Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 19

Dark Ages
Can someone explain: "Although religious scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they cannot quantify the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making great advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed anything significant to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E.[ref name="History of Science"]"History of Science"[/ref] And it took the translation of Arabic texts in mathematics, science, and astronomy to start Europe back into logical thinking."

The comment made on the talk page, which was then erased and I had to go through history to find it was:

Your reference doesn't actually contain the claim you made in the article, and it reads more as an opinion piece than as encyclopedic content. See the policy against original research or synthesis

We are allowed to add things aren't we? If you review the history you only find 5 Latin Europeans that made significant (other than rewriting others works) contributions, while there were multiple original discoveries/advancements in science and engineering by others during this period. That is neither Original research or synthesis, any more than saying there are 5 red apples in a multitude of red and yellow apples and oranges. The statement of a simple truth is not research or synthesis, if it was then Wikipedia could be nothing other than a collection of quotes from people who have been published!

As far as the translation of the Arabic texts, this is common knowledge for anyone who has ever dealt with the sciences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 April 20


 * "The statement of a simple truth is not research or synthesis, if it was then Wikipedia could be nothing other than a collection of quotes from people who have been published!" - Wikipedia is meant to be a summary of "quotes from people who have been published" (see WP:NOR, WP:V etc.). The assertion in question is not really supported by the source given (it says nothing about the period as such), thus it is original research - and, may I add, bad original research (how would one even count "people [...] that contributed anything significant to science"?). I'd say the text should be deleted and forgotten. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is original research. We shouldn't be writing things that people haven't written about. If you can provide citation saying something like that then yes it sounds like it might be worthwhile including but not otherwise. Personally I feel the statement worrying as a proper source would quantify what they meant by 'significant' for instance rather than going by gut feel. Dmcq (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A minor remark: the talk page (Talk:Dark Ages) was never cleared - I just moved the comment to the bottom of the page, where it belongs, and added my response to it. Others also commented on the addition. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "to be a summary of" -
 * Summary #1 "Although religious scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark,"
 * Summary #2 "they cannot quantify the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making great advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed anything significant to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E."


 * What is wrong with these two summaries, or why are they not summaries? Am I not just reducing what has been quoted and summarized by the other parts of the article?
 * Such as, if I go to the discussion about electrons, is it not proper to state - "Scientists have not yet been able to quantify the size of electrons except that they are smaller than the classical electron radius"?


 * Changing significant to original would make it a better statement and as such I will change significant to original.


 * Lets look at an entry in the article for comparison:
 * "He spent much of his time travelling through Europe rediscovering and republishing classic Latin and Greek texts." - No source, but accepted


 * "He wanted to restore the classical Latin language to its former purity." - No source and purely speculative as to his intentions.


 * "Humanists saw the preceding 900-year period as a time of stagnation."- No source and I would challenge anyone to say they can actually tell us what the world view of all the Humanists were at that point in time. An extremely speculative statement, and yet accepted.


 * "They saw history unfolding, not along the religious outline of Saint Augustine's Six Ages of the World, but in cultural (or secular) terms through the progressive developments of classical ideals, literature, and art." - No source and I would challenge anyone to say they can actually tell us what the world view of all the Humanists were at that point in time. An extremely speculative statement, and yet accepted.


 * "However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[8][9]" and Quoting 2 (two) scholars in history is not MANY scholars of history - it is actually a very minor number. And yet this blatantly obvious misdirection is accepted.


 * "bad original research (how would one even count "people [...] that contributed anything significant to science"?)" - Ad hominid wording?


 * "how would one even count "people [...] that contributed anything significant to science"?" - Look at the list of known scientific accomplishments and then count.


 * "We shouldn't be writing things that people haven't written about." - I didn't, I simply summarized and counted, kind of like the other millions of entries in Wikipedia.


 * I could understand how this would be original research if I had taken entries from various authors, did statistical analysis, and showed that there was a relationship between the number of original contributions and the spread of a religion to different regions. I did not do that.  I simply brought forward the fact that there were few original contributions from Latin Europe during this period by adding them up, and noting that the cited authors had not quantified that.  No original research, just a summery of what the article had already stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 10 April 2011


 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument for increasing the amount of crap. I will not waste my time looking at your list of possible other problems but look at the one that has been brought here explicitly and people have explicitly complained about. Counting things you found with your criteria is original research, if it is interesting enough to include somebody else would have written something similar and you could cite it. As it is there are lot of ways to view what happened during the Dark Ages in Europe, it could also be seen as a spread of knowledge around Europe, the Golden Age in Ireland for instance was right in the middle of it and they sent missionaries around Europe to set up schools some of which later became important universities. Would I be entitled to say it was a flowering of knowledge throughout Europe, no not without some citations saying so. Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with what had been said above - apparently, you looked at a particular list of people who contributed to the development of science (with no clear criteria for inclusion), found out that it only listed five Europeans during the period of 250 CE - 1200 CE, and added it as a statement of fact to the article. I am afraid this is a textbook example of original synthesis, which is outside of scope of Wikipedia. Some other material already in the article may not be properly referenced, either, but that isn't really relevant on whether or not your section is appropriate for inclusion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And I now better understand what is going on. You will prevent any idea you do not like to nit-picked to death, and yet those false ideas you agree with are perfectly acceptable. And I know this because you have not removed or annotated any of the items I have listed, just used the old excuse, well other people did it but I'm not going to say anything because deep down in my heart I believe them to be right.

Lets look at the quote - "However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[8][9]" You have let this be part of the article for quite some time now, and I can analyze it this way:


 * This is not a good argument for increasing the amount of crap. I will not waste my time researching all the authors who may or may not have said they are avoiding the term. Counting things (and to say many you must count) you found with your criteria is original research, if it is interesting enough to include somebody else would have written something similar and you could cite it, but you cited nobody so nobody must have said it before. As it is there are lot of ways to view what happened during the Dark Ages in Europe, it could also be seen as a spread of knowledge around Europe, the Golden Age in Ireland for instance was right in the middle of it and they sent missionaries around Europe to set up schools some of which later became important universities. Would I be entitled to say it was a flowering of knowledge throughout Europe, no not without some citations saying so, and the original research you left about how "many" modern scholars tend to avoid the term.

This same analysis can can be applied to statement after statement in Wikipedia. As a matter of fact youre analysis can be applied to any non directly quoted statement anywhere in Wikipedia. My statement of facts meets the same criteria as other statements made, and as such should be accepted if Wikipedia is an even handed organization. The rules must be followed, but they must be applied equally to all.

And my source is as reliable and probably less biased one way or the other than many of the sources quoted in this article. Their criteria may be, since they are basically Latin European, slightly biased in favor of Latin Europeans. I thought one of the criteria for Wikipedia was not "Truth" but rather accuracy in who said/did what?

After reading my original statement over again, I think I would change it to read: Although religious scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they have not quantified the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making original advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed original works to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E. And it took the translation of Arabic texts in mathematics, science, and astronomy to start Europe back into logical thinking.

To make it more of statement of the facts. I changed "they can not", implying that I know what they can do, to "they have not" a statement of fact. And, I realize it is impossible to sight all possible works to prove a negative, but the negative is still valid. Then anyone who knows of them quantifying this can site a source as a counter argument.

