocked and your other edits inspected and any questionable ones removed to be safe. You don't have to provide copies but there must be copies people can check. Dmcq (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more, but the addition wasn't made by me it was made by the editor who claims to have the certificate. On a related topic, any ideas on how you might cite a death certificate? Pyrope 16:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just stuck that question into google and it seems to be quite a common one. From the first couple of answers I'd say something like: Death certificate: <exact name on certificate> died <date of death>. <issuer name> <certificate number> filed <date filed> for <name and relationship of informant on certificate>. Doesn't matter too much citation styles vary on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't something I've ever bothered with but from that search it looks like there's loads and more sites which go in for documenting dates of births and deaths. Don't know what kinds of checks they do but I can well imagine that in the future such sites might accumulate various public records like this so it will become easier for people to check things like this. Dmcq (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There are, its true, but with the whole Ancestry.com/.co.uk/.ca/.whatever phenomenon a lot of them seem to want some sort of money. Thanks for all your help, and this seems to be on the way to being resolved. Pyrope 13:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Egged bus routes in Israel

Would it be OR for me to add, on List of Egged bus routes in Israel#Jerusalem, that bus number 34 in Jerusalem will eventually be renumbered "4", based on this page? And how about comparing the about-to-be bus 13א listed here with the eventual 25 here? For this last one, would the Hebrew page be any better, since there would be no need to translate to compare them? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Virginity#Cultural value last paragraph

Please see the last paragraph of Virginity#Cultural value and the discussion Talk:Virginity/Archive 3#Removed paragraph from "Cultural value" on the talk page. I'd appreciate more eyes on the issue. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been resolved following a discussion at the talk page and an edit I made to remove the undue paragraph. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn

This article is about a figure in the Qur'an whose identity is uncertain, with suggestions including Alexander and Cyrus. It's an OR magnet, the latest being the section "Oghuz Khan and/or Bilge Qaghan" which is pure OR (I'm sure there's more). More eyes would help as IPs keep replacing it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Am looking for better sources. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop Islamization of America

Our article on Stop Islamization of America includes the information, cited to a NYT article, that the organization opposed the construction of Park51, a Muslim community center in Manhattan. Is it original research to include the claim that the center was "controversial," cited to a Fox News poll about whether or not respondents opposed the construction? Users in favor of adding the claim state that it can be sourced and is true. Users opposed to adding the claim state that if a source does not refer to SIOA (the article subject) or if the claim is unsourced, we are inviting readers to draw conclusions about SIOA's opposition to it in violation of WP:SYN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well a straight google led me to quite a few pags linking Stop Islamization of America with park54 and saying it was controversial. Foir instance Salon: Park51 says 'In short, there is no good reason that the Cordoba House project should have been a major national news story, let alone controversy. And yet it has become just that', and 'May 7, 2010: Geller’s group, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), launches “Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!”'. Wouldn't it be better to cover the business properly and write a good article rather than try suppressing the obvious by trying to invoke policies to remove stuff? Dmcq (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

*shrug* I repeatedly asked the user in question to provide sources. It's not my job to find sources for material other people wish to add. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes yes... if you go by "the rules" you were correct, it was not your job to find a source... now, step back and think about how much time and effort you are spending arguing about this... Do you really think that Park51 wasn't controversial? Would it have been less stressful to look for a source yourself (even though it wasn't your job to do so)?... Did you even do a quick Google search for "Park51 controversial" to see how easy it would be? Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Religiosity and intelligence

Could somebody please take a look at the Religiosity and intelligence page. There is a discussion on the talk page.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC) (I'm expecting this would be a particularly quick and easy fix, BTW. There are a couple of studies about the religiosity of National Academy of Sciences members. Various editors over the years have seen this as relevant to an article on religiosity and intelligence, I see it as clearly original research, but it's come up so often that I'd like an opinion from others.) WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... definitely a problematic article, with multiple issues. Not only does it have WP:OR issues ... I also see WP:Neutrality issues. Even the title is problematic (see: WP:AT#Titles containing "and"). There is some good stuff in there mixed in with the problematic stuff, and so outright deletion is definitely not called for... but a significant rewrite may be in order. I encourage a much wider pool of experienced editors to look through the article and lend a hand. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sleeper hit

• The examples in the article pretty much say it all (not that I necessarily disagree with all that is being said in the article, but....) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Erpert: I believe this Noticeboard is more about particular statements disputed by local editors. Your concern seems more general so you may like to consider requesting the sub-articles be deleted as a whole. On the other hand you do not personally dispute the truth of these areas as a whole but may be concerned with particular statements. Unsourced statements may be challenged by adding a "citation tag". If they are not sourced within 2-3 months you can delete them. Blue Horizen (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Was a particular clairvoyant hallucinating?

My source for the medical consensus upon clairvoyance is: Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. Retrieved 2012-01-11. Clairvoyance

Also known as lucidity, telesthesia, and cryptestesia. Clairvoyance is French for seeing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a * visual or * compound hallucination attributable to a metaphysical source. It is therefore interpreted as * telepathic, * veridical or at least * coincidental hallucination.

Reference
Guily, R.E. (1991) Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience. New York, NY: Castle Books.

Now, Rudolf Steiner claimed that he was clairvoyant (there are enough sources to prove this). In fact, most of his teachings are based upon clairvoyance.

May I add the logical straightforward inference that Rudolf Steiner was hallucinating? Does it constitute WP:OR or WP:SYN? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It may possibly be a "logical straightforward inference" - but it is your inference, and thus original research. So no, you cannot add it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be the very definition of original research. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I posted it here because I have read something on the Romanian language wiki, saying that simple logical-mathematical operations (elementary arithmetics and immediate inferences) are allowed and do not constitute original research. See for details ro:Wikipedia:Fără cercetare originală#Operații matematico-logice (use Google Translate in order to translate it). Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The equivalent here is WP:CALC and what you wrote is still original research. Dmcq (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You should also be aware that different language Wikipedias often have different policies regarding such issues. In any case, you aren't making a "simple logical-mathematical operation" here - you are attempting to make a medical diagnosis, based on a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's "all clairvoyance is hallucination" logical conjunction "Rudolf Steiner was clairvoyant". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is original research. It isn't even particularly good original research, given that you are citing a statement in a book as representing the 'medical consensus' without providing evidence to this effect, given that the book is written by a clinical psychiatrist and evidently describing hallucinationary symptoms in people with mental illness, and given that you are assuming that what Steiner meant by 'clairvoyance' was the same as what the psychiatrist means by the term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that according to Wikipedia policies it constitutes original research, since it means synthesizing two different sources, instead of being written in a single source. However, the idea that Steiner meant something else by clairvoyance is a weak argument. Blom wrote "The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a ...". So Blom's own judgment is: parapsychologists (and occultists, since they are investigators of the supernatural, they fit the idea of someone investigating paranormal phenomena) use the word clairvoyance in order to mean that they receive images and sounds from the higher world/higher beings/paranormal realm, but we, psychiatrists, know better that such people are deluded and that they don't actually communicate with any higher reality, but instead they are having hallucinations. This can be inferred from Blom writing about the usage of the term in parapsychological (i.e. paranormal, occult) literature. He was not commenting upon the usage of the term by psychiatrists, since psychiatrists don't professionally assume that one could communicate with higher worlds. Even if some particular psychiatrists could be privately persuaded that such communication would be possible, their professional consensus is that God does not talk to people, nor angels do that (consensus is not unanimity). As Szasz put it "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia." Szasz wanted to expose such double standard, but in doing so he admitted that this is the consensus of the psychiatric profession. Upon Blom's view representing the consensus, the argument is the following: a medical dictionary is not meant for promoting original research, but it instead renders what is consensually accepted by the experts. There are other channels for promoting original research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu: You appear to be advancing a classic syllogism:

Premise 1: Rudolf Steiner is clairvoyant.

Premise 2: All clairvoyants are hallucinating.

Inferred Synthesis: Therefore Rudolf Steiner is hallucinating.

Syllogisms fall over when either premise cannot be supported or when the inference is invalid. Such syllogisms are rarely as tight or as straightforward as we might first think. That is why WP:SYNTH rejects them. Simple mathematical operations, precisely because mathematical concepts are clear and precise, tend to be very tight/straightforward syllogisms and are without ambiguity. Hence the WP:CALC exception to WP:SYNTH. Unfortunately this cannot be applied to your syllogism as it is neither a calculation nor a conversion. Some of the real-world ambiguities in your proposed syllogism are:

(1) What is your actual source for premise 1? RS himself? If so, he no doubt denies he is hallucinating therefore his definition of "clairvoyant" must be different from whoever you source for Premise2! That is logical too. If your source for Premise1 is some person or group other than Steiner then ... that source cannot be part of Blom's "consensus" group. That too is logical. Hence it is far from clear, in the real world, that "clairvoyant" means the same thing to the same people in both statements!

(2) Is Premise 2 reliably sourced - and if it is are there other views that could also be called reliable? Technically, Blom may be considered reliable - however he only represents a probable consensus of one "professional" discipline (parapsychology?). There are other disciplines which would disagree with a holus bolus acceptance of this premise. There may also be a significant minority view within Blom's own discipline that would not be so 100% re this premise. "Consensus" is not tight and "hides a multitude of evils" as they say. Significant minority views, in Wikipedia, must be fairly represented also. Such a global premise therefore looks impossible to uphold from any source.

Perhaps the most straight forward thing you can conclude here would be "Rudolf Steiner, according to mainstream Parasychology, would be judged as hallucinating." While technically still not allowed by WP:SYNTH it is very tight and, afterall, not all syntheses violate WP:OR which gives WP:SYNTH its raison d'etre. The problem is of course that you would need editor consensus and most editors are technically picky. Anyhow, is this suggested conclusion very useful anymore!Blue Horizen (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bringing in a source which does not at least tangentially mention the topic is practically always a sign that something wrong is being done like synthesis or coatracking. The source saying clairvoyants hallucinate does not mention the topic of the article and shouldn't be in the article. Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, while the matter of policy is clear, I have no doubt that Blom and Steiner described the same phenomenon, namely clairvoyance. It's not the phenomenon which is different, but the label attached to it. One calls it "knowledge of the higher worlds," the other calls it "hallucination," but they speak about the same phenomenon. Blom knows how people like Steiner use the word clairvoyance, he does not ignore the fact that people like Steiner believed they have reached a genuine communication with "higher worlds". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard only deals with stuff that is put into articles, not editors own personal beliefs. Dmcq (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The matter has been well explained above, but in addition, it is not satisfactory to say that a particular clairvoyant was hallucinating because there are lots of other possible explanations (perhaps they were cynically making up the whole act). Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity, Relevancy, Interpretation and Reliability of text...

Being aware of certain WP policies regarding original research and reliability, your objective remedial input, according to WP Policy and Guidelines is needed.

Basically, content in the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak section, claimed by User "Oakshade", reads, in the Death section:

"After Clay Violand, one of Couture-Nowak's students, told her to place a desk in front of the door , Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom door with a desk and then ushered her students to the back of the class for their safety while 911 was called."

According to WP:NOR, "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; - In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."

Both my arguments in support of editing the disputed text passage and Oakshade's arguments in favor of leaving the contents as is are in obvious conflict with each other. I have argued brevity, relevancy, coherency and reliability as forms of scrutiny that would accord to WP Policies, there are certainly more to claim, however, I got inconclusive responses from "Oakshade". Another editor offered an unchallenged argument, stating that:

"While a source was given for the deleted phrase, it is not clear that the content as presented was adequately covered by the source. The deleted phrase presented it as a fact that Violand told Couture-Nowak to barricade the door, while all we learn from the source is that he recounted telling her to "put that desk in front of the door" – and while we have no reason to think he made this up, personal memories of such events are notoriously unreliable. --Lambiam 13:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are the links to the page and our exchanges:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak

[36]

[37]

[38] History.

Please ascertain in earnest the reliability of the disputed text as to whether it is in conformity with WP Policy and Guidelines and please have immediately removed the above-mentioned disputed section of text if it conflicts with WP Policy and Guidelines. just (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just for the record, two editors reverted User:Just's removal of the sourced material, user:Edward321 and myself.[39][40]. It should also be added that User:Just has identified himself as the brother of Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak. --Oakshade (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• May I suggest that if you seek to have corrected, for the record, any of the above, that you leave the above original text which I have inserted intact, and that you supply any of your arguments and/or corrections in your own section below my section of text, via indent, in a chronological fashion, this in order not to mislead anyone that cares to make a reliable analysis of the situation. Thank you for your fullest cooperation. just (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is intact. That second sentence section, "Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom... " was not removed by you in your edits but you have chosen to include it in this ANI anyway. That section is sourced by the Toronto Star and needs to be noted as so since this is a NOR noticeboard.--Oakshade (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oakshade, the sentence referred to in the above sample started and ended with: "After Clay Violand, one of Couture-Nowak's students, told her to place a desk in front of the door [8], Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom door with a desk and then ushered her students to the back of the class for their safety while 911 was called." If you look closely after the word "called", there is a period. I never inserted text beyond that period (see: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=474311873). You later edited and inserted three suspension points followed by your reference. In order not to mislead anyone, and only after requesting permission from me (since it arbitrarily alters my input), if agreed, you would have been allowed to insert the full phrase which refers to the reference you added, i.e., like this: "The attempt at barricading the door proved unsuccessful.[9]", immediately followed by your name, since you added that, not me. However, since the contents of this phrase, according to my request for remedial analysis in this Notice Board, is not in dispute in this WP:NOR, I obviously did not include it as a reference, and I don't allow you to alter my original text in this WP:NOR. You absolutely cannot arbitrarily insert anything in anyone's section of text where they have never relied on it and where you have not consulted them beforehand. It goes the same for anyone who would try to alter your text in your talk pages or Notice boards. For the last time Oakshade, do not edit my text. Constantly and arbitrarily editing or altering my text input in this WP:NOR or anyone else's input provided in any Notice Board is a blatant disregard to ethics, among other things. Your intrusive and unwarranted editing tantamounts to harrassment, must I request a WP:HA followup? Stop now.
• Oakshade, please provide below a link that redirects to the section of text created by me in Wikipedia and related to this issue where I have "identified" myself "as the brother of Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak".