Interesting quote right below this entry space; "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.18.232 (talk • contribs)


 * Look, everyone else who has weighed in finds your edit to be inappropriate, and have explained why. There's really nothing more to say.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Then look at things like: "Baronius's "dark age" seems to have struck historians as something they could use, for it was in the 17th century that the terms "dark age" and "dark ages" started to proliferate in the various European languages, with his original Latin term, "saeculum obscurum", being reserved for the period he had applied it to. But while some historians, following Baronius's lead, used "dark age" neutrally to refer to a dearth of written records, others, in the manner of the early humanists and Protestants (and later the Enlightenment writers and their successors right up to the present day) used it pejoratively, lapsing into that lack of neutrality and objectivity that has quite spoilt the term for many modern historians."

Really - who says "for it was in the 17th century that the terms "dark age" and "dark ages" started to proliferate in the various European languages" - No source. And - "being reserved for the period he had applied it to" - Who reserved this? The author of this article? And - "But while some historians" - Again, how would I verify this? And - "following Baronius's lead, used "dark age" neutrally to refer to a dearth of written records" - Who said this is so, there are no sources. Is this also original research? And - "others, in the manner of the early humanists and Protestants (and later the Enlightenment writers and their successors right up to the present day) used it pejoratively, lapsing into that lack of neutrality and objectivity that has quite spoilt the term for many modern historians." this statement is so full of original research and down right falsehoods it is laughable.

This is only from one paragraph in the article, imagine what can be done if the entire article is analyzed. How can anyone with any sense of fairness say that what I have put forth is not acceptable when that same person has accepted this. Fair application of the rules is not being used here, but rather a hidden agenda.

And just because you (Cuchullain) say quit or you will not be liked by "everybody" else is an answer? Who ever thinks that getting closer to the truth is best handled by the FEELINGS of the majority is either not aware of reality or not mature enough to understand that one cannot allow blatant half truths to be left standing.

Mr Mike Rosoft: Your statement - "apparently, you looked at a particular list of people who contributed to the development of science (with no clear criteria for inclusion), found out that it only listed five Europeans during the period of 250 CE - 1200 CE, and added it as a statement of fact to the article. I am afraid this is a textbook example of original synthesis, which is outside of scope of Wikipedia" The wording from Wikipedia on this manner is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". I have not reached or implied any conclusions. I have simply stated a set of facts. Those facts are; and they are not in any way a conclusion on my part: 1. Only about 5 Latin Europeans provided original research during this 1000yr period - Not my research, just a fact that is published. 2. None of the cited authors that I could find said anything about this dearth of advancement in the Latin European region during the Dark ages. I did not make any conclusions as to what caused this dearth of advancement as in Wiki's example: "   A simple example of original synthesis:

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.


 * Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace.
 * If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the
 * same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world."

You will notice that in the first example, an analysis of their performance is implied by the use of the word but to IMPLY that they were not doing their job, and in the second example they use the word only to imply that they had done a good job. A true none synthesized statement would be: The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

My statement makes no such analysis. I do not say anything about the dark ages themselves, only that the authors of today have not quantified the dearth of contributions. I drew no conclusions what so ever, and I did not imply any conclusions either!

And anyone who follows the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure with any fairness would just point out what they think any analysis in my statment was. Just stating - ITS ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND NOT ALLOWED is not following Wiki's procedures and is not in any sense part of dispute resolution, so I am assuming that the ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals of the opposing arguments are just that - wastes of time and energy. If anyone has valid arguments about possible synthesis I would be more than happy to read and consider them. Otherwise I think we should stick to Wiki's general rules - offer proof of your arguments and avoid the personal and emotional attacks.


 * Interminable rants like this will win you no friends. It is barely possible to decipher what you are saying. If you want to argue a point be concise. You will just put off editors with long rambling pronouncements to which they cannot respond usefully. Paul B (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"If you want to argue a point be concise" - Please inform the editors who have responded with the ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals of this. Without multiple illogical responses I could be concise, with a lot fewer words.

Concise point #1 - Several editors attack using ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals - I do not respond. Editor says - No more discussion everyone agrees and you have not said otherwise. Like I'm going to let that happen!


 * As far as I can see your edit was derived from a book of scientific innovators. You then attempted to link this to the concept of the "dark ages". Well, was that connection made in the book? I get the impression it was not. In any case, the term "dark ages" has never referred specifically to science. One might say that if there had been artistic or scholarly achievements of other kinds it would not have been called dark. It's also not clear what you are trying to say. You appear to be criticising scholars who have said that the "dark ages" were not so dark after all. You imply that the evidence about science demonstrates they are wrong. But why? Do they say there were great scientific inovations? Not as far as I can see. And why do you characterise these scholars as "religious"? Paul B (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Point #2 - No - It was not mentioned in ANY book - that is my point! Nobody has quantified that. Point #3 - What words imply that I think they (the authors) are wrong? [I see this as a truly possible synthesis problem.] Point #4 - Some authors were - Dwyer, John C., Church history: twenty centuries of Catholic Christianity, (1998);Syed Ziaur Rahman, Were the “Dark Ages” Really Dark?, Grey Matter (The Co-curricular Journal of Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College), Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 2003;Daileader, Philip (2001). The High Middle Ages. The Teaching Company. ISBN 1-56585-827-1. "Catholics living during the Protestant Reformation were not going to take this assault lying down. They, too, turned to the study of the Middle Ages, going back to prove that, far from being a period of religious corruption, the Middle Ages were superior to the era of the Protestant Reformation, because the Middle Ages were free of the religious schisms and religious wars that were plaguing the 16th and 17th centuries."; etc. In addition there are enough religious references in the article to choke the proverbial horse. The article itself seems to imply it was all Religions fault some how and someone is trying to apologize for it.


 * point 2 - then it's OR, if it is not a point made in "any book"! point 3: The expression "they cannot quantify the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian... etc" seems to be a criticism of the scholars who "cannot quantify", but admitedly your English is rather to confusing to know exactly what you are trying to say. Also comparing western Europe with the rest of the entire world is almost intevitably going to mean that more will come out of the latter than the former. That tells us nothing about whether or not the term "dark ages" is useful. point 3. The sources you cit are not "religious". The point about Catholics is that Catholics were reacting to the equation of scientific innovation with the Protestant reformation, a point often argued by Protestant writers. But the modern historians quoted are not "religious", so again it is not at all clear what you are trying to engage with. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Point #2 - OR is drawing a conclusion based on 2 different sources. I did not draw any conclusions. To quote Wiki's own requirements - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion". What conclusion have I reached? None. I have simply stated that no authors have quantified that. A statement of fact, not a conclusion. Point #3 - You missed my revision. I changed "they cannot quantify" to "they have not". Point #4 - Because I am not willing to spend my time to quote everything about these authors, I will remove the religious from the statement and make it. Although scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they have not quantified the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making original advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed original works to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E. And it took the translation of Arabic texts in mathematics, science, and astronomy to start Europe back into logical thinking. Beyond this, this point has nothing to do with synthases and as such I will no longer discuss it.

On a personal note Mr. Paul Barlow - the statement "but admitedly your English is rather to confusing to know exactly what you are trying to say." is just an antagonizing ad hominem attack which may well indicate you are running out of logical arguments against my statement. That is often, but not always, the route these things take when one side is loosing.


 * Why not include this reference - admitedly it is only about mathematicians. It took me less time to find that to read through all the discussion about OR. Martinvl (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent source. Will use it and then when this finished, add the science part.


 * So your preferred version is "Although scholars of today, such as those mentioned above, may not see what happened during the dark ages as dark, they have not quantified the fact that there were a large multitude of Indian, Chinese, and Muslim's making original advances in the sciences and engineering while there were only about 5 people in Latin Europe that contributed original works to science in the period from 250C.E. to 1200C.E." This is still ungrammatical and barely intelligible. The phrase "they have not quantified the fact" makes no clear sense, but is apparently an implied criticism of these "scholars". I think you mean to say that they haven't taken it into account. Also, there shouldn't be an apostrophe in "Muslims". Since none of the scholars quoted in the article say anything about scientific advances, this is irrelevant. It is clearly WP:SYN as it is expressly intended to counter the views of scholars by using a questionable piece of information from a source that does not even address the topic. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and abortion
Please intervene to settle an overlong unresolved discussion about the legitimacy, in Christianity and abortion, of using A Companion to Bioethics by Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer in support of the statement that early Christians "believed, as the Greeks did, in delayed ensoulment, or that a fetus does not have a soul until quickening, and therefore early abortion was not murder".

The source states: "Following Aristotle, various thinkers—including Thomas Aquinas—thought that only the abortion of an animated fetus constituted homicide. ... By and large, this view remained dominant until 1869". A defender of using this source has stated that it "says the view was held from Aristotle through 1869, which more than encompasses the period we're talking about. Why would we assume early Christians were exempted if the source doesn't say so?" and "to assume that their (the early Christians') view was different, in the absence of a source that says so, contravenes WP:V." The opposite view has been expressed thus: "(The source) does not state that the dominant view was shared by that minority who were Christians. It's their view, not the dominant one, that's in question. ... To assume that their view was the same, in the absence of a source that 'directly and explicitly' (WP:OR), 'clearly and directly' (WP:V) says so, contravenes WP:OR."

Discussion of the question is found in the last third of Talk:Christianity and abortion, starting at 21:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC). Esoglou (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed and balanced description of the disagreement (though I would add the sentence contained in your ellipsis, "Animation was presumed to occur at forty days for male fetuses, and ninety days for female fetuses," for the benefit of users less familiar with the discussion). I also liked my comment about Texas though. :) ("If we had a source that said 'Texas was an independent nation from 1836 to 1846,' we wouldn't ask for a source that said it was an independent nation in 1840.") Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not see the source as evidence about Early Christians, nor do I see a useful analogy with the independence of Texas. A nation is or isn't independent. The range 1836-1846 nececitates 1840, so the source inevitably asserts that it was independent in 1840. The quoted source about abortion says, "Following Aristotle, various thinkers—including Thomas Aquinas—thought that only the abortion of an animated fetus constituted homicide. ... By and large, this view remained dominant until 1869." So "various thinkers" believed something, implying that others disagreed. The existence of a "dominant" view also implies the existence of a minority view. If the source said "all commentators believed X until 1869...", then one would have a case for including "early Christians", but I see none here. Obviously Aquinas was a Christian, but not an "early Christian". Of course it's equally true that "to assume that their (the early Christians') view was different, in the absence of a source that says so, contravenes WP:V." We can't assume that their view was different, but neither can we assume that their view was the same. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thomas Aquinas was probably the most influential theologian of his day... and if he followed Aristotle's thinking on this, it is likely that the majority of Christians did as well (especially those who came after Aquinas and were influenced by him). While there is a possibility that a few Christians held opposing views (Splitters!), we would need sources that talk about them to explicitly say so. Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Aquinas is later than the period in question. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed "his day" was about a thousand years later! He was certainly no early Christian.  The disputed source says nothing whatever of the attitude of early Christians, neither that they adopted the majority view nor that they rejected it.  But the source is nevertheless cited to support a claim that they held the majority view.  Esoglou (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Spartacus: Blood and Sand
On the possible use of original research in the article. Been open for two weeks but only two users have participated. Need more participation in order that a consensus become clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

White Latin American
Could someone weigh in on the discussion at Talk:White_Latin_American regarding the image gallery here and the WP:EGRS policy. None of the people in the image gallery are sourced as self-identifying as "White Latin Americans" so the inclusion is basically OR.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 2011
There's a dispute at Talk:Canadian federal election, 2011 over a section of the article "Contentious Ridings", listing in table form the constituencies that meet one of three criteria (e.g. slim margin of victory in the previous election) thought to make the district a swing riding. The source given in the current version of the article is "Data adapted from Elections Canada Official results". There have been edits deleting this section which were promptly reverted:. I'm not asking for enforcement; rather, I'm posting here in hopes that users experienced with the NOR policy can make useful suggestions to preserve this section of the article. —Mathew5000 (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Solved (hopefully) see talk page of article --Obsolete.fax (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Patria
The article on the Patria case reads like original research. One section for instance, "European Union Art. 346 and Arms Trade", not only provides hypotheses for corruption allegations, but also decides for the reader how likely each hypothesis is. The Background section reads like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic article. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Kawi family
This template suggests there is such a thing as a "Kawi family" of scripts. I do not know of any publication that mentions this concept. Without reliable source, this is OR. 08:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Peak oil
Are the last two paragraphs in Peak_oil original research? 206.188.60.1 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mila Jovovich anti-communist?
Her speech at Gorbachov's birthday celebration imply that her family was represed by the communistic regime in SSSR and that is why they left in 1979. Therefore I think there is no doubt that she does not support but oppose communismBHillbillies (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is pure speculation - any feelings she has toward the SSSR regime of her youth may not be the same as any feelings that she has towards say: the government of China today and you can't make broad assumptions like that. Without a transcript to check what she actually said; I would have to say that to claim that because she spoke about repression by the SSSR government makes her anti that SSSR government is also original research. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's also being discussed on the article's talk page which is, as far as I feel, a more appropriate place for this. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Content Dispute
There is currently a content dispute at the Irreligion article regarding the removal of referenced information from the article. A discussion has been started in this section of the talk page. Any comments there would be appreciated. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Objectivist Party
I've been debating with another editor at Talk:Objectivist Party about material pulled from a primary source that pre-dates the party's existence. Decades ago, Ayn Rand made comments in a Q&A session to the effect that she did not want a political party to be created based on her ideas. Fast forward to 2008, and a small political party was founded claiming to be based on her ideas. My take is that referencing Rand's earlier comment from primary sources is original research, because there is no source that connects those comments to the specific subject of the article, which formed long after her death. The other editor doesn't see a problem. Given the low traffic of the article, there is a lack of other input, so feedback from outside editors would be appreciated. --RL0919 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see the problem as well. I think you're correct that having the assertions bound in a single statement is a violation of synth, and the use of a primary source is to be avoided in this case. If no 2ndary sources can be found that support the notion that Rand was opposed to formation of political groups based on her view of things, probably best to avoid it altogether as a interesting fact that is not significant enough for inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is clearly synthesis. TFD (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ott and sustainability images
is used a reference to support the "Nested sustainability" diagram on a number of articles, none of which seem sourced to that reference or relevant to the article.
 * Ott, K. (2003). "The Case for Strong Sustainability." In: Ott, K. & P. Thapa (eds.) (2003).Greifswald’s Environmental Ethics. Greifswald: Steinbecker Verlag Ulrich Rose. ISBN 3931483320. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16.