• User:Just: "Contents of deleted section irrelevant for this page concerning my sister Jocelyne Couture." --Oakshade (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fail. Please read carefully the request: Please provide below a link that redirects to the section of text created by me in Wikipedia and related to this issue where, according to you, I have "identified" myself "as the brother of Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak". just (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure what you're going at. You identified yourself as the brother of Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak in this edit summary. Whether you identified yourself in a "section of text created by me in Wikipedia" or in an edit summary doesn't change the fact you have identified yourself as the brother of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. --Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oakshade, the edit summary absolutely does not mention in any manner whatsoever that I am "the brother of Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak". I request that you provide me written proof via link that I have explicitly "identified" myself, during my Wikipedia activity related to this issue, "as the brother of Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak". Thank you for your cooperation. just (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• To most English speakers, if someone types, User:Just: "Contents of deleted section irrelevant for this page concerning my sister Jocelyne Couture.", it means, their sister is Jocelyn Couture. I might've mistaken your gender and if you mean you are the sister of Jocelyn Couture, then I will stand corrected and apologize for jumping to conclusions in regards to your gender.--Oakshade (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oakshade, I respectfully submit to you that you have demonstrated, based on the contents of all Notice Boards and other Wikipedia venues used for this dispute, your inclination to misinterpretation. You misinterpret writings and you seem to want to formulate another version or meaning which does not, among other things, reflect reality. One such reality is the one where I have never initiated in writing what you constantly claimed belonged to me. That says alot about one's honesty and credibility, among other things. In any event your actions, reactions, and inactions expose the crux of the matter, which is that you seem to allow yourself, in the name of a Wikipedia editor, to misinterpret information in order to present it or argue it in a manner not reflective of original meaning, content and/or context. May I remind you that that is what the original dispute, concerning the challenged text in the Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak page, is all about.

• Now how will you correct the falsehood you propagated? just (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is now looking like trolling. Just, you typed "Contents of deleted section irrelevant for this page concerning my sister Jocelyne Couture." You can write all the attacks you want but you can't get around that. If you are not the brother or sister of Jocelyne Couture, then why did you type out "Contents of deleted section irrelevant for this page concerning my sister Jocelyne Couture."??--Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Again, you are misinterpreting. I see that according to editor Professor marginalia, "This notice board is simply to give feedback about what NOR says as it applies to the content dispute." I was obliged to expose your falsehood here since what you wrote is false and unjustly affects other Wikipedia editors. I see that my respectful attempts in having you correct the record are fruitless. You may argue anything you want from this point onward, but I will have to finally respect Professor marginalia's input. You are now sole participant in this fruitless debate, editor Oakshade. A piece of advice, stop misinterpreting. just (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For clarification for everyone of what article User:Just has opened this case for, it's Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. --Oakshade (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted twice now just to zoom on the text itself, exactly, which is challenged per NOR, because this is getting pretty tangled. Can I ask the both of you to provide just the text itself that you've attempted to add, or eliminate, with the references that go with? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. What I wanted to add (between quotes) was:

• "Moments before Seung-Hui Cho arrived at room 211," Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom door with a desk and then ushered her students to the back of the class for their safety while 911 was called. The attempt at barricading the door proved unsuccessful.

The above quoted text would have replaced, between quotes:

• "After Clay Violand, one of Couture-Nowak's students, told her to place a desk in front of the door ", Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom door with a desk and then ushered her students to the back of the class for their safety while 911 was called. The attempt at barricading the door proved unsuccessful.

I have nothing against arriving at a compromise, where valid and justified, but editor Oakshade seems stuck on providing "notoriously unreliable" text passages. just (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. I see that you're both offering these as alternatives, but you're challenging his version on the basis it's a "notoriously unreliable" passage? If so, no-that's not a NOR rationale. NOR addresses the problem where liberty is taken interpreting a source that is too vague or self-contradictory to use to support a specific claim here, or that a statement from there is applied to a different situation here, one that isn't clearly specified in the source. It doesn't evaluate whether or not the stuff the source clearly does say was reliable. Sorry. The dispute between you can't be resolved with NOR. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Is your analysis based on review of all relevant info supplied, and are you reminding me that this dispute cannot rely on any of the following guidelines?

• WP:NOR "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; - In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."

If so, can you remind me on what type of WP Notice Board the above issue should be submitted and resolved? Thank you for your guidance. just (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you also expound on the following directives and explain to me why this Notice Board is exempt of the following directives?

• WP:NOR "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

Please inform me on the above and remind me why this Notice Board is not the proper forum to determine this issue. Thank you for your guidance. just (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. This notice board is simply to give feedback about what NOR says as it applies to the content dispute. I don't mean to give you the run-around. Frankly at this point I'd judge your dispute as having two opposing opinions about what to say even after it's been determined that both are sufficiently sourced as per policy, an editorial judgment call in other words, and those kinds of disputes can't be settled by citing a NPOV, V or NOR policy justification. And for those your best route is probably with a Wikipedia:RFC#Request comment through talk_pages. To achieve consensus, you need more opinion from editors about which version they feel is the more important, the more encyclopedic, and not more opinion about policy. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for your input, Professor marginalia. just (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, this is not a NOR issue.--Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Line of succession to the British throne

Page: Line of succession to the British throne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Disputed edits: [41]

• By the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701 the succession is limited to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover
• No constitutional texts say that the succession is so limited

The Act of Settlement 1701 says that "...in Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty respectively and that from and after the Deceases of His said Majesty... and of Her Royall Highness the Princess Ann of Denmark and for Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty respectively the Crown...shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants...."[42] R.C. van Caenegem's An historical introduction to western constitutional law. Cambridge University Press, 1995, says, "The Act...laid down that after the deaths of William III and Anne the throne would pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover or her descendants" (p. 117)[43]

My reading of sources is that the act does not limit succession to the descendants of Sophia, but merely places them first in line. If such a restriction does exist, then we should be able to find a constitutional law text that says so explicitly.

TFD (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said before here, the royal website says "only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed". DrKiernan (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The wording is ambiguous, it could mean non-Protestant descendants are ineligible to succeed. While the website is a good source for members of the family, it is not the normal source one would expect for constitutional law. TFD (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The wording on the website is clear, and is a reliable source for the article. --Nug (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Television in the United States

This article relies on one source and looks too big; I wonder if there are OR materials here. --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wesleyan University

There has been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing regarding my removal of

According to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Wesleyan is the only Baccalaureate College in the nation that emphasizes undergraduate instruction in the arts and sciences, also provides graduate research in many academic disciplines, and grants PhD degrees primarily in the sciences and mathematics.

from Wesleyan University. The issue was also discussed on that article's talk page at least once in the not too distant past. Can we have some more eyes on this issue, please. Is it an acceptable use of the sources or not? I'll drop a note on the article talk page in a moment. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The links in question are: the institution's Carnegie Classifications and a search of CFAT's database for other colleges or universities with the same Undergraduate Instructional Program, Graduate Instructional Program, and Basic Classifications.

I dispute that this is original research. It's too trivial to rise to the level of being research in the sense that we use that word in this context. And it doesn't seem to be original if it's a trivial use of the website, no more than looking up a topic in the index of a book is original research. Whether or not this information is interesting and important enough to include in the article is another question entirely but it's certainly not original research. ElKevbo (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Carnegie classification but my concern is that linking to search results in this manner is entirely dependent upon the chosen search criteria. We do not link to GBooks search results, for example. We probably could get round it with a series of standalone statements, each individually referenced, but collating them in the present manner has the appearance of "piling on". It is a problem that runs throughout the article: I can deal with most of the instances but in this case I simply lack sufficient knowledge of how Carnegie do things and how susceptible (or otherwise) their search systems are with regard to statistical manipulation etc. The issue is a much one of synthesis as research. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the statement is linked to the particular search criteria in the sense that the statement restates the search results. The classifications aren't "susceptible...to statistical manipulation" in the sense that an end-user can manipulate things to any great degree. The real question - and the reason that this doesn't belong on this noticeboard - is whether the information is interesting or important. I don't have a strong opinion on that topic except that it shouldn't be cluttering up this noticeboard. ElKevbo (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere near to the top of this noticeboard it says "Editors may ask for advice about material that might be original research or original synthesis". Do you have any suggestions of an alternate noticeboard where this might be more appropriately discussed? WP:DRN, perhaps? Although I really do not see this as being a "dispute" in the sense that is commonly used. As I see it - and I gathered this impression prior to reading the article talk page thread to which I link above - there are too many variables. But, yes, I admit my ignorance regarding how the Carnegie stuff works and indeed a pretty significant level of how US educational ranking systems work. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We usually begin discussions about article content on the article's Talk page. Have you tried that?

And a quick correction: The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education are not a ranking system. They're a collection of taxonomies created by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. ElKevbo (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That has already been tried on several occasions, one of which I link to above. I suspect that you are aware that there are some rather POV-type contributors there. It needs a wider audience, although it is beginning to look like this may not be the place to achieve that. The Carnegie stuff is being used to rank in the article, regardless of how Carnegie perceive themselves. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So that's a "no, I won't try the Talk page (even though I haven't) because I don't think I'll get the answer I want (even though I'll edit war over it and ignore WP:BRD)." Nice. Real class act. ElKevbo (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not the reason. The reason is because in the past people who have taken up this position have been browbeaten and given up. There is no harm in seeking a wider opinion, ever. - Sitush (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Quaid-i-Azam Academy

Do either of the sources added in this diff [44] support the content? I do not see how they do. First source Second source Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I can't find where they do. 'Comes under his ministry' in the first source is presumably supposed to back "an institution of the Pakistan Government" but doesn't. The other source says nothing about the academy other than it organised an event. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought so, thank you for checking. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked the editor who added them, he said that he was responding to the lack of sources and didn't mean them to back the statements, and has moved one. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw he had reverted them back in, and added another one [45] Is it standard practice to point to an entire book and say "it is in there somewhere"? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Pakistan sentiment

This article is full of OR and I would appreciate some help on it. I had removed the most of it but it has been edit warred back in. The situation is hopeless. See this as a prime example [46] The use on an Op-ed for statements of fact. There are no such thing as Pakistanophobia#hl=en&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%27%27Pakistanophobia%27%27&psj=1&oq=%27%27Pakistanophobia%27%27&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=0l0l0l256452l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&prmdo=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=972d3f93f73cffa8&biw=1024&bih=679Pakistanophobia It is a made up neologism. Most of it is uncited. What does this Simultaneously, the common people of Pakistan have shown a great affinity for Indian culture, music, TV programming and consumer goods, which conflicts with the official narrative to do with the article? Seriously, help me out here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The user is not discussing the content and straight away blanking the article right after protection expired without a consensus. The op-ed was removed after going through proper channel (ie. RSN). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• This source has been added [47] to support this content Pakistanis are often referred to as Dal Khor by Afghans The term Dal Khor is not in the book. Nor does the term appear to be in second source [48]. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I added it from the main article Dal Khor (where it was already sourcing content). Ofcourse you can further verify it. But you've not discussed that at all with me as yet. So I can't know. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you not garner from my comment s directly above that I already checked the source? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And I didn't say you didn't. You only missed to tell me that on the talk page and instead chose multiple noticeboards. I did a little search of my own (not indepth though). And it is the first reference that comes up with the term in the book. [49]. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That first book does not support he content either. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I just read full pages cited for both books. One book cites the nickname while the other cites it as well as attributes it to Pathans/Pushtuns. It is verified now, page numbers are given. You've not read it. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange then that a search of those books dose not show any results? Would you please provide a full quote so as to ensure their is no OR going on. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And you said you verified the book and it did not contain it?!? --lTopGunl (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes at 18:03, 8 February 2012 Look at the links. Please provide the full quotes from the books. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Op-Ed is still there, even after it was pointed out on the RSN board. "Many nationalist Indian Muslims also have anti-Pakistan sentiments."

I remember moving the content from the Saudi Arabia section to talk page. This was not discussed there. Also I'll prefer you do not open the same topic at multiple noticeboards and admin talk pages without discussing the content on talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines & TopGun You've both made your case, give it time and allow someone uninvolved to step in here. Going back and forth really scares folks away.--v/r - TP 19:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Tatarstan

Could someone please look at the situation around the Tatarstan article? There is an issue around this edit, and a string of reverts that followed. Since I've already reverted more times than I should have, and since my explanations did not go through to the user, I would appreciate if someone else could take a look.

In a nutshell, the original sentence (52% of the estimated 3.8 million population is Muslim) was sourced to this sptimes.ru article, which states, verbatim, that "52.9 percent of the 3.8 million population is predominantly Tatar and Muslim". The anon is arguing that the 52.9% figure is actually the percentage of Tatars as taken from the 2002 Census, and on those grounds he changes the percentage to 53.2%, which is the percentage of Tatars reported by the 2010 Census (and the source he uses is actually the ethnic composition sheet from the 2010 Census results).

Now, the anon's statement that 52.9% is the percentage of Tatars in the 2002 Census is correct (and can be easily verified using a similar ethnic composition sheet from the 2002 Census results). Problem is, the sptimes.ru article does not say that the percentage is from the 2002 Census results but merely states that it is the percentage of "Tatars and Muslims". My argument is that while the source is most likely wrong in that (because it is ridiculous to assume that all Tatars are Muslims), their being wrong does not give us the right to engage in synthesis: to replace 2002's 52.9% with 2010's 53.2% requires assuming that sptimes took the number from the 2002 Census results (there is no proof they did) and then logically concluding that it would be OK to replace those results with the 2010 Census results. If this isn't a textbook example of synthesis, I don't know what is. Furthermore, in the anon's version we end up with a sentence that tells us the percentage of the Muslims yet is referenced to a source which does not even contain the word "Muslims". A third opinion would be greatly appreciated. My discussion with the user can be found on my talk page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 6, 2012; 15:49 (UTC)

What, no takers?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 17, 2012; 15:06 (UTC)

Yup, you are right - synthesis, entirely unsupported by the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you (or whoever else reading this who happens to agree) care to get involved into this, change the article to the previous version, and perhaps explain this again to the anon if he persists? I really don't feel comfortable continuing to re-revert.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 17, 2012; 15:44 (UTC)

Ezhiki: It seems the reliability of the SPTimes article, for the purposes needed, cannot be reasonably judged as established: (a) we now don't reliably know what year it refers to; (b) it speaks of "Tartars and Muslims" and not simply "Muslims" (it may be wrong on both these counts because, if based on Census ethnicity figures, it should really be just "Tartars."). I cannot read anon's source as it is not in english. However, from what you say, anon also makes the assumption of (b) above - which means his source, alone, does not strictly support his statement either. Why not compromise and (provably) state that the vast majority of Tartars are Muslim. That will make it obvious to readers what the majority faith is even if a percentage figure cannot be reliably sourced. Blue Horizen (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pitching in! The source which you couldn't read is simply a table of results of the population census, one which deals with ethnicity only (indeed, religious preference was not even a question asked during the census). As for the sptimes article, I, too, agree that it is not the best source to illustrate what is being said (although it is definitely more suitable than the Census results). I do not, however, agree that it would be OK to just say that "the vast majority of Tatars are Muslim" and leave it there. That very well may be true, but it is an extraordinary claim all the same, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources (or at least some sources). There are undoubtedly many secular Tatars, as well as Tatars who culturally identify with the Muslim faith but do not really practice it, so simply saying that the "vast majority" of Tatars are Muslim would be quite presumptuous on our part. Perhaps removing the offending passage altogether will be the best solution, at least until appropriate sources are found?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2012; 14:31 (UTC)

That sounds a fair interim solution to me. (You may not have noticed that I said above that you would need to provably show "the vast majority of Tartars are Muslim" if you wanted to go that way. Of course if such a source cannot be provided then you cannot go that way as you rightly conclude.) Blue Horizen (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, whats so offending? Ezhiki, if you visit the Islam in Tatarstan page, a BBC article said most of the Tatars in Tatarstan are practicing Muslims. I also gave several points on the Tatarstan talk page, please adress those. 68.149.133.218 (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you haven't read WP:SYNTH yet, or you wouldn't have asked this question. Please, do read it; it might be handy in future edits.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 22, 2012; 14:14 (UTC)

New York City

There is a bit of debate over how information regarding New York City should be presented. One of the contentious sentences is "New York is an important center for international diplomacy[50]and is widely deemed the cultural capital of the world.[51][52][53][54][55] The debate has largely revolved around whether "...is widely deemed the cultural capital of the world" is original research or not. There are other sentences, especially in the lead constructed and supported much the same way. The current discussion is located at Talk:New York City#NPOV. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't original research... but I could see objections on NPOV grounds. Perhaps " widely deemed a cultural capital of the world" would be more acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case then I have completely misunderstood WP:Weasel and WP:Synth. Did you check the references that are used to support this claim? Note that there is no other attribution within the article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's all in the phrasing: "...has long been recognized as an international cultural center." is how I would phrase it. Usually whenever you see four footnotes attempting to "document" a single phrase, that's more often than not a POV declaration that should be toned down, I have observed. There is no "capital" of anything of the world, it's a peacocky figure of speech. Carrite (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a change which alleviates the concern of original research in my mind. It was one I suggested at the talk page that was met with disapproval there, but seems to be accepted now. I can probably work on the other issues in a similar way. Thanks to those who responded. AIRcorn (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Juggling world records

I just ran into this article from which I removed an enormous number of video links, posted on YouTube and supposedly verifying the information in the article (the videos are cool but they are primary, and it is impossible to verify the information even if you wanted to). I'm actually kind of at a loss for what to do with the article--I'm tempted to nominate if for deletion since I have my doubts about the basic notability of those records. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability is a test to see whether a topic can have its own article Wikipedia:Notability. I think the topic Juggling world records is notable for many reasons: (1) Juggling is a world-wide sport with many national and international competitions some of which have been nationally televised (i.e. World Juggling Federation, International Jugglers Association competitions), (2) Juggling world records are tracked by notable organizations such as Guinness World Records, the Juggling Information Services Committee on Numbers Juggling, and others, cited as sources in the article. Thanar (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Americans Elect

I've been having a deuce of a time keeping up with the edits on the Americans Elect article. There's a host of relatively new accounts making sure to remove the description of the organization as a political party. The source for this seems to be a lawsuit filed by the predecessor organization. My inclination is that citing such is original research (the suit is anything but clear in defending the new editors' claims, since it actually starts with describing the plantiff as a political party). The "non-partisan organization" is rather one of the key elements of how Americans Elect describes itself, but the news seems to pretty regularly describe them as a political party. Any help sorting out this mess would be appreciated. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the talk page; this is a little bit tricky, and may require a nuanced solution, so no change to the article yet. Let's see if another set of eyes can help direct a better discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement

Hi, kind of a technical question, but perhaps an important one. Is it considered OR to quote more of a quotation that a secondary source quotes, provided you have access to the full original quote in a primary source. In this case, Jimmy Wales commented on a blog...a secondary source (a reliable one) reported an excerpt. Currently Wales' is quoted in the Wikipedia article more fully than the excerpt. Is that considered OR? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it would be OR, but you must cite the primary source as well as the secondary source, which does not appear to be the case at the moment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would be OR in that context. A primary source is just fine to verify the exact text of some quote. There may be cases where it's inappropriate to use a lengthier quote than chosen by secondary sources, for other reasons (ie. a long quote could be undue weight; justaposing the text with something else might be synthesis). I wouldn't file it under "OR" because copy & paste leaves no room for the editor to exercise their own imagination. bobrayner (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Friday night death slot

Friday night death slot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have removed all unsourced statements with some left remaining. I wonder if this article's sections still violate WP:no original research, such as "Failures", "Successes", and "Fox and Fridays". --George Ho (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No replies? All right, what about this diff from this revision? It has full of unsourced examples; the current version has some examples that may or may not be a synthesis. --George Ho (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethereal being

Ethereal being (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Most of this article's content isn't specific to any published overview of "ethereal beings", i.e., whoever wrote the article decided on their own what constitutes "ethereal" and has collected and duplicated content from dozens of articles to include all non-physical entities in any and all belief systems ever. A glaring example is the Etymology section, which separately analyzes the words "being" and "ethereal", and then attempts to weave a bunch of out-of-context snippets from the writings of people like Thoreau and Disraeli into a made-up "timeline". Talk page discussion has a consensus of editors agreeing that this is a massive example of synthesis that requires a remedy, possibly a redirect to an appropriate target article, however one or two editors disagree. More eyes on the article would be appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I second this. This article is a total train wreck. :bloodofox: (talk)

The "Conspiracy theories and doctrines" section segues into stanzas of poetry. Nuff said. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, wow. Just wow. "Nuke it from orbit" comes to mind.Yobol (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is a misconception in my opinion. The word ethereal is only an arbitrary adjective and replaceable by any other such as non-physical, immaterial, impalpable, etc. "Ethereal being" is not a proper noun, therefore sources don’t need to mention exactly these two words together or separated at all. What matters is the entity to own the quality of being immaterial, intangible, spectral, incorporeal, etc. For example, there is no difference at all between the articles 'Ethereal being' and Non-physical entity, both have the same proposition: to describe creatures portrayed in mythologies, religions, philosophies, and popular culture that own the quality of being insubstantial. Guslarkachic (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I agree 100% with user Guslarkachic and I must to note that several editors manifested this agreement as well in the talk. Second of all, when we find parts of an article written as personal essays we fix the tone, or else we tag the section. Third of all, if the article wasn’t at least tolerable ‘Ethereal being’ wouldn’t be assessed as ‘B’ in the categories Paranormal, Mythology and Religion as “was” done. Fourth of all, the primary goal of a ‘talk’ is to improve an article rather than redirect it or destroy it as mistakenly and insistently was requested there since a RfC began in the talkpage. Fifth of all, since the beginning of the RfC, practically all subsequent edits in that article were destructive, left the article with orphaned references, and usually consorted with arbitraries and controversial summaries overlooking the ongoing discussion. Sixth of all, if really there is synthesis in an article, it has to be removed, however etymology of one or more words isn’t synthesis or OR, and I regard appropriated the citations pointed out over there. At last, at this point the destiny of that article should be decided by third parties, reason why the discussion was wisely brought here. Melodychick (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat here all of the arguments that were already made in the article's talk. And there have been literally zero arguments against any of those arguments, only vague attempts to block or stall any changes at all. This is getting really, really tiring. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Melodychick & Guslarkachic, the severe problems this article is suffering from have been explained on the Talk page again and again - with examples. Yet I see claims that edits can't be made because discussion is in progress, or that the 'B' assessment proves the article is tolerable, or that sources don’t need to explicitly mention the topic, and I wonder if a fundamental misunderstanding of the encyclopedia's policies might be to blame. But given the repeated removal of NPOV and OR article issue tags here and here accompanied by instant dismissal of these concerns as "inaccurate" - I honestly think what's actually going on is refusal to get the point. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources need to explicitly mention the topic, this is not the issue. The point is the difference between "title" and "topic." Some editors claim that the sources should mention exactly the title of the article, while from the other point of view other editors claim that the concept is the more important thing and so well sourced. A tangential question I figure. I concur with the latter view, the article is suitable and the word "ethereal" is just a general characteristic, an adjective and not a proper noun as argued above. Any synonym could be used. If helps I can cite that this attribute was also utilized by 16th century alchemist Agrippa who described gods, daemons, angels and devils as entities virtually made of ethereal bodies, nevertheless we can realize that Agrippa utilized this term as a widespread characteristic sometimes alternating it with other adjectives such as aerial and others. Excalibursword (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny you should drop by to "concur". There's something going on here, but I'm not sure what. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I had got the feeling that the usernames seemed to have the same flavour but I'd put that down to them having similar interests. Dmcq (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to ask why literally all of the pro-keeping-the-artice-as-it-is users have a habit of marking their new messages on talk pages as "minor edits". — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I bet they won't now Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: OK gentlemen, good weekend. Excalibursword (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Buen fin de semana, mi amigo. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is it? I thought that bringing the issues here, the narrow mind’s hammer could be left behind and other users could express their opinions. But the same users came from the talkpage and flooded and rushed this discussion again with zero arguments to the raised "non-proper noun" question above. Obviously I was wrong about all this, we can argue against the clergy, no chance. Melodychick (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

When I read through that article it struck me as a clear case of a made up topic. There aren't sources talking about etherial beings in a wide sense. Also if there were the individual entries in it should probably be dealt with as separate articles. I proposed 'particle' for deletion for very similar reasons, well actually that it should be a disambiguation page, but was outvoted by people who thought just because there was a dictionary definition it was a real topic so that's why I haven't bothered expressing my opinion about this. I feel this article should be much shorter or a disambiguation page but I can see some people have gone to great lengths on it. Dmcq (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

@Melodychick, one more time. The "non-proper noun question" is not about nouns, it's about synthesis and original research. It's essentially the difference between a Wikipedia article and, say, a university research paper. For example, I can't take a dictionary definition of the word "romantic", and a dictionary definition of the word "nationalism", and then find a totally out of context sentence from Thoreau in which he uses the word 'romantic' to describe a landscape, and find another totally out of context sentence from Hemingway in which he uses the word 'romantic' to describe his personal mood -- and then add all that stuff into an "Etymology" section at the Romantic nationalism article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mermaids qualify as ethereal beings, but aren't described as immaterial, non-physical, spectral or intangible. So the synonym idea isn't all that satisfactory.

It occurs to me that using "Beings of an ill-defined nature" as the article's label would be curiously accurate, and reduce SYNTH levels somewhat. Were an article of that name to survive, anything well-categorized would no longer belong within it of course - it would belong in articles with relatively nailed-down names corresponding to those categories instead. K2709 (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh?... looking at the definition of the word "ethereal", I don't see one that would include mermaids. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - the article shouldn't be talking about them. But it is/was. K2709 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We're not supposed to make up topics. They're supposed to come from secondary sources talking fairly specifically about a topic. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed as well - the idea behind the paradoxical article label was to motivate wholesale evacuation of compliant, reusable content, leaving only dross that could never survive an AfD behind. Too abstract perhaps, maybe the world isn't ready for such stuff. K2709 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that the article has been merged into: Non-physical entity (with the title "Ethereal being" now a redirect to that article)... I assume this has resolved the issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems a bad target I think as it is too wide, it includes things like numbers or code of ethics. I'm sure there could be some disambiguation that included both angels and ghosts. Dmcq (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Clothianidin

I wonder if I could get a second opinion about recent edits to the clothianidin page that, I believe, constitute original thought or synthesis. The second paragraph in the intro states

Some authorities have linked the neonicotinoids, including clothianidin, to an unexplained phenomenon termed colony collapse disorder which has caused a dramatic decline in honeybees in recent years.[1][2]

The first citation goes to Decourtye and Devillers (2010) and specifically names p86, which is actually the second page of this chapter dealing with neonicotinoid pesticides. The source authors are not "authorities" as I understand it, but this citation appears to easily qualify as a respected secondary source. The second page is clearly identified as part of the Introduction, which experienced journal readers recognize as the place to indicate, among other things, why the authors did the study. The top of p86 does mention beekeeper beliefs that pesticides are harming their hives. The same paragraph rounds out with other observations that raise concerns (i.e. not conclusions) about potential toxicity to bees. Nowhere on the page or anywhere else in the source article do the authors state for a fact that there is a link between clothianidin and colony collapse disorder, as stated in the second paragraph of the clothianidin intro.

There was a talk page discussion about this article, in which I pointed out that the Conclusion section of the source was at odds with the Wikipedia editor's summary. I explained that Decourtye and Devillers were not making an insignificant point when they concluded "The causes of decline among pollinators vary from a species to another and are generally difficult to assign." Also, the authors' use throughout the chapter of words like "could" and "is possible" with regard to neonicotinoid risks indicates far more uncertainty than the Wikipedia editor puts in this article. I also pointed out that time and again the authors note challenges with available data (e.g. "these data are often inadequate to demonstrate causation unambiguously."). The clothianidin article editor apparently chose to ignore this information.

Further down the clothianidin article, the section on Bees and other insect pollinators contains the following text:

The cause of CCD remains under debate, but most scientists believe that the decline is linked to mites, parasites and viruses, loss of habitat and food, and an onslaught of pesticides.[2] Neonicotinoid insecticides have been implicated by beekeepers due to a progressive disease in hive populations resulting in a complete loss of the colonies.[1]"

The first sentence appears to have been copied almost verbatim (transposing the pesticide text only) from source #2, the San Francisco Chronicle, which is not a globally recognized authority on the topic. The use of the word "onslaught" strikes me as not particularly neutral. The clothianidin article falls under both WP:MEDMOS and WP:CHEMMOS, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Choosing_sources explicitly states that "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." I am also concerned about the phrase "most scientists," which begs the question Which ones? This combination of copying text from an inappropriate popular press source and repeating with certainty the beekeepers' beliefs without including Decourtye and Devillers' conclusions challenging those beliefs strikes me as sythesis...or something like it.