Specifics:
 * Green economy, Environmental economics, Ecological economics
 * Three circles enclosed within one another showing how both economy and society are subsets of our planetary ecological system. This view is useful for correcting the misconception, sometimes drawn from the previous "three pillars" diagram that portions of social and economic systems can exist independently from the environment.
 * Sustainability, Sustainable development
 * A representation of the relationship between the three pillars of sustainability suggesting that both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits. (but with another reference, in Sustainability, which I have not personally verified.)

None of these texts are supported by the reference, and the relationship of the diagram to the article is also not supported. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

USANA - noting a sources COI. Is this SYNTH?
In the article on USANA there is a quote from a Forbes article from a consultant in nutritional research, Anthony Almada, claiming that USANA's business model (ie MLM) means they do not do research on the efficacy of their products, ie an essentially derogatory assessment of the companies products. It's been discovered that in addition to his consulting firm Almada is also cofounder and CEO of at least three other nutritional products company, Genr8, Fein Innovation, and Fierce Foods, Inc, ie competitors to USANA. At least one of these, GenR8 was active at the time of his quote. Forbes did not mention this potential COI. Would it violate WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to include the additional info on Almada in the article? Say simply adding "and cofounder and CEO of several nutritional products companies" or similar to his brief bio. It could be construed as combining material from multiple sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (ie that the "expert" is an industry competitor and this should be considered when assessing his opinion). Thoughts?--Insider201283 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not include the extensive discussion we've been having on this issue? Is there some reason why you want people to be unaware of the relevant facts that have already been presented. Very shady. This is a red herring friend. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You said that "It's been discovered..." that he is a CEO of other companies and that these companies are competitors to USANA. (1) Let's be forthright shall we? It wasn't simply "discovered"; you brought forth the information in an ongoing attempt to discredit a clearly WP:RS source. (2) There is no evidence that he had a COI in Aug 2007 (when the Forbes article was written) or even that these companies (two of which you have already admitted may not have predated the Forbes article) are necessarily direct competitors to USANA. These are all your allegations; it's not fair to state them as though they are accepted facts. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? (1) I linked to the page, which inherently includes talk. I assume people are smart enough to read the talk, but yes I could/should have linked direct to the talk area, my apologies. (2) The Genr8 page linked to says they were formed in 2007, same year as the article (3) all of the companies are nutritional products companies, ie competitors (4) I did not "bring forth the information in an ongoing attempt to discredit". Someone else raised the issue, I followed through and researched to see if it was true. The guy owns and runs several nutritional companies, that's RS/V-sourced fact, not "allegation". Whether WP guidelines allow that to be included is another question. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Yes, you should have linked to the Talk page and you should have mentioned the lengthy discussion already taking place there. Other editors wouldn't have known that there is an ongoing discussion abut this issue unless you were to mention it. (2) It seems to me that you are grasping at straws because, for whatever reason, you do not like the fact that this expert source in question stated a negative opinion of USANA's products. (3) You haven't demonstrated that the source had a COI ever, let alone at the time the article was written, or even that the source's connections with the companies in question represent a competing interest. (4) You've candidly admitted that you don't know the dates at which he worked for two of the companies in question, and yet you are still throwing that spaghetti at the wall. (5) And yes, in fact it was you that brought forth the allegation regarding two of these companies that you say represent a COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (1)Hands up people who patrol NOR/Noticeboard and don't know about talk pages? (2) I don't like the fact that some editors seem determined to excise as much positive information about a company as possible, and include as much criticism as possible. I also don't like the fact Forbes was not diligent and cited someone with an apparent COI (3/4) He owned and ran a nutritional company the same year as cited in Forbes, and did the same with two additional companies within a short time, if not before. Both are demonstrated through the links provided. (5) I obviously should have provided the link to talk, since you need to read it. The issues was raised by PRJtrue, whom you replied to and then taken up by Jean314. I was the fourth person in to the conversation, not the initiator. Now let's wait and get some other opinions. I've better things to do with my time than respond to your repeated false assertions. --Insider201283 (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "He owned and ran a nutritional company the same year as cited in Forbes". That's not evidence that he worked for the company in question at the time the Forbe's article was written (Aug 2007); so far you have presented no such evidence, despite the fact that I have already called attention to this error of omission on your part.
 * "and did the same with two additional companies within a short time, if not before". More unwarranted speculation. You've presented no evidence whatsoever that Alamda was involved with these other companies at the time the Forbe's article was writtten.
 * "I also don't like the fact Forbes was not diligent and cited someone with an apparent COI". You state soemthing as fact that is not factual. It is your (so far) baseless assertion that a COI existed and that Forbe's made an error in failing to recognize this COI that you say exists. Forbe's credited Almada's affiliation at the time as "president and chief scientist of Imaginutrition, a consulting firm for the nutritional supplement industry". They mention nothing about Genr8.
 * "I was the fourth person in to the conversation, not the initiator". You in fact were the first to issue the charge about Almada's involvement with 2 other companies as representing a COI, and you haven't stopped mentioning it since, even though you've presented no evidence that Almada was involved with these companies when the Forbe's article was written.
 * "some editors seem determined to excise as much positive information about a company as possible, and include as much criticism as possible". A baseless charge and completely irrlevant to this inquiry. You've already made an allegation about imbalance in the article but so far the only thing you've done to address it is to try to have an expert opinion on the products disqualified or denigrated on the basis of this COI red herring.
 * "I've better things to do with my time than respond to your repeated false assertions". I haven't made any false assertions, so how could you possibly respond to them. I agree that to try to do so would be a waste of your time; much like this red herring crusade is a waste of everyone else's. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

your rants here are off-topic for this question I've asked on this board, which is posing a relatively simple question. Take it to talk on the article please. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Weeping Angels
Can I drag some eyes over to Talk:Weeping Angels to comment in an RfC regarding some especially dull edit-war? Please centralise all dialogue there. Ta. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► without portfolio ─╢ 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Entropy_(arrow_of_time)
This article is full of unsubstantiated, uncited, unverifiable claims. It is full of weasel words, and what appears to be independent research. The offending section is the subheading Cosmology. Miloserdia (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics is probably the place to go if you think a fix is needed and nothing seems to be happening after sticking tags or a banner on the section. If just removing the stuff is okay I'd wait a little longe after sticking in the tags. This noticeboard is more for disputes than fixing content and I can't see any dispute there. Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Dmcq, but look up, at "What this noticeboard is for"--there's no requirement that there be a dispute. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you just wanted advice on dealing with it. So what is it you wanted to happen? Dmcq (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethereal being
An article filled to the brim, nay, overflowing with original research and synthesis. I made some of the easy edits--tags, rm of all-too obvious synthesis and OR, trimmed the images a bit, marked some incomprehensible grammar. This strikes me as the pet project of one editor who is responsible for all of its content, and reminds me of articles like Tahash. It has the usual traits of such labors of love: torturous grammar and verbosity, abundant use of images, etc--but more to the point, heavy reliance on primary sources and even explicitly stating that acts of synthesis and comparison (i.e., original research) are taking place. Note my edit summaries for edits where I removed or marked some egregious examples. If any of you feel an invisible spirit moving you toward improving the encyclopedia, here's just the project for you. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories
Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories could use a few experienced editors to patrol it for OR and SYNTH violations. Cheers! Location (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh they're quick these conspiracy theorists! Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

George Hotz
I've been pretty bold in editing this. There's been a lot of attention drawn to this individual. Out of sensationalism and other factors, it has turned into a very large convoluted idea or theory of the truth. It would appear that there's very little verifiable information. I've requested citations on what needs to be removed, but if anyone would like to contribute to clarifying it so that it is factual and according to WP:BIO, it would be appreciated. Mnemnoch (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, BIO Mnemnoch (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Amway
There's a bit of an edit war going on over what I see as a clear case of OR, but at least one other current editor does not and keeps deleting the tag. A bit of history in that I added the tag originally back in 2009 and it was discussed in talk but got nowhere, I eventually left that section, which needs a lot of work, and later the article (and WP) for a year or so. I started editing again recently. Today another editor removed the tag so it showed up in my watch list. I checked the article, the problem was still there except worse - the only source used for the claim, a primary source website, was now non-existent. That means of course that now it can't even be investigated by new eyes to see if it is OR or not. To top it off, the claims are about living people, so WP:BLP applies however they're not particularly controversial, they are however in my opinion being used to push a particular POV. So, that's the background, here's the specifics - -

''Multiple high-ranking Amway leaders such as Richard DeVos and Dexter Yager are also owners and members of the board of Gospel Films, a producer of movies and books geared towards conservative Christians as well as co-owner (along with Salem Communications) of Gospel Communications. ''

The source is a now defunct organisations website. The original "OR" problem I raised is that the source didn't even mention the topic of the article, Amway. To make the statement someone had to first connect to Amway Richard DeVos (not hard, he's co-founder and mentioned in the article) and Dexter Yager (not mentioned at all in the article other than this statement) and then research those people to find this information about them and independently connect it to Amway. To me that's clearly original research, even if factual. The next problem is the apparent POV reasoning behind why it was added - to create some POV particular image of Amway. In reality it's a far more complex picture. The founders are well known conservative christians, as are some of the top leaders in the US, but the majority of Amway's revenue and sales force are in countries like China, Indonesia, and India, where christians Amway reps are in a very small minority. There are literally thousands of "top ranking" Amway reps and Amway executives. It's simply silly to go around researching each ones affiliations outside of Amway and reporting them in the article so a clear idea of "overall" culture might somehow be obtained. So, in short we have some unsourced trivial OR being used to push a POV. I didn't think it should be in the article 2 years ago, and now that the source is gone I definitely think it should be removed. Comments appreciated. --Icerat (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, here are the specifics. What you just did is a form of inappropriate notification known as "campaigning" (i.e. "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner"). From what I can see on the talk page, you verified the text in question back in 2009 when you first raised your concerns. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, this source identifies DeVos as chariman of the organization and it mentions Amway, and there are likely others. The association is clear; the source clearly mentions all three of the key issues together DeVos, Amway and, DeVos serving as chariman of Gospel Communications. I can't imagine why you would be so intent on whitewashing this at any cost. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This source also confirms DeVos as the chariman of Gospel Films. and this one shows Gospel Films as a co-defendent in a lawsuit against Amway, DeVos, and Yager (is that what you were trying to cover up perhaps?) Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (1)it's not whitewashing it's trying to get read of crud that barely has relevance to the article. (2)The first link is Doug DeVos, not Rich DeVos. Which just goes to show, you need to do better OR (3)The second link is indeed Rich DeVos, but still OR. Go put it in the article on Rich DeVos, which clearly needs work. (4) I wasn't even aware of the connection, but clearly again that is both OR and SYNTH. Again, Yager isn't even mentioned in the Amway article (which isn't to mean he shouldn't be, I have in my collection of sources info on him related to Amway and intend to add it when I get back to this article in a serious manner). Seriously though, do you believe we should be listing all of the various corporate and organizational affiliations of every Amway executive and "leader" in to this article? --Icerat (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So was I hallucinating then when I read this in City Paper from Philaldephia (an RS):


 * "...'Rich Devos, one of the founders of Amway, is the chairman of Gospel Films, a company which produces Christian films"


 * or the following quote on page 2 of this book How to Be Like Rich Devos: Succeeding with Integrity in Business and Life By Pat Williams:


 * "It turned out that Rich DeVos was chairman of the board of Gospel Films"


 * The connection is also mentioned in the books Merchant's of Deception (p 165):


 * "He also worked closely in Michigan with Rich DeVos, who happened to be Chairman of the Board of Gospel Films."


 * You clearly are not even trying to find references that might counter your OR argument, even though they obviously exist. You are also now pushing a new angle about relevance, rather than OR, but the relevance too is obvious. And edit warring is not the way to prove your point. You're now at the threshold of violating 3RR over this campaign of yours over a dead link to a source (the GCI website) which you had already confirmed back in 2009. You are entitled to discuss the issue, but you have no justification for continuing to slap up an OR tag on the entire section or deleting the content. This is disruptive editing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the multiple sources, I think we can say that the statement is definitely not OR. The relevance issue is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly. And here's yet another source (Scoop News):


 * "DeVos is also a major supporter of a right-wing, Christian non-profit entity called Gospel Communications International, which has annual revenues of $6.7 million. Its Board of Directors reads like a Who’s Who of Amway kingpins, with DeVos as Chairman and his son, Doug DeVos, as Vice-Chairman. Out of 15 Directors, 10 are from Amway." Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations RIR! You did what you should have done in the first place and tried to find some actual references instead of edit-warring over a tag. The problem is (and you neglected to mention any of this above) is that the sources you provide are (1) hearsay (ie a quote attributed to a distributor) (2) the forward to a book, not the book itself (3) a self published PDF and (4) an article clearly marked "opinion" - all of which makes me suggest you reread WP:RS as none of them would qualify as a solid RS, especially not for BLP purposes. Furthermore none of them yet support the Yager/Gospel reference which you still apparently insist on including. (Mind you, that CityPaper article is a useful source, haven't seen that one before, added to my list). In any case I'm willing to accept the forward to the book "How to Be Like Rich DeVos" as a source for the DeVos<->Gospel connection. That still leaves us the issue of whether it's worthwhile putting in at all (in my view it should be in the DeVos article, not here) and if you believe it should be, you still haven't answered my question regarding whether this issue should be researched for all several thousand "top leaders" in Amway? --Icerat (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, the book reference is in the main body of the article as well as the forward. --Icerat (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, while the OR problem for that particular source is now covered, it seems to me that, as it stands, there is still a clear case of WP:SYNTH in this whole section, which is an OR issue. Adding in a small number of organisational/religious affiliations of a couple of a corporate "leaders" under a section "Politics & Culture" appears to me to be a clear violation of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (my bold). What purpose does independently researching these affiliation and publishing them in the article serve other than to imply that these affiliations mean something about the corporate culture? A list of directorships and/or alleged religious/political views or affiliations of all "leaders" of a multinational company of 13000 employees and 3 million independent reps is undoubtedly extensive, and if of WP standard should be in the article on those individuals, not in this section of an article on one of his companies. --Icerat (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Real-time contrast chart
Real-time contrast chart contains results of the author's research in the field of quality control. Currently discussion of the subject of the article has only been published as a technical report at Arizona State University, but is apparently slated to appear in one of the American Society for Quality's journals. This raises several questions:
 * 1) Is there a "standard" way to urge the author to move his research to Original research or Google Knol?
 * 2) The contributor, User talk:QualitycontrolUS, has not understood (or ignored) the Uw-nor1 on his or her talk page. Should the "If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery." of WP:NOR be expanded for greater clarity especially with regard to the subject having entered the "academic mainstream" before it should be included?  Currently WP:NOR seems to be oriented more toward dealing with editors injecting their pet theories into articles about notable subjects rather than editors creating articles about their nonnotable pet theories.
 * 3) Contributor, in response to morefootnotes, has added sources that appear to be WP:RS, but aren't about the subject (remember that it ain't been published anywhere before). Does WP:RS need to be modified to explicitly state something about relevance?
 * -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42nd_Canadian_federal_election
It doesn't get much more "original" than speculation.