There is also a question of undue weight--is it appropriate for a Wikipedia article to briefly caveat the uncertainty of the issue but then repeatedly reinforce just the one side of the debate throughout the article? This hints at original thought: certain Wikipedia editors are convinced that clothianidin is causing CCD and are using the article to prove the point.

Finally, just to get it out there, yes, I work for USEPA. We regulate pesticides in the US, and the volume of correspondence from concerned citizens on this pesticide chemical that we must respond to (most often correcting misinformation on Wikipedia) is substantial. My edits to the clothianidin page have been welcomed by members of WikiProject Chemicals, but a small band of other editors strongly oppose my presence on Wikipedia; I have even acquired a Wikipedian stalker in real life. I am asking for review here because attempts to discuss these things with the small band of editors has been a complete failure, resulting only in complaints to Admins about my presence and the aforementioned stalker. Hopefully this statement covers any COI concerns that may arise.

Thank you for your consideration of this issue. I look forward to your responses. USEPA James (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Simple mathematical data question

Hi, reasonably long time editor here but I've got a question about the OR policy, relating to exactly what counts as OR in terms of data analysis. For the St Chad's College page, and in general the Colleges of the University of Durham: you can see from official published data from the University of Durham (specifically from this table) that, for example for the year 2010/11, St Chad's had 24 students get a 1st, 74 got a 2:1 etc.. I assume this can be quoted in the article with the reference as that table. However, how far can I go with data analysis before it becomes OR?

• Can I say that 24 students (22%) get a 1st and 74 students (69%) got a 2:1 in the article? I don't see why not, the source clearly says that. However on it's own this data is a little useless, so...
• Can I say that 92% of the graduates of St Chad's College in the year 2011 got either a 1st or 2:1? It's as simple as adding the two percentages from that table.
• Can I do this for every other college on their articles? I see no reason why not if it is allowed for one college.
• Can I say that St Chad's got the highest percentage out of all of the colleges for that year? All it would be is comparing the values to the other colleges.
• Can I do this for every college, e.g. Josephine Butler College was second, Collingwood College was third etc... These are the actual results form the data, if you wished to check them all you have to do is add two numbers 16 times and put them in order.
• Can I made a table for the year 2010/11 of all colleges and the percentage that graduated with either a 1st or 2:1, and their ranks compared to the other colleges? All that would be doing is taking the values that I assume are acceptable in the individual college articles and collecting them in one place, say the Colleges of the University of Durham article.
• Can I fill in that table for all the years back to 1998/99? All the data is freely available from the university? Why not, if I can do it for the most recent year I could do it for previous years.
• Can I make a graph showing the change in rankings of the colleges for each year, in effect replicating what exists already here and here? If the table is allowed I see no reason a graph would not be.
• Can I comment on this graph? I have actually already done the analysis, and I could say for example that between 1999 and 2008 Trevelyan College was only once out of the top three rankings whilst St Cuthbert's Society was only once out of the bottom two. It is pretty clear to whoever sees the graph that this is the case, so is it OR to point it out? It might well be of interest for example on the Trevelyan College page to say it is one of the highest ranking college academicly, but could I then use this data as a source?

The problem is if I just added the graph to the article Colleges of the University of Durham people would scream OR. However where in the above series of bullet points does reasonable maths end and OR begin? What if, instead of just putting the data on Wikipedia, I published a detailed blog article giving all my data sources, analysis and calculating the final table? I know linking to a blog would give many people seizures but the maths is irrefutable in this case, so I don't see why it couldn't be included.

Anyway, I hope someone can shed some light on this problem. I would also like to think that WP:OR could be clarified when it comes to this sort of data analysis, there is WP:CALC but that gives very basic examples that aren't of much use.

Thank you,--23230 ^talk 23:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

comment 1

I would say "yes" to all your questions *except* "*Can I say that St Chad's got the highest percentage out of all of the colleges for that year?" - There may be an issue two ways. First, if you are not exhausting all of the equivalent colleges in that list, this is selective grouping to get a result you want, ergo original research; if you can for certain say that that's the exhaustive list, that's different. However, at the same time, if you are using that point on the St Chad's article , and no one else has made that point in the sources, that might be a bit peocockery or the like. On an article about all the colleges, yes, but not on the St Chad's one. It's probably better to let the reader figure that for themselves.

• "*Can I make a graph..." yes, as long as the graphs are presented without bias (read: using the same scales and format).
• "*Can I comment on this graph?" No, beyond explaining where the data came from. It is the same sorta problem that my second point above iterates; trends like this should be left for the reader to figure out if no RS already states it, but as long as your compilation of data introduces no novel approaches, presenting that is not a problem. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. For the "highest out of all of the colleges" bit I would of course include all 16 colleges in that, I'm not going to say "St Chad's got the highest value if you don't include these other two colleges that got higher values". For the second part of that point and your third point see my reply below. Thanks also for the info on the graphs, all I would include would be the rank of the college over time, exactly the same format as File:Tompkins.jpg and File:Norringtontable2010 preliminary.png.--23230 ^talk 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

comment 2

Even if a calculation passes WP:CALC you've got to ask yourself why are you doing that is no secondary source shows any interest in it? Obvious here really means it is the sort of thing which there is a good chance a person would want to ask and can figure out reasonably from the data rather than obvious as in the steps of your calculation are obviously okay. If a distance is in miles it is obvious some people will want it in kilometers. Dmcq (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense for CALC, as for the interest see my main comment below.--23230 ^talk 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

comment 3

I would say no to all your proposed questions. You are quoting from primary sources. You would need special justification for that. You haven't proposed any here. So the general policy in favour of reliable secondary sources applies to your questions. You should not even quote the basic figures. They have not been verified by a secondary source.

The consequences of allowing primary sources are potentially very bad. It is reasonable to quote a primary source as back-up for a statement about it by a secondary source, to let the reader check the secondary source against the primary source. But not the primary source by itself.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see what you mean here, sorry. You're not allowed to quote from primary sources for most things, I can see that from WP:PRIMARY. And any interpretations can only be from secondary sources, I see that, so that would discount the final point (which was a stretch anyway I admit). However I don't see what is wrong with quoting only data from a primary source. For example Colleges of the University of Durham has a table listing the number of students in each college (along with other data), the source for this is the exact same one as above; the statistics department of the University. Is that not allowed? Where else can that data come from then? One of my points is that WP:OR is focused a huge amount on text sources; I can't see how what you are saying applies to just quoting some numbers. It's like saying you can't quote the Office for National Statistics value for the population of the United Kingdom because it is a primary source, where as infact that is exactly what the United Kingdom article does...--23230 ^talk 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have to tell me "Honestly", it makes me think you might have in mind a possibility that you might not be honest. Data from a primary source like this need verification by a secondary source. It seems you are burning to find ways of justifying entering your own research. Figures from a college are in some respects like figures from the Office for National Statistics, but not in all respects. It is open to question whether the Office for National Statistics, unverified by another source, is truly reliable. It is a government organization, and we all know that governments sometimes lie.Chjoaygame (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Main Reply

One issue that I only realised after posting that would have an effect on this discussion is related to the first two replies from User:Masem and User:Dmcq, specifically about why this information should be included if there are no sources that use it. Firstly I would say that there is no official table from the University that does this analysis unlike the examples for Oxford and Cambridge I mentioned, so if anyone wants to find this information they have to calculate it them selves. This is not ideal as anyone could make up a result so I think it is better that the information be included in the articles for that reason. The second and larger point on this is to note this is already used in some articles, read the intro of the Trevelyan College page "[Trevelyan College] currently heads the collegiate academic league with 87.2% of those who graduated in 2006 doing so with first or upper second class degrees and has topped the collegiate academic league tables for 6 of the past 7 years (as of 2010). So it needs updating; the point is that is already giving the exact same information I wanted to include but with no source to back it up. It is of my opinion that that is perfectly valid data to include in the college articles and it is the sort of information that would be expected to be included. Of course you get the problem where if a college is top they would say it should be included in the article where as if a college id bottom they would say it should be excluded. Overall I think the fairest thing is to mention notable results in the college article if they can be properly sourced but to include a full set of tables and graph in the Colleges of the University of Durham article. Any opinions would be welcomed.--23230 ^talk 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• That other similar places do something very similar in reliable sources that is good argument for obviousness, that requirement is there to stay on the right side of original research. If you can be sure you have all the data to do something very similar then that will probably pass as correct by any editors on the talk page I'd guess unless what those others do can be shown to be actually wrong in some way. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• That other similar Wikipedia articles have started this kind of original research race is evidence of how dangerous it would be to allow it. Two wrongs don't make a right. The right move here is to strike out the other entries which have gone astray, not to imitate their bad practice by entering into a race with them.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood, yes obviousness would have to be shown from good sources outside wikipedia. Editor on Wikipedia do all sorts of strange things they shouldn't. Dmcq (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A question regarding synthesis of reliable sources

If a reliable source says "Celebrity A gave birth to a baby on Thursday", and the source is dated to, say, March 3, and March 3 is a Saturday, is it synthesis to say that the birth occurred on March 1? Same thing with a death. If the source says "died Thursday", is it acceptable to say that the death occurred on the first? I am not referring to any specific article, just hypothesizing. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've encountered that problem rather often, particularly with obituaries in old newspapers. I think it is perfectly reasonable to calculate the date based on the calendar. That's not synthesis. --Orlady (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Which calendar? Before or after the change to the Gregorian calendar? A newspaper of what quality? From what year? Too hypothetical. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A modern newspaper. Say the New York Times or the Times, something of that quality. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems like reasonable inference, and, is an element of time marking expressed implicitly in the original. I would believe the reasonableness of the inference reduces as the quality of the newspaper declines or the number of different intervening press agencies increases. 129.94.78.92 (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable application of WP:CALC to me. Dmcq (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that it is a reasonable application of WP:CALC. It is hard to see such a calculation being disputed. As Dmcq says, it does not arrive at a new viewpoint not already directly (albeit imprecise) supported by the source. Useerup (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Order of Thelemic Knights

My name is Gerald del Campo. I am the CEO of The Order of Thelemic Knights, which apparently had a page on Wikipedia that was taken down in 2011. I have just become aware of this.

On the deletion page some one noted that our non-profit, tax-exempt organization is a "blatant hoax" as if the organization didn't exist. As the CEO of this organization, which works along side of The Red Cross and *many* other charities, I take exception to this (as would the IRS) as it doesn't appear as though the editors who reviewed the page took much care in researching it. Furthermore, there are articles on Wikipedia itself that reference pages written by our members on our website. We also do a fair bit of publishing, which can be verified with a quick search on Amazon.com - we are listed as a non-profit organization by the Oregon Secretary of State, where our headquarters resides. Quite frankly, I am disappointed that an organization that does the sort of work we do would be so easily blown off by your editors with so little research. The subject matter "Thelema" is subject to great political bias and manipulation by some Wikipedia editors who are members of a supposed competing organization. If you allow that sort of manipulation to continue, Wikipedia will no longer be a source of unbiased factual information.

I am asking you to reconsider reversing the decision to delete, and perhaps spend a little time understanding the sort of work that we have done, and continue to do for the greater good in the name of our chosen spiritual paradigm. Please forgive, I am not familiar with the mechanics of writing there, and I simply don't have the time to learn a new language. Standard HTML would have been very cool since most people already know that. :)

The Oregon Secretary of State URL. Simply go to http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.do_name_srch?p_name=ORDER%20OF%20THELEMIC%20KNIGHTS&p_regist_nbr=&p_srch=PHASE1&p_print=FALSE&p_entity_status=ACTINA

A copy of our trademark filing: http://it.zibb.com/trademark/order+of+thelemic+knights/29900971

Another: http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-76205557.html

Here is a link to a newspaper who mentions the work we did on behalf of a battered women's shelter. http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may122008/bradley-angle_5-12-08.php

You will see that we do in fact exist.

Here, we are mentioned for the work we do with battered women. http://altreligion.about.com/b/2011/01/03/how-important-is-a-prophet.htm

Our Church (The Thelemic Gnostic Church of Alexandria) is listed as a jurisdiction at the North American College of Gnostic Bishops. http://www.nacgb.org/member_jurisdictions.html

Guidestar.org http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/93-1275678/order-thelemic-knights.aspx

Charity Blossom http://www.charityblossom.org/nonprofit/order-of-thelemic-knights-portland-or-97280-gerald-del-campo-931275678/

Manta http://www.manta.com/c/mrytqrx/the-order-of-thelemic-knights

All over the place, articles written by our members serve as sources for other articles. Here's an example at New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fran%C3%A7ois_Rabelais

Thelema for Beginners web site: http://sites.google.com/site/thelemaforbeginners/home/12-thelemic-organizations

A podcast where I was interviewed about the Order of Thelemic Knights: http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/350343

We are also registered with GoodSearch.com. http://www.goodsearch.com/nonprofit/order-of-thelemic-knights.aspx

And we are listed as a Thelemic Organization on Wikipedia here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Thelema

Here we are at Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/185-2501330-7856453?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Order+of+Thelemic+Knights&x=0&y=0

This is archived permanently: http://hermetic.com/beastbay/984636406/

http://thelema.tribe.net/thread/f3109071-ef15-47a2-86a2-a2cfd59ca76c

http://egnu93.wordpress.com/bishops/united-states/tau-apollonius/

We are referenced on many books searchable at amazon.com

While it is the policy of the Red Cross NOT to post organizations they work with on their web site, we do have a pile of letters from organization thanking us for our assistance during emergencies like Hurricane Katrina, where we provided security services. Please contact me with any questions you might have. I could even arrange a phone call if you prefer.

Once again, thank you for your time and effort. If I have made any mistakes here, allow me to apologize in advance for them.