Canada has just finished the 41st election. The date for the next election has not even been set. An election is only decided AFTER all the votes are counted. Rating the parties based on how many seats they used to have is speculative at best. The point of an election is that it begins from nothing. Although Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister today, at the beginning of teh next election day, he becomes the former Prime Minister until the ballots are cast.

This page is highly prejudicial in this apparent prediction of who the next Prime Minister will be.

In doing this, Wikipedia casts aside any claim to neutrality.


 * Huh? Doesn't the current Prime Minister stay Prime Minister until his successor is chosen?  If he became "former" at the start of election day, that would leave Canada without any Prime Minister at all during election day.  Who would be in charge if a disaster occurred before the ballots were counted?  Surely his term ends at the close of election day or something like that. Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the current situation in Canada, but the office of "Prime Minister" didn't formally exist for a very long time - it used to be a creation of realpolitik. A person who visibly had the confidence of parliament could be summoned to form the next government by the Queen, or viceroy, or Governor-General. But just winning an election didn't make you Prime Minister. Your caucus did. Sdoradus (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Revan
Harry Blue5 has over a period of several weeks repeatedly reverted the "Later Appearances" part of Revan to remove what he describes as Original Research. Trouble is, he has deleted wholesale a whole series of assertions with varying degrees of OR-ness, and at no time has an explanatory entry been put on the discussion page. I've added something to the discussion page on this, but to summarize a little discrimination would be in order. Sdoradus (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly is a rather harsh way of saying twice. Anyway, I've left a reply on Revan's discussion page, so I hope that clears up why I removed it. The content I changed specifically was this. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Documenting a negative
I deleted a "citation needed" tag in Tractor beam and posted the following reason on the Talk page. It seems to me that this may be a good place to raise the issue.


 * == Proving a negative ==
 * In the section 2000s, the sentence
 * No other groups have attempted to replicate Podkletnov's gravity impulse generator experiment.
 * was tagged Citation needed. I have removed the tag.


 * What citation is possible for such an assertion? Is it reasonable to require one? This very concept is described in the lead paragraph as fringe physics. By definition, "Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe concepts as highly speculative or even strongly refuted" (quoting Fringe physics), and presumably seldom try to replicate the studies. How common is it for someone to research a fringe study, write a paper saying "No one has tried to replicate this work", and (above all) get it published?

--Thnidu (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This comes up from time to time. It often seems worthwhile to point out things like this, but there's just no way to cite these negative assertions unless there are specific sources that note the lack of subsequent studies.   Will Beback    talk    00:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A thought... is there any way to re-write the assertion into something that is verifiable? Blueboar (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. It might be possible it indicate to readers that there are limited studies on this topic. It might be pssobile to list them "Two studies conducted in the 2000s..." or say "The only study to reach this conclusion was..." Something along those lines may make it clearer that this is is a complete survey of the field and that there aren't other studies which were omitted.   Will Beback    talk    01:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm afraid this is a difficult problem. I think one has just got to accept that there are some things which may be true but you can't find evidence of them for Wikipedia. There may be a study in Uzbekistan, overlooking that and saying there's none would only be excusable if proper evidence of a good search was shown and you can't do that within Wikipedia. For something with demonstrable widespread attention in the media where people really would be interested and later studies would be obvious and there were a number of earlier studies I think it would be reasonable to say this in a neutral way in a summary as part of common sense. I don't think a gravity impulse generator would count under that though and you're better off just saying the few things that have dealt with it. Dmcq (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It sometimes happens that influential people block particular lines of research by ridiculing thos ewho partake in that line. The reason is often that success in that line of research will disprove a theory developed by the powerful person concerend.  Once such case was the decoding of the Linear B alphabet.  Arthur Evans effectively blocked any research other than his own until Alice Kober got her hands on the original source. The section in the article entitled "Contraversy" is essentially a summary of a chapter in the book The Code Book by Simon Singh. While Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, it is certainly the place to report on what has been published and if there is a reliable source stating that the work in question was not repeated, then to quote that as well, but to leave it up to the reader to speculate why it was not been repeated. Martinvl (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft
The comparable aircraft list in many aircraft articles is purely OR and never sourced.

For example: Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle

It's an aircraft that has never been built, has no orders and people just list out whatever cool aircraft they feel like.

My proposal is to toss out the Comparable aircraft section entirely and let the comparisons be done inline in statements driven by sources. Hcobb (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no rule that says we must have a list of "comparable aircraft". It's probably nice to have comparisons in many articles, but I'd agree that list in the F-15SE article looks a bit silly. In some other articles it needn't be totally OR - there will be reliable sources which draw comparisons (especially when two or more designs are competing for purchases by some customer or other &c) bobrayner (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Then you don't need a CA section, all you need is a paragraph that says something like "In 1492 the FSM was passed over for the Spanish next generation jet fighter in favor of the Screeching Baby Seal.[42]" What is being compared and by whom is therefore clear and clearly not in the OR room. Hcobb (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Finnic mythologies & Finnic peoples
states among other things

The source is used in the article about Finnic mythologies and (also Finnic peoples), yet, there's an editor at Talk:Finnic_mythologies who insists the whole subject is WP:OR if not WP:FRINGE. Please comment. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote from a reliable source is not sufficient to make a decision about OR. Can you explain, what concrete article's statements are not explicitly supported by the sources used in the article, according to your opponent?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We can close this here since it's been covered @ WP:RSN.--Termer (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Unite Against Fascism
See [

An editor is attempting to insert their own commentary regarding a primary source, complete with all sorts of other POV commentary. Thank you. 81.151.158.156 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You should post your comments to the article talk page first. TFD (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of discussion at WP:NOR regarding use of original images
Just wanted to notify people here of a discussion I've started here, regarding the criteria (WP:OI) for determining when it is/isn't appropriate to use free, self-published images (i.e. original, user-created images that are not published in reliable sources) in articles. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo
The following paragraph was recently added to the bio of Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo, Somalia's new Prime Minister; it was posted under the heading "Corruption":

I believe the paragraph is an example of original research and a WP:BLP violation since the Associated Press article that it is supposedly sourced to does not directly and explicitly indicate anywhere that the Premier is accused of having personally pocketed the 'missing' funds (it is also the only news article that covers this story; all the other instances are republications of the AP article; c.f. ). It just indicates that that donor money is unaccounted for. In fact, on page 2 of the article, the aforementioned Finance Minister Halane is quoted describing how he believes the unaccounted for funds were spent:

"'not all cash was necessarily deposited in the government’s account because some was spent on “legitimate and documented” expenses by officials before being deposited'"

Likewise, here's what the article states with regard to what the government indicated as to how it spends the donor money:

"'The government says it uses the money to win over citizens like Ahmed by providing services and security.'"