Sincerely, Gerald del Campo CEO Order of Thelemic Knights

From looking at the discussion relating to the deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Thelemic Knights), it appears that the article wasn't deleted as 'a hoax', but because there seemed not to be level the coverage in independent reliable sources that would establish notability to the standards we require. It is not enough to demonstrate that an organization exists - it has to be shown that it is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. I'd suggest you read the relevent material, and proceed from there. You should note however that we discourage individuals connected to an organization from editing Wikipedia articles on the subject - see our conflict of interest guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your direction. I appreciate it. I understand that I shouldn't be connected with the editing or creating of a page I am affiliated because that *would* constitute a conflict of interest. This is why I am so disappointed that the original page was deleted. I have no idea who might have made that page, and by the time I learned about it, it was gone.

In any case, thank you for you efforts. Could you clarify something up for me? Independent reliable sources of our work? Since the causes we work for do not (as a matter of policy) divulge other organizations they work with (as is the case with the Red Cross), how are we to proof of that work? Letters from the Red Cross?

I'd expect that for a charitable organization, the most useful sources would be mainstream media reports - i.e. newspapers etc reporting in detail on your organization's activities (the press report you provide mentions the Order in passing, but goes into no detail). Any significant material in academic sources would be good too. Sadly though, A quick check on Google News seems not to find anything at all, and Google Scholar likewise seems not to have anything relevant. What Google itself finds is your website, and what appear to be forums, blogs etc - not much use as sources, by Wikipedia standards. A letter from the Red Cross would be of no use, either, as we require published sources - and such a letter would be unlikely to demonstrate the notability of your organization. Sorry to be negative about this, but establishing 'notability' requires evidence that (at minimum) a subject for an article has been noticed - which is to say that it has been commented on as an organization by multiple third party sources. While I have no doubt that your organization does good work, this in itself is almost certainly insufficient to justify an article, by our standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Words With Friends

Hello,

On Talk:Words With Friends User:Backspace and I have been disputing whether the article should be amended to say that the rules are inherently unfair as they can allow one player to have an extra move on his opponent. The dispute is not the point of fact, the rules do result in this quirk - the dispute is whether this quirk can be analysed as such that player one has an unfair advantage. Backspace believes this is self-evident. I however disagree, and - as neither the rules nor any other cited soure explicitly state the game is unfair - believe coming to this conclusion in the article constitutes Original Research.

The difference between what User:Backspace and I would want for the article can be seen in this edit.

Our discussion has become pretty circular, so a third opinion on Talk:Words With Friends#First move advantage would be welcome.

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 07:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

While my original edit did claim unfairness, I have revised it to remove all claims of unfairness. In fact, the revision specifically states that no such claim is made. The only claim is to the unequal number of turns which may to allowed to the players under the current rules, a claim that is supported by direct reference to the rule book of the game. Backspace (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I do not understand why LukeSurl calls this occurrence a "quirk". Something that happens in half of all games is certainly more than a quirk, in my view. Backspace (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is just an editors ownoriginal research unless it has been noted in a reliable source. Dmcq (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

@Backspace: in order to add such an observation, you'll need to attribute it to a reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No such claim of unfairness remains in my most recent edit. They have all been taken out. In fact, whether the game is fair or unfair is specifically left up to the discretion of the reader, and no claim either way is made by this editor. The only specific claim, that of a possible unequal number of turns allowed to the players, is fully documented by direct reference to the rule book. Backspace (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the rulebook carefully and I saw no such statement. Dmcq (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Louis Leakey

Whilst I fully appreciate the ethos of Wikipedia regarding "OR" etc, I find myself in a quandary. Yet again I have heard the BBC refer to "Louis Leakey" as "Louey" in the French pronunciation. In the last couple of years of his life my wife and I knew him well. We frequently dined with him and went into Nairobi game park with him. After he had a stroke I used to carve the chicken or meat for him at dinner parties. He was adamant that his name should be pronounced "Lewis" as he was English not French. I have not seen this quoted in any other book on Leakey (and I have read several) but I am aware that if I contribute this "fact" to Wikipedia I am in danger of being shot down in flames. There are many other such "facts" that only exist in my memory or in my letters and diaries, as yet unpublished and unlikely to be so.

I would like some guidance on how this could be overcome in order to be able to shed a tiny bit more light on this amazing man and his work.

Rod Hine

Akili UK (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rod, in a nutshell, Wikipedia can only summarize what's been published in reliable sources. In this case, our hands are tied. Your best bet is to directly contact the sources (such as the BBC, etc.) that contradict your personal experiences and make your case to them. Perhaps a sympathetic reporter or editor would willing to vet your information and include it in some future story on Leakey. Also you might try approaching the Leakey Foundation. They might be able to help you, especially if your relationship to Leakey was significant. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC) (No relation to any French Louey's)

Thanks for this advice. My wife has already written to the BBC reporter concerned. We were both listening to the radio but in separate rooms, and I just knew what was on her mind when we swapped notes later. In 1971 Louis was trying to raise funds to send her to research the bonobo (pygmy chimps) but it fell through due to politics at Nairobi University and other complications. Were it not for that, Josie Taylor (now Josie Hine of course) might have been the last of Leakey's Angels instead of Toni Jackman. I'll follow up with the Morell book and see where that leads. BTW I liked your article on the 19 Set and other amateur radio topics. Akili UK (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dog and Canis lupus dingo

I am a mediator/clerk at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Editor Jobberone brought a dispute there in which editor Chrisrus wanted to add the following text to the Dog article:

The domestic dog (a union of Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo ) is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammilian order "Carnivora".

I subsequently noted that he had added a similar assertion to the Canis lupus dingo article, specifically:

"While current taxonomy lists it as "provisionally separate" from C. l. familiaris, the current taxonomy notes that it is legitimate to view the two as united into one subspecies, the "domestic dog", while admitting that this "stretches the subspecies concept.""

The DRN discussion is here. I expressed the opinion that the MSW sources were ambiguous and had to be interpreted and analyzed (in particular, the very analysis Chrisrus made in this edit) in violation of the NOR policy to be able to support the suggested text. Chrisrus has now challenged my opinion, saying that the source is not ambiguous. The opinions of other editors is needed. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The first reference you've provided is not under discussion; please strike it through before it confuses. Instead, provide the Canis lupus familiaris page, here, like Canis lupus dingo also stamped "domestic dog":

http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000752 (MSW3 listing of 'Canis lupus familiaris)

When MSW3 so stamped these taxa, they directed that the taxa be so filed: file specimens of both C.l.familiaris and C.l.dingo under the label "domestic dog". Please read and follow the discussion at the article dog. I explain in more detail there and could only repeat that here. Chrisrus (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how important you thought that first one to be so I left it in. I'm removing it. I also agree that the C.l.familiaris link is important and have modified it so that it shows up in your last post, immediately above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Great. If this is fully understood that it's a clear-cut matter with no WP:Sythesis in sight, shall we close this thread or is there something more to discuss? Chrisrus (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there's been no discussion and no understanding. I still think the three MSW3 sources are too ambiguous to support your preferred text. Let's see what other editors think. — TransporterMan (TALK) 03:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The topic of OR must not be interpreted in isolation of verifiability and neutral POV as they work in harmony with each other. His POV analyzes and interprets the references to advance a POV not attributable to them and which is not neutral. His POV is isolated from the scientific community and is not verifiable without the analysis he brings to the article. I can find no other reliable references to substantiate his claims and statements. If he could find other references which are not ambiguous that would be helpfulJobberone (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, the following quotation by Chrisus is not only unsubstantiated in the literature, it follows no known taxonomic rules. It is totally unscientific and makes no sense-

"When MSW3 so stamped these taxa, they directed that the taxa be so filed: file specimens of both C.l.familiaris and C.l.dingo under the label "domestic dog". Please read and follow the discussion at the article dog. I explain in more detail there and could only repeat that here. Chrisrus (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)"

MSW does not 'direct' anything in regards to taxonomic classifications. I have no idea what "file specimens of both..." means. While the decisions of what constitutes a genus, species or subspecies is subjective, the naming is not and follows strict rules. http://iczn.org/ Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo are currently valid biological taxonomic names for both subspecies of Canis lupus. "Domestic dog" is not a valid taxonomic name. In fact it has varied meanings depending on context.Jobberone (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The question here is whether I am guilty of undue WP:SYN when I support stating that MSW3 has identified both ‘’Canis lupus familiaris’’ and ‘’Canis lupus dingo’’ as “[domestic dog]” by placing those words in the comments section of each taxon, and then saying what they do in the comments section of the parent taxa.

When MSW3 put “domestic dog” on those two taxa, they meant that those taxa are both domestic dog.

When they explain on the parent taxon page that that the domestic dog is a subspecies of Canis lupus, they are referring to the two taxa they identified as “domestic dog” on the other two pages.

When they say that C.l.dingo is only provisionally separate, the proviso is that we understand about both belonging to domestic dog.

When they say they admit they know that this stretches the subspecies concept, it’s because you are right, it is weird to have a subspecies made of two subspecies, but that's their decision anyhow.

If it seems to you that this citation might be saying something else, I think they ball is in your court to explain what that might be.

If you can’t, I’d have to ask why, then, you say that it’s ambiguous.

If you don't or can't answer that question, but just insist we wait for someone else to do this for you, I’d like to ask for who, for how long, and why.

If there are any other questions, such as:

• what other citations say
• whether other citations are better
• whether this citation reprents current taxonomy or scientic consensus
• whether or how this citation should or should not be used in the article
• whether what this citation says is true or good or wrong or odd or insane
• what effect this if used would have on the article dog, other articles, system of articles, theoretically likely readers, dingo conservation efforts, or anything else
• whether we should use this citation just for the taxa, but ignore the comments
• whether the comments are confusing, strange, or beg questions that need answers before we can use them in the article
• how we feel about what the citations says
• any other matters

…then please feel free to bring them up in an appropriate forum elsewhere. You may be surprised my reaction. I just might agree. But not here.

Here we may only discuss whether there has been an WP:OR violation I my part or not. Chrisrus (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all the WP:OR page clearly states OR should not be interpreted in isolation from neutrality or verifiability. Neither can you interpret a source and come to your own conclusions without that source directly stating that interpretation of the data but OR and WP:SYN states you cannot combine source A and source B to infer that C is the conclusion. You may not advance a POV in isolation from the rest of the community without balancing it to remain neutral. Your statement violates all three of the basic tenants of Wikipedia.

You are inferring that MSW3 is the gold standard for all of humanity when it comes to naming taxa as well as defining what non-taxonomic terms are supposed to mean. That's a particular POV which is not balanced as there are many other databases which are highly thought of and none of them mention that domestic dog is a union of familiaris and dingo. Nor should they attempt to define something outside the purpose of a database for biological taxa. You're saying a biological taxa database which reports taxa and does not define them is defining what the domestic dog means even though they are not clearly saying what you are espousing. And you're doing this on not only the lead paragraph of the article for Canis lupus familiaris but the actual lead sentence. Not only is it not neutral and is OR, it is extremely misleading and not correct in the context you are using it.

If you wish to discuss just what the domestic dog really is then do it in the body of the article, another satellite article or develop one concentrating on this subject. There is much that can be said about what is a domestic dog including certain wild dogs, hybrids, captured pure wolves, yada. I'm not going to debate this further unless asked to and we'll see what other editors decide. Hopefully whatever decision they make will serve Wikipedia's best interests.Jobberone (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Any possibility we could get some resolution on this. It does appear someone has reverted it away from the above controversy but I'd still like some to comment. Thanks.Jobberone (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody????Jobberone (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Soviet occupations

A discussion started on the Soviet occupations talk page about the existence of this topic in scholarly literature. It has been argued that such sources exist [ http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_occupations&diff=481045360&oldid=481045136]. However, an analysis of the sources from those lists demonstrated that the only sources that discuss "Soviet occupations" as a specific topic (not just "occupation of some particular country by the USSR") are the Wikipedia mirrors, such as VDM Publishing House, Hephaestus Books, Books, LLC. Therefore, this article leads to amplification of original researches, which contradicts to our main goals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Serena Williams career statistics

I was directed here from this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Primary and secondary sourcing tennis draws
Within the project tennis we have a number of these articles, as found in this category: Category:Tennis career statistics. These articles and stats tables are based on data from the ATP and WTA tour websites, which is deemed a reliable source for factual data about tennis. The concern is that the results from tennis draws get synthesized into various tables, blended to make head-to-head records against other players and % of matches won is calculated. This may be OR, unless we can consider it exempt per WP:CALC. The calculations require getting the results from different head-to-head pages on ATP/WTA site, split them out per type of tournament, adding up and divide to find the % of matches won. As weeks go by and matches are played these tables need to be updated frequently, and I am not sure this is always done (leading to accuracy concerns as well). Your feedback is welcome, so we know whether to continue making such tables for tennis, or if perhaps certain changes are needed to not violate NOR policies. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Neologisms since 2004

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segal–Shale–Weil distribution for background.

The protologisms and neologisms are a bit of a walled garden. chirplet transform uses the protologism metaplectomorphism (AfD discussion), for example, even though as far as I can tell not even Steve Mann himself has used the word outwith Wikipedia. We've got at least one article that's explaining stuff using words that the author has just made up, which isn't exactly helpful to readers. Uncle G (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Argument from love, etc.

Help is needed in determining what is original research in the following articles:

• Argument from love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Argument from beauty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Argument from religious experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The problems are very similar. An editor recently nominated the first two for deletion, claiming the entire topic is original synthesis. The AFD concluded that these arguments do exist outside Wikipedia, but many "keep" voters agreed cleanup is needed. My understanding of SYNT seems to diverge from current practice, so it would be good if some NOR specialists could help sort things out. You can see from my edit here that I think almost all the material was original research. Maybe I'm being to harsh? Vesal (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Content disagreement on Flying Spaghetti Monster

Hi. I was servicing a SPER at Flying Spaghetti Monster and I've run into a disagreement with another editor over whether the text currently in the article is a neutral summation of the source or a biased bit of original research. In fairness, the other editor is not the original author of the content and is just trying to uphold the status quo in favor of content which seems neutral to him.
The current text reads:

It was modeled after a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who promised $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose.

and the request was to change the latter part to:

...anyone who can give any empirical evidence for evolution.

Three sources have been brought into the discussion: This source which was there when I serviced the SPER, this source which is a rant by some critic and this appendix which appears to be the original offer Hovind made. The latter two sources have some RS issues as well, but that's moot since they don't summarize the offer in that way. Hovind rambles a lot, but the part which seems the most meaninful is:

How to collect the $250,000: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.

The original editor evidently took "the observed phenomena" to mean a lot more than most people.

As far as I can tell, the current text is a conclusion the original editor reached about Hovind's offer. Please read the sources and see if you feel the content is OR or not. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Beyond the discussion at Talk:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Edit_request_on_14_March_2012, I'd like to mention here that the "rant by some critic" came from TalkOrigins Archive, which may be considered a reliable source in some cases. I believe that in this case it provides useful, notable criticism of Hovind's "challenge." Even if it were not considered reliable, Hovind's own wording of his offer is not that voluminous, nor difficult to parse. Creating a compact synopsis such as $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose is hardly original research.

To provide some context: Hovind's challenge is given passing mention in the FSM article. To summarize it as promising $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence for evolution is a ludicrously inaccurate characterization of the disingenuously unattainable goal of the challenge. Such mischaracterization obfuscates the motivation for the subsequent Boing Boing challenge, which is the actual topic of the surrounding paragraph. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre

This article has no reliable, third party, neutral citations that confirm a massacre occurred. I checked 7 references in the past 20 minutes and they were third party, but I found that none of them have any mention of massacre, or of any relation to the sentence referenced I raised the issue of those 7 references that were used incorrectly here. [56] Human Rights Watch a reliable source, says 8 people died during the seizure of these towns. No reliable, or verifiability sources mention this a massacre, but merely a village that was captured during a war, that had civilian deaths due to war. The only sources that mention a massacre are not third party, or reliable but point of view. I'm asking for an editor to please shed some light on this issue. As the policy states, "...such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" which is this article is based on original research unless it was moved to capture of.. or seizure of... please help improve this article with me. Nocturnal781 (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Gustave Whitehead

From the talk page of the article:

• ----------------------

None of the texts referred to does say that the text lacked a byline. To find out that the article was unsigned you need to study the photocopy yourself and notice that there is no signature under it, and that is original research. As wikipedia editors we are only allowed to quote or summarize what a source documents says, and there is no source which says that this article was unsigned. So we can not write that in the article. But we can note that many source documents talk about this article without naming the author and many source documents say that the author was (Richard) Dick Howell. That fact is the basis for both the sentence before this sentence and the formulation ""Widely attributed to Dick Howell". But "unsigned" "The article lacked a byline" have to be removed as those formulations cannot be found in any source documents, and we can not draw those conclusions from reading the content of many source documents, they are both the result of original research, and if wikipedia spreads these formulations wikipedia becomes a primary source for formulations which have never been written before, and that is not allowed. Wikipedia can not change the history, only describe it. Roger491127 (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC) ......

What source document did you find which says that this article lacks a byline? That's what the word verifiability means. If you write a statement you must make a reference to a source document which makes that statement. Roger491127 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC) See my answer immediately above. DonFB (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You have tried to use both the article in BH as it is copied on Nick Engler's site and the photocopy of the article as the source for the statements "unsigned article" and "The article lacked a byline". But nowhere in that article does the author write "this article is unsigned" or "this article lacks a byline". So you can not use that article as a source for these statements. Roger491127 (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You have written earlier on this talk page that you studied the photocopy of the article and noticed that it lacked a byline, after Carroll Gray pointed out this observation to you and suggested that it could be used to reduce the credibility of Whitehead's flight that morning, which the author of the article describes, but that is original research, and that is not allowed in wikipedia. Beside being original research it is a sneaky way of supporting one side in the controversy and undermine the other side, and such partial propaganda is not allowed in wikipedia either. Roger491127 (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Engler footnote is not used regarding the byline issue. The photocopy source (which you added to the article, very helpfully) is used. Editors are permitted to describe, neutrally in their own words, the content or appearance of a primary source. DonFB (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you can not make your own observations and describe them, especially not for partial propagandistic reasons. You can only quote or summarize the content of a source and refer that content to the source which said it. Verifiability means that the reader must be able to verify that the source document you refer to is saying what you have quoted or summarized. Do you want to take this issue to a notice board?Roger491127 (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free. DonFB (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• -------------------------

This issue has been discussed for a long time on this talk page, see earlier discussions. As no side in this controversy is willing to back off we need help from experts on original research to find an end to this controversy. Roger491127 (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Tom D. Crouch, senior curator of the National Air and Space Museum, discusses in his book, A Dream of Wings. He writes on page 123, "The by-line and other accouterments of a straight news story are also missing."

Crouch is paraphrased here in this newspaper article titled "Challenge to Wright brothers sputters: Experts doubt legitimacy of Whitehead story". The article reads, in part, "For one, Crouch noted, the story did not appear on the front page. It was not accompanied by photos and the reporter did not get a byline."

That settles it. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why haven't you presented this source document earlier? This discussion has been going on for two years. If DonFB had had access to this source he would not have had to do original research on the photocopy of the article. But, may I add, Tom D. Crouch is putting a lot of spin in these statements. Dick Howell never used the first page of Bridgeport Herald, he had his own page inside the newspaper, Bridgeport Herald could not reproduce photos, and no articles in Bridgeport Herald during this time were signed by an author. Roger491127 (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

But now, when Binksternet has given DonFB a source document he can use, there is no meaning in discussing this issue further, so I withdraw this request for help. Roger491127 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I withdrew too soon, DonFB wants to continue to use his source, the photocopy of Bridgeport Herald, 18 August 1901 as his source. Roger491127 (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from the talk page:

• -----------------------

Just a quick note to restate that Roger491127's allegation of OR is wrong and is based on his consistently faulty understanding of that policy. DonFB (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you have, not yet, added the above statement on the OR noticeboard. If you do the noticeboard has to investigate if you have done OR. Roger491127 (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Will you use Binksternet's source from now on, or will you continue to use the photocopy? If you use the photocopy I have to continue the request for help on that noticeboard. Please don't be stubborn, use Binksternet's source from now on, so we can put this issue behind us. I have no interest in wasting time on this, so I will leave the issue if you use Binksternet's source from now on.Roger491127 (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly comfortable with the current citation. If you want to add the Crouch reference, you're free to do so as an editor. I would not object to continuing the noticeboard discussion, so that a community decision can be reached for your benefit. Of course, the consensus in this Discussion is already quite clear, despite your protestations. DonFB (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• ---------------------

I see that nobody from outside the talk page of Gustave Whitehead has commented this discussion yet. So I want to clarify the situation. I started this notice board to find an end to a controversy which has been going on for two years. When Binksternet presented a source DonFB could use instead of what I am convinced is OR I thought we had found a solution to the controversy, because DonFB could easily use that source instead of the source which caused this controversy. But, to my surprise it didn't end there. Now DonFB wants to use this notice board to prove that he never did any OR. So, to force you, the experts on OR, to make a judgement, which he hopes will prove that he did no OR, he refuses to use Binksternets source as a reference for the formulations "The article lacked a byline" and "unsigned article" and continues to use his own investigation and observations in the photocopy of the article as the reference for these formulations. Roger491127 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ladies and gentlemen for joining this, our special little Theatre of the Absurd. For our entertainment and consideration, we have two reasons to say that a newspaper article carried no byline: it obviously was printed with no byline as proved by photocopies of it, and an expert observer has said so in his book. Nevertheless, we are still here arguing about it. Enjoy the show! Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, a confirmation that the assertion that an article has no byline based on examination of the article is not original research coming from somebody who is clearly not a member of a sinister worldwide conspiracy to deny Whitehead his "rightful place in history" would be helpful.TheLongTone (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have looked up the discussion between Carroll Gray and DonFB when the idea of mentioning of the missing byline was suggested to DonFB, and from that day DonFB took it upon himself to execute what Carroll F. Gray suggested. Note the dates in the quoted discussion below, that shows how long this controversy about OR has been going on:

• -----------------------

Why Howell Matters

To promote discussion, I'll explain my thinking on this matter of Richard Howell being the author of the 18 August 1901 Sunday Herald article. Since nothing has come to light indicating that Richard Howell ever claimed the article (or the drawing) as his own, it is an assumption. Randolph and O'Dwyer don't offer substantiation of their attributions. The reason this is important, I believe, is that Howell was a respected member of the press in Bridgeport, and had a responsible position as Editor. To assume that he wrote and illustrated the article lends credence to the article and drawing beyond what the article and drawing themselves inherently have. Assuming Howell was the source makes the article more believable, yet, was he the source ? So, to remain strictly neutral about the 18 August 1901 article, we should not spread that unfounded (as of now) assumption that he was. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This raises an interesting point I hadn't thought about before, namely: If Howell was as respected as some sources say he was, an article such as this could call into question his credibility and hurt his reputation. So that leaves room for people to speculate that he would not have written such a thing, or that if he did, he may have deliberately kept his name off the article (and drawing) to protect his reputation. As much as it's fun to talk about this stuff, we'll certainly never be able to make a determination, and all that matters in terms of this article is what the sources say....or don't say. It's our job, naturally, to present what the sources say/don't say as neutrally as possible. But, as editors, we're not going to decide the issue. DonFB (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, yes, that was what I had in mind. Had he written it and then shied away from ownership of it that would be very meaningful to know - but is probably unknowable at this late date, and, besides, not fit work for Wiki editors, in any event. If we appear to accept that Howell was the author and artist then we're, in effect, taking sides and supporting the pro-Whitehead position. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting formulation that would not have occurred to me. Until you pointed out the lack of byline and the Stella/O'Dwyer attribution to Howell, I never gave the authorship a 2nd thought. But neither did I think the article was leaning pro-Whitehead because the text credited Howell unquestioningly as the writer. He was just a name. So you seem to be saying that because he was, in fact, so reputable and credible, the simple fact of his authorship would weigh heavily in favor of Whitehead. DonFB (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, which is why it is so important, it seems to me, to consider precisely what the sources say - if we're to remain neutral. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC) end quote.

• ----------------------

Note that DonFB first tries to inform Carroll Gray that it would be against wikipedia rules to point out that the article lacked a byline, but later in the discussion he changes his mind and thinks it is a good idea.

Note also that the "giant of aviation history", Gibbs-Smith, is attacking Dick Howell's article in a completely different way, he says that the article reads like "juvenile fiction". So we see how people who want to discredit Whitehead's flight as described by Dick Howell have chosen different and conflicting ways to attack this article. Note also that the ret. US Airforce major William O'Dwyer read all articles Howell had published and studied the drawings he added to his articles, and found him to be a very serious and reliable author, and he was convinced that this article and the drawing of Whitehead's airplane in the air was made by Howell. Many other investigators have written that the article was written by Howell. So it is obvious that this idea, to question that this article and drawing originated from Howell is clearly a propagandistic effort to discredit Whitehead's flight 14 August 1901. And to do that DonFB had to do some OR, until Binksternet yesterday presented a legitimate source document which points out that the article lacked a byline, as all other articles in Bidgeport Herald during this time period. Roger491127 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record: I made no comment or suggestion that it would be "against wikipedia rules" to state that the newspaper article lacks a byline. I think Roger491127 is confused about my meaning when I wrote "But, as editors, we're not going to decide the issue." My intent in that statement was that Wikipedia editors cannot, by themselves, decide who wrote the unsigned newspaper article, not that we should refrain my stating it lacks a byline. One other note: I will identify comments that I post here on the Noticeboard. This is such a post. All others with my username are pasted here by Roger491127. DonFB (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read through many issues of Bridgeport Herald from 1901, and I found no article signed by an author. But I found an article in an issue from 1896 which had a byline saying DICK HOWELL, but it was not written with letters, it was more like a name-stamp. It was a rectangular area with frame lines and it was covered by criss-crossing diagonal lines, the name was in white, indicating that the name had been cut out in this rectangular frame so the name did not suck up any ink. I don't know why no articles were signed by normal letters in 1901 or why they no longer used the name stamps the type setters could insert below an article. Maybe some name-stamps had been damaged, or they screwed up the layout, but the name stamps were not replaced by a signature written in normal letters. Anyhow, Dick Howell had no need to sign his articles, because the drawings he inserted in his articles were so typical for Howell so all readers could easily see which articles he had written. Roger491127 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet another post from Roger that displays both his inabilty to grasp the point of an argument or the principles of debate, but also his habit of perpetrating talk page edits that make it difficult to follow who is saying whatTheLongTone (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fairly easy to see what is quotes from the talk page, because I always write a line or two before each quote and a line or two after the quote, before I end it with my signature, but now I have made it even easier by putting a bulleted line before and after each quote. I had to remove new section marks from a line which make this issue look like two issues on this notice board. It's the line with the words "Why Howell Matters". Roger491127 (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What a farce! Roger, you have been asked repeatedly to stop copying and pasting huge chunks of talk page text, but here you go again. Why did you not simply link back to the old talk page archive as you have been asked to do? <forehead palm smack> Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not "been asked repeatedly to stop copying and pasting huge chunks of talk page text" in this notice board, and I pasted only what I thought was necessary for readers of this notice board to understand the controversy I am presenting here.

I think I can condense the discussions above into a fairly simple question. Is a wikipedia editor allowed to make his own investigation and use the result of that investigation with the intent to discredit an aviation pioneer in an article about this aviation pioneer? To be more explicit, the journalist Dick Howell was old and experienced and had a very good reputation, and a few years after he published this article he became the chief editor of Bridgeport Herald. He described in an article published 18 August 1901 how he followed on bicycle after Gustave Whitehead who drove his airplane, which also worked as a car with the wings folded along its sides, to a starting place. Howell describes in the article how Whitehead folds out the wings and fasten them, and after some tests Whitehead flies a quarter of a mile in his motorized airplane and lands without any damages to the airplane or the pilot. If somebody wants to discredit Whitehead and say than none of his airplanes ever flew it becomes necessary to cut the link between the journalist Howell, who had such a solid reputation, and Whitehead's flight which is described in detail in this newspaper article. If a wikipedia editor can investigate a photocopy of the article and notice that the article was not signed by Howell he can write in the article about Whitehead "The article lacked a byline" and to reinforce it further write "in an unsigned article" to create an impression that this article was maybe not written by Howell, and the drawing of Whitehead's airplane in the air in the article is a forgery. The drawing looks very much like Dick Howells characteristic drawings, but maybe somebody copied Howell's style of drawing.