Given the above, I believe that the edit is rather libelous since it insinuates that the Premier is guilty of something serious (theft) which the article's quoted government sources themselves clearly do not indicate. And per WP:BLP, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Please advise. Middayexpress (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * BLP sounds pretty unambiguous. I reinstated your removal of the section.  Since I did so, I'll hold off on commenting on the merits until someone else has a chance.  I don't have any experience with BLP disputes, but the policy doesn't seem to leave a whole lot of wiggle room on the requirement that challenged material should get gone and stay gone until there's consensus that it complies with policy. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As written I can see the concerns. The source also states for example "Halane said that not all cash was necessarily deposited in the government’s account because some was spent on “legitimate and documented” expenses by officials before being deposited." Rewrite it to remove any potential BLP implications and it should be OK.--Icerat (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input gentleman. The quotes from both Halane and the government that the AP cites indeed do not accuse the Prime Minister of theft. In fact, Halane actually offers an explanation as to where the money that wasn't deposited in the Central Bank likely went, and he suggests that it was spent on legitimate public expenses ("not all cash was necessarily deposited in the government’s account because some was spent on “legitimate and documented” expenses by officials before being deposited"). Similarly, the AP quotes a general government source indicating that it spends the donor money on security and public services ("The government says it uses the money to win over citizens like Ahmed by providing services and security"). Bottom line, neither party explicitly accuses Prime Minister Mohamed -- who was appointed to office only a few months ago as was his new technocratic Cabinet, both well after Fartaag's investigation first began in 2009 -- of any impropriety nor does the AP. Middayexpress (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: The User:Bot3skfjs that added the material has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts/socking (c.f. ). Middayexpress (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can an article use two translations of a text or must we chose between the two?
Hy there. I need some good advice because I'm faced with a strange problem.

We have a whole original German text:
 * Ich kenne genug Stämme in Afrika. Sie gleichen sich alle in dem Gedankengang, dass sie nur der Gewalt weichen.Diese Gewalt mit krassem Terrorismus und selbst mit Grausamkeit auszuüben, war und ist meine Politik. Ich vernichte die aufständischen Stämme mit Strömen von Blut und Geld. Nur auf dieser Aussaat kann etwas Neues entstehen, was Bestand hat

Then we have a historian Mahmood Mamdani who in a book quotes the two following sentences:
 * I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood... Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain.

It seems to be based upon the following translation:
 * The exercise of violence with crass terrorism and even with gruesomeness was and is my policy. I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood and streams of money. Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain. (please follow note 174 and you will find this: JBG's translation)

A helpful user found another translation made by the same translator:
 * I know enough of African tribes that they give way only to violence. To exercise this violence with crass terrorism and even with gruesomeness was and is my policy. I destroy the rebellious tribes with streams of blood and money. Only from this seed something new will emerge, which will remain.

It was made very clear that Mamdani's quote and conclusions have to remain unchanged. I agreed with that. However I also wish to include JBG's second translation (making no personal comparison between the translation and Mamdani's quote and/or his conclusions) in the article (in a different section).

A concern of OR was expressed. Now I need to know if the inclusion of the second translation is allowed, or should the article only use one of the two translations? If so, why, which one, how do we decide between the two, and who decides? Flamarande (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be based upon the following translation So you have no confirmation that this is correct, and that claim is only your personal suspicion?
 * Well, he uses the exact same words (it might be a weird coincidence). You seem to have his book: you tell us. Does he give any source for his quote? Does his book state that he translated it himself? Flamarande (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that this translation is used by several sources not only Mamdani, so it also valid, and certainly not his own idea.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Meaning what? I already made clear that Mamdani's quote and his conclusions will remain unchanged, so what is your concern? Flamarande (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, he uses the exact same words (it might be a weird coincedence) Other books use the same translation. Look, you have been campaigning for this on three places as far as I know? Care to explain what makes this so much important?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I received the advice to raise this issue in this noticeboard. The improvement of an article I happen to improve on occasion is important enough for me. Do you have Mamdani's book, or not? Does he give any source for his quote? Does his book state that he translated it himself? Flamarande (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You avoided answering my original question. Before coming here you tried you discussed this in at least two places.Care to explain what makes this so much important?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I gave an answer ('The improvement of an article I happen to improve on occasion is important enough for me'). Why are you avoiding to check a book you seem to have ? Do you have Mamdani's book, or not? Flamarande (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a circular answer, and not very satisfactory. If the quote does not serve a particular purpose, it wastes the readers time. I don't have the book in question. However, one can easily verify via Google Books and Amazon that Mamdani does give a source for the quote, namely "Gewald, Herero Heros, page 174", referring to Jan-Bart Gewald's Herero Heroes: A Socio-Political History of the Herero of Namibia, 1890-1923. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jan-Bart Gewald = JBG. That confirms our suspicions. Flamarande (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we neeed context for this. It is pretty clear from the original that the text says "I destroy the rebellious tribes" (Ich vernichte die aufständischen Stämme mit Strömen von Blut und Geld). The word 'African' does not appear in the original. Anyone who has experience of Molobo's (MyMoloboaccount) editing is well aware of his extreme anti-German attitudes, in particlular his incessant tendency to portray Germans a genocidal people, so I am taking it that there is an issue about the way this passage is glossed that is in debate. Clearly there is a difference between destroying 'rebellious' tribes and destroying 'African' tribes. The latter can be glossed as a genocidal act against whole peoples. The former cannot. It has already been accepted that translations as such are not OR. It is surely legitimate to include translations which are more accurate to the text itself if the text is being used to suggest a particular value judgement. Flamarande says s/he wants to include what is an undeniably more accurate translation intio the text at another point, and Molobo is trying to stop that happening. There is no rule that the same translation has to be used throughout. Indeed, if it is a mistranslation that would have a negative impact on the project. The 'logic' for trying to exclude the translation here is pretty clear. This whole debate is disingenuous. It's one of those occasions where not taking into account the obvious motivations of editors simply obscures what is really going on. Molobo asks Flammrande "Care to explain what makes this so much important?". I think we know. -Paul B (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Both books are published by scholarly presses and dead on topic. Therefore, both translations are supported by scholarly experts and the publisher.  Why not use both, (noting of course their origins via footnotes)? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In case of doubt or conflice, the original text is the definitive one. Many works get translated with minor defects in the translation, but we ought never attribute errors or misstatements found in a translation to the original author as a result.  Translations are useful, and wondrous, but imperfect even though clearly meeting WP:RS.   Best solution is to always link to the original language source as well. Collect (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the Bing auto translation is  I know enough tribes in Africa. They same all in the line of thought is, that they yield only the violence.To exercise this violence with stark terrorism and even cruelty, was and is my policy. I destroy the rebellious tribes with rivers of blood and money. Only on this sow something new can emerge, what holds   Collect (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. Pure poetry. Paul B (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This misses the point. We do not use von Trotha's text, or any of its translations. We use Mamdani's position. Mamdani is, among other appointments, Herbert Lehman Professor of Government at Columbia University, and an internationally recognized scholar with a focus on late-colonial and post-colonial Africa. His book When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda is published by Princeton University Press. It does not get more reliable than that. We have some editors that seem to believe that Mamdani has build his thesis on just one or three sentences that they think has or have been mistranslated. This is not how academic scholars work. There is no reliable source disagreeing with Mamdani (or if there is, no-one has listed it). There is no reliable source supporting the claim that Mamdani was mislead (or worse) by the translation issue. This is not how Wikipedia works, either - we don't use our own interpretations of 100 year old primary sources (von Trotha) to dismiss or criticize current scholarship from reliable secondary sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This misses the point. The sentence has undoubtedly been mistranslated. All scholars - especially when they are creating complex works make slips. We have no requirement to replicate them (though of course they must be quoted accurately). And yes, we can dismiss or criticise current scholarship - if we have other scholarship that addresses the issue or if the current scholarship is not seen to be the best or most appropriate to use. But let's be clear, it has not been proposed that Mamdani's work be dismissed or 'corrected'. It has been proposed that the sourced and accurate translation be used elsewhere in the article. Do not misrepresent what is being requested. Also the relablilty issue is not as simple as you imply - not at all. Mamdani is professor of government. The book is about the Rwandan genocide - a recent event. Being a expert on a recent event does not make Mandani an expert on a historical event - he is much more likely to rely on secondary sources himself. This happens in many many books of history and international relations. An expert on the Victorian era, published by a major academic press may, say, make a comparison between the British empire and the Roman empire, but that would not make his comments on Rome the best source for an article on the Romans, since he is not an expert on that subject, and is as liable to make mistakes as anyone else. Paul B (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources [8] and [9] above are authored by an academic scholar other than Mamdani, who appears to be a specialist historian in the appropriate period of the appropriate bit of African history. In both cases they're authored by JBG.  In both cases JBG supplies his own translation.Fifelfoo (talk) 22:e, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. That's the premise of the argument. Flamarande wants to use both. The fact that JBG translated rather freely in the first instance is not so very important in itself. The problem arises with Mamdani's gloss of the freer translation. He has used a secondary source by a specialist scholar and then glossed it with his own "original research" into the meaning of words that were never actually spoken. That's not an issue raised by Flamarande here, but it does raise a question about Mamdani's scholarly competence to reliably gloss sources that are outside of his own field of expertise, since he rather clearly does misrepresent the actual text. That's why I used the Victorian/Roman analogy. Paul B (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mamdani's gloss goes to opinions / interpretations "Mamdani, a scholar of x, believes the essential point to be y." As far as inserting the text in the article, when multiple sources exist, use the highest quality ones: ie JBG's sources for it.  Scholars lack competence outside their field (unless their work was peer reviewed for that field).  If Mamdani published in an African History journal, I expect he'd have to meet the standards of history.  Given that Mamdani published in Polsci, and JBG published in African history, I'd be using either or both of JBG's due to the highest quality reliability.  (Mamdani does, by the way, have the scholarly right to act badly; unless he's called on it by other scholars, his work is still good for his field of competence.) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's a universal answer to the question. In a short article, with a sharp contrast between two translations, the contrast might unavoidably convey a point not supported by the sources. Normally, though, I don't see any problem with using two translations in different sections, assuming there's a good reason for each. What was the text that was added (or the gist of the statements that were to be added) to Herero and Namaqua Genocide, and what section were they to be added to? --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The text to be added is the 2nd sourced translation. I plan to add it in the section 'Revolts' inside the article Herero and Namaqua Genocide (Mamadani's quote is located inside the section 'Influence upon Nazi Germany').