As long as no source exists which points out that the article lacked a byline the wikipedia editor has to carefully study the photocopy of the newspaper article and note that the article was not signed by Howell and publish that observation with the intent to discredit Whitehead. He can not reference this statement to any document which says that the article lacked a byline. He also has to ignore the fact that the drawing in the article was characteristic for Dick Howell or point out that the drawing was not signed either. He also has to ignore the fact that if somebody impersonated Dick Howell and published an article and a drawing made to look like one of Howell's drawings the real Dick Howell must have reacted to this forgery in a way which can be found in following issues of Bridgeport Herald. But nobody has ever found any signs of such a reaction.

Is such an action by a wikipedia editor original research? Roger491127 (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Other editors would probably be more willing to comment if you could sum up your arguement briefly and more coherentlyTheLongTone (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be good for the editors concerned (which does involve me as a contributor to the Gustave Whitehead article) to hold off from adding any more to the current discussion on this noticeboard until un-involved editors have expressed opinions etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree.TheLongTone (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism#Scriptural verses employed by nontrinitarians

This whole section is just a long list of biblical verses evidently added some time ago as part of an edit war with editors adding verses to prove their pov. There's a discussion on the talk page with some editors citing policy and guidelines for removal, others saying - well, that it should stay. It's pretty clearly OR (and there are other issues such as WP:UNDUE but that's not for this board. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the process here, but I second/certify Dougweller's stantement, as I am the editor who originally removed the massive section of proof-texts. (And qualifying "Well, it should stay" as, "Well, it should stay, because you are incredibly and persistently biased and you will ALWAYS be reverted, you can't delete just because something's not sourced", [Editor 1] and "Just because you Trinitarians killed all of the original orthodox nontrinitarians doesn't mean you can declare them non-Christian. Repent for your sins." [Editor 2: which is completely off-topic as well, as deleting the OR had nothing to do with anti-/pro- anything, let alone alleged genocide].) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 09:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I expect this'll be a non-issue. There seems sufficient consensus behind Doug's stance. JohnChrys you're right about the IP's stupid comment, but you are winding things up a tad in some of your own comments - and there are literally dozens of religion articles with WP:PSTS problems of this kind, not just Christianity either. They all need a thorough trawl/clean. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

When I read my comment to Hashem, I sort-of-kind-of realized that my attempt to be ultra-polite (as, since my first interaction with him three or four days ago at AfD, I seemed to have rubbed him the wrong way) could actually come across as patronizing, but I didn't want to refactor the comment lest I drew attention to it. I assume from your comment that it failed and did come across as patronizing.

Secondly, as pertains to religion articles, I've definitely seen it in technical Hinduism and Buddhism articles (some are truly atrocious: not to mention one of the top-importance Christianity articles capitalized every pronoun or antecedent even tangentially related to God: "He Who Burns with the Fire that Burns in the Heart of Believers, the Holy Spirit" type stuff), but, beyond undergrad comparative religion (read: none), I do not feel I have the ability to properly assess, let alone attempt to take it upon myself to write upon or improve the matter (as opposed to ending up with something incredibly biased or plainly incorrect, even if I use the minimal sources available to me: I'm a seminarian, so, naturally, I have access to excellent sources for just about everything related to Christianity), so I just mark them up with templates when I see them. I'm going through the "top importance" Christianity and Theology articles at the moment. (I tried to go through the same for philosophy, but philosophy's coverage is horrible here - maybe due to direct competition from the more-authoritative Stanford Encyclopedia, as nothing else on Wikipedia is competed with so directly or effectively: Britannica was a joke compared to Wiki, looking like an encyclopedic dictionary instead of an encyclopedia.)

And, thirdly, about the consensus, I'm new enough to the actual "social" and "dispute" parts of Wikipedia - for years, I edited, and then refactored edits as they were deleted to attempt to reach a solution, never even realizing there was a "talk" page - that I have a tendency to see much of consensus as a vote instead of a debate (reinforced by my watching of RfAs and RfCs both), and see "Four yea, three nay. No consensus. Reverted to stable version and protected page." St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 11:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed for next step to take at Salsa music

In IP editor has been edit warring to remove maintenance tags and change a direct quote at the salsa article, but more importantly, the editor is shooting from the hip with regard to article content and infobox facts. The editor has been arguing with me about how the sources are all wrong, putting down author Sue Steward here and author Ed Morales here. The IP is not inserting better sources but instead using his own ideas, and also this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD8IvXmyXRI&feature=fvsr. (Let me save you the lost minutes of your time and say that the the video is not all that helpful. Only the last two minutes are the interview.) In the video, percussionist Bobby Sanabria answers a question briefly, saying that "salsa music" is a commercial term used by Fania Records to help them sell Latin music. (Nobody doubts this.) The percussionist's throwaway comment is employed by the IP editor to classify all of salsa music as a commercial term, even though scholars such as professor Frances R. Aparicio have said, "To sort salsa music as either 'commercial' or 'sociopolitical' is, again, another reifying practice that takes into account only the moment of initial production or the isolated text and that fails to consider listening practices and the larger sociopolitical context within which a musical performance is embedded." Salsa music never was merely a commercial term; it immediately took on the nature of what people expected it to be. It was a vibrant music of the streets. Prof. Aparicio also says that before salsa music was named, it was simply Latin popular music as performed in New York, a kind of Latin "soul" music.

The problem here is that the IP editor does not have the competency to cite scholarly or even popular book sources, nor does he have the desire to accept the article as a neutral summary of mainstream thought. The only thing he has is his own experience. He wishes the article to showcase the early Cuban origins of salsa music to the detriment of its just-as-early Puerto Rican roots and its eventual birth in New York as a type of music.

I could use a little help at the article from people who are more diplomatic than I am, or going the other direction, people who are stronger in their arguments. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to politics and religion, perhaps polite company should not discuss salsa.  :) This is a very charged subject. I've been aware of the chaotic nature of this WP article for awhile. At some some point, I intend to see if I can improve it. I can't really take it on at this time though.

Salsa music is basically Cuban popular music from outside of Cuba. Even salsa with say, Puerto Rican rhythms, or other non-Cuban elements, have grafted those elements onto what is essentially a Cuban scaffolding. That said, I don't think that the Salsa article should be an article about the original Cuban genres. Son, son montuno, ect. each have their own articles. The coining of the term salsa was initially motivated by politics and economics, but that's not the end of the story. It developed into a powerful form of cultural expression in NYC, PR, Columbia, Venezuela, etc. I have a video series where informants from each of those locals claim their people "created salsa." These conflicting opinions ought to be presented in as neutral a fashion as possible. One helpful approach might be to juxtapose opposed opinions, like Author A states: ". . ." However, author B disagrees, stating: " . . . " I don't see how the story of salsa music can be told without addressing the age old arguments which have plagued the topic from the beginning.

Considering the problems with this article, personal ideas or experiences should be removed, with strict adherence to the referencing of information. If the information cannot be backed up by published sources, that ought to be legitimate reason to delete it.Dr clave (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear friend Binksternet

Salsa was not a rhythm in its own right, was a name given in the 1970s to all Cuban music that's true. Interview to Bobby Sanabria first part: [57]. Interview to Bobby Sanabria second part:[58]. Here he explains the salsa was created in Cuba and Afro-Cuban jazz by Mario Bauza also Tito Puente, Many Oquendo,Bobby Valentin, Machito, Johhnny Pacheco, Ruben Blades, have videos that are on youtube explaining the same things. Salsa is not part of New York culture they adapted that's different, and with great respect to the great musicians of New York, which are those that have said the salsa was created in Cuba the discography do not lie,the Cuban born Jose Curbelo Sun sun babae 1952, lalala 1954 Roberto faz pintate los labios Maria 1957 that's salsa in the 50's and its the same salsa you hear today.174.98.138.223 (talk)

Yes, there is no salsa rhythm per sé. Salsa refers to Cuban-based music made outside of Cuba, and its accompanying cultural milieu. Obviously Cuban music was created in Cuba, but it's misleading to say "salsa was created in Cuba." Salsa was created in New York. Sure, it's essentially Cuban music, but they don't call it salsa in Cuba, they use the original and more accurate names: son montuno, guaracha, etc. There is lots of documentation on this, and it's simply general knowledge. Now if you say something like—"salsa is basically son montuno, guaracha, etc., which was created in Cuba," well that is correct. However, once that important point is made, there is no need to belabor it. The story of Cuban music is told in other WP articles. The story of salsa is not the story of Cuban music; it is the story of transplanted pre-Revolution Cuban music in NYC, then—PR, Venezuela, etc. The fact that the United States and Cuba have not had diplomatic relations since the 1960s has contributed greatly to the separate evolution between the two branches of the music—Cuban and non-Cuban.

There was no salsa in the 1950s because the term for the genre wasn't coined yet. You have to be very careful with the terminology.Dr clave (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Currently, the lead of the article [59] describes an inclusion criteria which is both complex, and entirely the product of original research and synthesis on the behalf of wikipedia editors.

current text of lead
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Lead copied from this version) 97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming. Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring. This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream scientific understanding of global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. Establishing the mainstream scientific assessment, climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming were as follows: The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations. Listing criteria: In contrast, the notable scientists listed in this article have made statements since the publication of the Third Assessment Report which disagree with one or more of these 3 main conclusions. Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. To be included on this list it is not enough to be for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement. As of February 2012 less than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations.

There is some very sloppy language here. The article title indicates that this is a list of "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment", whereas the inclusion criterion describes "scientists who disagree with one of three selected conclusions of the third IPCC report". Additionally, those criteria appear to consist extensively of unsourced synthesis:

Of note:

• using the IPCC Third Assessment Report as a basis for inclusion with no sourcing, as opposed to the most recent IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. (Or the second, or the first.)
• an unsourced list of three main conclusion. TheIPCC_Third_Assessment_Report#Conclusions_of_the_TAR wiki article lists six, the report summary [60] itself lists eight, pp 2-17).
• an unsourced qualification that any/only scientists with a peer-reviewed publication can be included in the list
• an unsourced qualification that any/only natural scientists can be considered
• inclusion of a specific scientist based only on "making a statement" without regard to secondary sourcing to determine WP:WEIGHT.
• the included image is synthesis, and falsely represents scientific assessment as some sort of majoritarian/democratic/parlimentary process.

These complex and subjective inclusion criteria derived from editor synthesis goes directly against policy and guideline.

Policy issue: WP:LISTN says "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are lists which establish notability of the broad topic in the form of petitions and signing statements. See for example, Oregon Petition Leipzig Declaration, and the Heidelberg Appeal. However, none of these lists use anything resembling the convoluted and artificial inclusion criteria in the current lead. After extensive research on further sourcing, none could be found which use an inclusion criteria at all resembling what is in the article.

Guideline issue: WP:LSC says "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, ...), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." This is not what has been done here. In contrast to searching for reliable sources which present some basis for an inclusion criteria, the current criteria is a mess of original research.

It may come as no surprise that talk page discussion of the issue has generally been unproductive, with entrenched editors refusing to even acknowledge the problem.

Please advise, aprock (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/FAQ

(2011-12-07) Revised 2012-03-11 as shown below. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Q1: Does this article violate the prohibition against Original Research (OR)?

A1: It has been a frequent charge that this article — as distinct from particular material within it — violates the prohibition against Original Research (OR). (Examples: archives 11 (AQA), 13 (Merger proposal), 14 (Dyson?), 15 (Non scientists), 15 (Lindzen), 16 (Not Synthesis), 16 (list definition), 16 (Debunking), 17 (Inclusion criteria), 20 (Categories), 23 (OR and quotefarm), 23 (Inclusion criteria), 23 (Lead), 24 (OR tag), and 25 (OR??). This issue has also been raised in an Afd and repeatedly at the NOR/Noticeboard (also [61], [62], and [63]).

RDBrown (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me just check I'm understanding this right. We have a list article entitled: "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming". However, if a notable scientist went on prime-time TV, pulled down her trousers and shouted "I oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", then all the the other scientists in the world co-signed a letter in the London Times the next day saying "Dear London Times: She does you know. Yours etc", then a biography of her came out with the title "The story of the scientist who opposes the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", then she died and the words "Here lies a scientist who opposed the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" were inscribed on her gravestone, none of that would in itself be enough to qualify her for the list?

Maybe the article should be moved to List of people meeting a specific and arbitrary set of criteria? --FormerIP (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

@RDBrown. Thanks for the copy paste. It confirms that there is in fact a broad based concern about original research in the article. aprock (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What I see is that there have been complaints but they have not been upheld and the last one was in November. I guess that is far enough away for yet another complaint to be raised but what exactly is different about this one from the rest and what exactly do you hope bringing the matter to this noticeboard will accomplish? Dmcq (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never understood this list. All the other articles in Category:Lists of scientists just contain alphabetized names (with footnoted citations where required) and nothing more. This one, for some reason, includes text of detailed global warming opposition arguments attributed to each listee. It should either be redirected to Global warming controversy or renamed something else appropriate, e.g. "Arguments against...." etc. . A list, it ain't. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right about that. The diagrams should go. Most of the lead should go. The notes should be made into footnotes. I believe you've got that lead there because you've got this Fringe project here that insist on plastering the correct science everywhere even though it is obvious an article is about fringe scientists. An the justifications on each scientist are because of people like the OP here disputing the inclusion of scientists even when it is as obvious as a punch in the eye that they are clearly correctly in the list. Basically a lot of public aggro politics and money makes it controversial rather than any of the facts. As to the reason the list is there i the first place, that's because such a list is notable - organisations like the Heartland Institute claim to have produce lists of such scientist and newspapers and books have commentated (not that all the ones listed in the Heartland Institute's list actually are so aligned!). Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen previous "quotefarm" versions of this article that read like an elaborate polemic against the mainstream view, so I imagine the addition of the mainstream view in the lead was probably a reaction to that. I certainly think you could do without the WP:FRINGE counterweight stuff in the lead if the article were just a list of footnoted names. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

@Dmcq, I have no clue what you're referring to here with respect to the OP. I've only taken issue with the gross monstrosity that is the inclusion criteria. Of course, based on that criteria most of the scientists don't belong on the list. It's a clear case of a cluster of opposing POV pushers creating a "compromise" which make absolutely no sense. aprock (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe you were the OP. It makes sense to others. That is part of what WP:CONSENSUS and AfD debates are about. People don't always come to the same conclusions. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am. However, I'm not disputing the inclusion of scientists. That this is a battle ground where people are in heated dispute is not in question at all. You might do well to read the original post instead of tilting at windmills. aprock (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The list criteria are the result of synthesis, plain and simple. The talk page discussions have largely been concerned about what form this synthesis should take. The list is a violation of policy, and should be deleted. (Though I'm almost tempted to suggest we merge it with another list with questionable inclusion criteria, and create a List of Jewish Nobel laureates opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ;-) ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Aprock's statement about the FAQ (which he recently gutted, apparently because it did not conform to his personal view), that it "confirms that there is in fact a broad based concern about original research in the article", is quite twisted around. Yes, the complaint has been raised repeatedly, but only by a small group of editors, and never has it received broad support. In the most recent discussion the dissenting editors were challenged to provide specific examples of OR; none were provided. All we have seen is assertions that there is OR/SYNTH, but no specific examples. Aprock's complaint here is just another attempt to get traction for a view that has not passed muster on the Talk page, nor in various AfDs, nor in multiple attempts here. (And also at Jimbo's talk page; time to document that, too.) The complaint has gotten tedious; it no longer merits serious consideration. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep it's just silly. The criteria are pretty straightforward and obvious, the complaints are about the tightening up to be careful. This sort of stuff could be done to any list, was Euclid a mathematician? I don't believe he got a degree in a university. Was Galen a doctor? Is Turkey in Europe? Is a tomato a vegetable? You get the criteria embroidered a bit for anything. Dmcq (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If that article is not original research, then there is no original research in Wikipedia. It is also a major violation of WP:BLP since inclusion of scientists in this list may be harmful to their careers. A large number of the scientists listed are there because some Wikipedia editor judged that they should be included on the basis of something they wrote, which is an obvious violation of WP:V which says that a reliable source making that judgement is required. Contrary to what is said, it is not at all obvious in many cases that someone belongs; rather, it betrays ignorance about the way scientists like to argue over every little detail. Finally, it is a stupid list because some of the scientists listed have no qualifications in the science of climate. Who cares what an astrophysicist or geographer say about the climate, they don't know more about it than I do (and I'm a scientist too). Zero^talk 00:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is my impression that none of the people included would in any way want to deny their inclusion in that list. You say it is not obvious in many cases if someone should be there, please give at least one single example of such a person. When the Heartland Institute made up its bogus list loads of scientists objected, I would have thought at least one person would object here if what you said was true. Dmcq (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I can only think that any [[List of scientists who <have expressed a certain opinion>]] would be rather unacceptable. E.g. I don't see any List of scientists who don't believe in god. The entire lede of that article already suggests that it is written from a certain political agenda, and just being used to tell us how much the temperatures have risen and how 97% of scientists believe that it is human caused. Scientists who have questioned that theory are then nailed on the cross, in what is supposed to be the list. It is in the nature of science to keep questioning any theory or hypothesis, even when 99% believe it to be true. We should not make lists of scientists who question any theory that is almost universally accepted. It is their job to do that. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This being "nailed on the cross" (of a definitely fringe theory) is a bit of rhetoric which I believe has been used to argue why we don't see more "skeptics": not because there only a few, but because they don't want to be "nailed". Well, if that was the case it would be a BLP issue, but that is not the topic here. This thread was opened with a complaint about "an inclusion criteria which is both complex, and entirely the product of original research and synthesis" (emphasis added), not the professional consequences of being contrarian. If anyone wants to raise a BLP issue please do it in the proper venue. This venue is about complaints of original research. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's a notability argument rather than original research. Notability has been established fairly well I believe. I don't know if there are secondary sources talking about and making lists of scientists who don't or do believe in God but that would be a different topic. Dmcq (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As a scientist I'd rather not be put on a list like this. It is essentially the same as putting someone on a prolife or prochoice list. Unless you have very concrete evidence such as multiple direct quotes in context then you are likely to be mind reading. I see no non-agenda driven reason to even have such a list. If you want someone's statements on record then write an article and in a neutral way add their quotes. This list is irresponsible, violates ethics and is potentially harmful and libelous.Jobberone (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The criteria are really pretty stringent, the extra stringency for the reasons you say is what led to there being a concern about OR here. The reason for the list is because such lists are notable by being made up by organisations and discussed in newspapers. Why do you think that people who oppose the consensus in the IPCC report would want to deny doing that or even not be proud of doing that? Dmcq (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mention criteria which has been discussed. It is self evident. My point is neither I or anyone else likely knows who belongs on what list except as outlined above. Contact them and ask them then ask them if they want to be on a very controversial list even if they/we get the sides right.

The subject of global warming is very controversial and complicated. Take me as an example. I certainly know CO2 levels are rising and there is a high probability temps will go up as a trend on that basis. I also believe we should be approaching or in a downturn (over the short long term) in temps as it relates to the present overall ice age. So it would depend on exactly what I'm asked and a very long detailed explanation by me to explain my current position. Which is I have no idea what will actually happen but I'm certainly concerned. In the short term (few hundred years) there could be some great consequences but also some long term (more hundreds to 1000s of years) overall benefit to man. We just don't know and we have little idea of our problem solving abilities or technologies over that period of time. There has been enough negativity about that list that should tip the scales in favor of avoiding it. It should not take a 51% majority only enough dissension.Jobberone (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The criteria and whether they or their application have problems with WP:OR is what this noticeboard could really look at, what you are talking about sounds much more like a WP:BLPN consideration. The IPCC is mainly concerned as far as I can see with the next 200 years and the scenarios they produce are up to 2100, that's 88 years away not thousands of years in the future and in that time period the forecasting is not of the we just don't know variety and the consequences of our actions is imminent for children already born. The Heartland Institute and their ilk is not my first choice as a role model so I do have some negative feelings about having a list modelled after them even if very much cleaned up and with stringent checks. As to contacting the people, no. The only major reason for contacting a person is over copyright problems. Primary research is not the business of Wikipedia, if they are not notable for this or they shouldn't be in and if they are very notable for it they should whatever their feelings. You though have said in effect you support the conclusions of the IPCC so I guess you are projecting your feelings that it would be silly to deny those conclusions onto these people. They do not agree with the conclusions. Does it not strike you as strange that none of them have actually complained about the list here when so many people complained about the list the Heartland Institute made up?, it isn't as though the Heartland Institute is better known than Wikipedia. However if you want to pursue your concerns as I said BLPN sounds a better fit for them to me. Dmcq (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion to contact them was to make a point not to actually do so. As to those on the list not complaining, that is irrelevant. There are too many scribes here. Wikipedia exists to serve man. You chose to do the right thing then you apply legalistic means.

There is enough objection to warrant making the right decision if you must use a democratic method. I'm appealing to everyone's good sense.

As far as the science, it is clearly beyond us at present. We need to work on models for prediction but at present we are in our infancy and still reacting to observations for the most part. We're still lucky to predict tomorrow's weather.

I'm not interested in which database you are using for justification. It is irrelevant as well.

Don't mistake the inability to predict the future with the inability to read the signs of the times though. But again that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.Jobberone (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If a doctor tells a patient they have a tumour and should have an operation, and 19 out of twenty of the next physicians agreed with that diagnosis, you'd go with the one and not do anything? Anyway this isn't the pace for that, global warming controversy is the appropriate article. I still think BLPN is the appropriate place if you are going on about ethics, that has nothing to do with original research. Dmcq (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree – the preceding comments have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It looks like the discussion here is going to be as unproductive as prior discussions of this issue on the Talk page, and largely for the same reason: exhaustion of patience. Even if the statement of the complaint were accepted as valid, the tendency of the discussion to fly off on tangents, and the persistence of certain editors to keep raising issues until they get a result they like, rather discourages any serious consideration. Even if the complaint had some validity, the unlikliness of any productive result, let alone any consensus that the article/list is fatally flawed, suggests this discussion is best closed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

After taking another look, I think the problem with this article is not so much a problem of OR. For starters it should be renamed to List of scientists questioning the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, as that sounds more neutral already. The lede should be rewritten completely as this is not the place to explain the why or how of global warming, a simple wikilink to the relevant articles will do. In its current form the article basically reads like: this is the accepted science about global warming, and here is the list of idiots who do not agree with it. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying I think, but it is rather meaningless. It would include every scientist interested in the area who was worth their salt. That sort of gets to the heart of the difference between science and daily life or religion or politics. Dmcq (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That opposing the mainstream consensus of global warming amounts to a kind of idiocy is a statement I would not dispute, the consensus for global warming being so unequivocal. But I don't believe that is what the article says.

Questioning (as a form of skepticism) is, as has been pointed out here repeatedly, an element of science, so, to some extent all climate scientists question climate science. But that is not what this article (list) is about. It is about those who are cited as evidence of a scientific alternative to the mainstream consensus, those who are alleged to oppose or deny the consensus (which is quite a different thing) even after reasonable questions have been reasonably resolved. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I misapprehended which page I was on. The correct response for this discussion would be: yes, agree that "the problem with this article is not so much a problem of OR", but discussion of renaming the article is off-topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said five days ago: it does not look like this discussion is going to be productive. (I note that none of the comments since then have touched on any issue of original research.) Therefore I propose this discussion be closed as "unresolved", for lack of discussion. Which is largely due to exhaustion of interest in a complaint most of us are tired of seeing. This complaint is stale, and if it is to have any chance of a hearing it needs to have a long cooling-off period – I suggest a moratorium of at least a year – and then be presented with a fresh perspective and specific details, instead of the usual mere hand-waving. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotations

Is the selection of quotations (besides a likely violation of Undue weight) also an example of Original research? They're selected by the compilers of the list, and used to classify the scientists, but there's no reason for them other than that someone thought it sounded anti-global warming. There's a facetious argument that they're needed for "verification purposes", but I think we can discount that, since they're in the main body of the article, and excessively long. 86.** IP (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As said above I would support both removing most of the lead and moving those quotes into footnotes. Why exactly are you so keen on fighting this list? you seem to use any policy or guideline you can think up but your grounds here are rather weak, the people are known for this as their biographies on Wikipedia show. Another AfD will move it up from number 13 to number 8 in the deletion wars list in WP:Lamest edit wars. The quote farm is there practically as a response to all the attacks on its existence. Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you have that completely backwards: The quote farm is a primary reason why it's widely considered a WP:COATRACK that should be deleted; the Afds talk about it constantly as one of the primary reasons to delete. If it's in response to AfDs, it's the most counterproductive one ever. The article only survived the last AfD as no consensus by making vague claims the quotes would be eliminated. 86.** IP (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about summarizing notable stuff in reliable sources. Lists are about getting a bit of navigation in Wikipedia. There were no requests that I can see to make that into a standard list before that first AfD nor can I see any RfCs about that since then. All I see is a war over the existence of the list. After a recent 'olive branch' from you there was consensus for moving the quotes down to notes. So why are you back here with yet more arguments which if I expressed my feelings about I guess you'd complain to ANI? Shouldn't you be trying to implement that or get an RfC to make it absolutely clear if there is still opposition? Dmcq (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So, you're saying there is consensus to move the quotations to the notes, but this hasn't happened? How convenient. You get to say the article's fine, while not fixing it. 86.** IP (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. But if you just want to complain instead that's up to you. No skin off my teeth if you wish to waste your life that way, I don't watch that list or do anything with it. Dmcq (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an opinion piece. There is no reason to have a list at all. If you believe a scientist has a substantiated opinion one way or another then put their referenced remarks etc in the article about that person/scientist if you must. If you have to create an article about that person. There is absolutely no legitimate need to create a list about who someone thinks has a certain viewpoint esp over a controversial topic that is in its infancy scientifically. Would you create a list of people who are prochoice or prolife?

People are hiding behind the legal aspects of this topic when the actual topic is 'is this list a good idea to have in Wikipedia'. Again there are too many scribes on Wikipedia who get stuck in the nuances and legalities/case law/yada and miss the big picture. The arguments about it being OR or whatever other legal argument are a distraction to the real problem.

In science when there is no clear cut answers about a topic then there is often contentious debate and much confusion with many theories yada. When there is not enough knowledge about a disease then there is often several names for what eventually becomes the accepted name when we finally understand it well enough. Then most of the treatments are rejected or refined to address the true nature of the problem. When the evidence finally points to an obvious conclusion almost everyone agrees and the subject is no longer controversial.

The fact there is this much divided opinion over even the existence of the list should alert the fair minded. The inability to reach a consensus only confirms the idea that perhaps it's not the best time to have such an article.Jobberone (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Such a list is notable as such lists have been made by organisations and discussed in reliable sources. There have been a few qualifications added to avoid BLP problems where other sources have included people but editors here are pretty certain they do not fall into that category. There's divided opinion over the whole climate change business in the public mind however if you want to base what's said about science on popular opinion rather than on reliable sources then you're talking about something other than an encyclopaedia. Are you actually saying there is significant controversy amongst scientists about climate change? Dmcq (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course there is. The real questions aren't whether temps are currently rising if you're stuck on facts. It's what does it mean. But you're missing my entire point. Read my posts again if you want to know what I said. I've said all I want to say.Jobberone (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If people think that a rise in temperatures is a really good idea when they've evaluated the probable consequences then that's a political decision, not a scientific one. The scientists in the science capacity are just gathering the evidence and modelling the likely future and it is up to the general public to make their minds up given the evidence. That list is about scientists opposing the scientific consensus, see Scientific opinion on climate change for the near total unanimity on that.. Dmcq (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • I've tried to stay away from the issue of climate change and possible outcomes and asked people to look at the bigger picture of not just OR but whether or not the list belongs on Wikipedia at all. But either you can't understand what I'm saying, you refuse to, or you're so stuck in one mindset you don't want to. I don't think you've heard a thing I've said. BTW, I don't disagree that temps are rising for the time being. I've tried to tell you we don't actually know what's going to happen. You seem to think your opinion of one outcome is not only inevitable but the entire scientific and worldwide community thinks the same way you do in a unanimous way. People understand temps are rising and the correlation with CO2 levels. And they understand a significant swing in either direction will have significant consequences for many. And please don't direct me to Wikipedia for sources. I can read what's the literature directly.

• • • As far as the rest of the community goes, I find it frustrating that people can't or won't look outside the legalities of the system. I'm not advocating doing away with it at all. It is necessary. But the servant serves the master. Good luck with the moratorium and solving the issue all.Jobberone (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)