 * I know enough of African tribes that they give way only to violence. To exercise this violence with crass terrorism and even with gruesomeness was and is my policy. I destroy the rebellious tribes with streams of blood and money. Only from this seed something new will emerge, which will remain.


 * I'm planning to add a note-link which would then "jump" to the original German text:


 * Ich kenne genug Stämme in Afrika. Sie gleichen sich alle in dem Gedankengang, dass sie nur der Gewalt weichen.Diese Gewalt mit krassem Terrorismus und selbst mit Grausamkeit auszuüben, war und ist meine Politik. Ich vernichte die aufständischen Stämme mit Strömen von Blut und Geld. Nur auf dieser Aussaat kann etwas Neues entstehen, was Bestand hat


 * Mamdani's quote and conclusions will remain unchanged. I hope that this is acceptable. Flamarande (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Phase Displacement Space Drive
Looks like original research made by the author. Sources that mention the subject don't appear to be from academically respected publications (one is the author's own youtube video, another the author's own website, another is some alternate energy website. (The 4th (ref# 2) doesn't appear to mention the subject.)) Also the only editor of the article appears to be the creator of the term. Here's a link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_Displacement_Space_Drive    -June 1, 2011
 * At a glance, it doesn't look as though the article goes beyond what's said on the external websites. I would call it a notability issue.  Then there's no need to bring up the question of whether or not User:Jarihdjr is Moacir L. Ferreira.  One mention on some alternate-energy website doesn't amount to "significant coverage", and the other sources fail the "independent of the subject" part of the criteria.  It's verified that Moacir L. Ferreira is promoting this hypothetical space drive -- and doing so first on places other than Wikipedia, just as WP:NOT says to.  Hypothetical wouldn't be a problem per se, of course: an article on Space_elevators or the  drive technology of Star Trek is entirely appropriate.  In this case, however, there's no indication that anyone besides Hank Mills cares.  And even that may be a result of promotion by Moacir L. Ferreira.  I stuck a notability template on it. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islands


An effort is being made to bring the Falkland Islands article to WP:GA standard. In describing the geography of the islands, I made a few references to information that was gleaned from maps rather than from text. Some fellow-editors suggested that in so doing, I was engaging in WP:OR, but they suggested that a wider opinion be sought.

The first of my comments was that the northern part of the Falklands Sound (which separates the two main islands) had clear water but that the southern part contained numerous islands. (See map alongside this posting)

The second of my comments was that there were a number of channels in between the islands in the southern part of the sound that were deeper than the basin in the northern part of the sound. I gleaned this information from the relevant Admiralty charts. This again is hardly original work as I am sure that both the British and the Argentine naval officers made the same observations during the Falklands War.

Jimmy Wales voiced his agreement [here] with the text "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonethless [sic] synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research". Opposed to this, the article WP:OR states "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented".

May I suggest that the crucial wording in Jimmy Wales' observation is, "non-standard". In the case in question, there can be no question that Admiralty Charts are reliable, published sources. One of the principal uses of Admiralty charts is to identify land and sea masses and the depths of water availalbe, especially to mariners. I used totally standard techniques to interpret the maps - the sort of techniques that would be taught at school and would also be taught (in much greater detail) to aspiring navigators. The material concerned therefore directly supports the claims. Anybody who has access to the maps and who is familiar reading maps can of course verify the claims that I have made.

I believe therefore that the editors who suggested that I was engaging in WP:OR were being over-cautious in trying to prevent me from jeopardiasing the GA bid that we will be making. I, on the other hand, believe that I was using a perfectly reason and natural resource in the manner that it was designed to be used. What is the opinion of others? Martinvl (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is original research to note things that other people have not noted or even implied should be noted even if you used standard methods to find them out. Why did you note these things if sources have not thought them worth mentioning? Dmcq (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But he didn't "find them out". At least that's what he's saying. The Admiralty found them out (or codified existing findings). They are present in the source. However, they are present in the coded form of a map rather than the coded form of language or numerals. Paul B (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to Dmcq, the Admiralty took soundings and worked out the depths and plotted the isobaths (underwater contours) on the map together with various spot depths at the lowet point in a channel. The "standard techniques" that I used to get my data was to read the values from the isobaths and spot depths. Martinvl (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you reported sounding measurements that are delineated on the map that is not OR. However, making generalized observations that are quantified or indicated in any standardized way (ie text) would appear to be OR. One could argue that it is benign OR and argue WP:IAR but strictly speaking, it is OR, in my opinion.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also a map made by the Admiralty is a primary source by any definition of the term. We need secondary sources to establish that anything in it is worth noting. Dmcq (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Are Admiralty charts (or their land based counterparts – Ordinance survey maps) primary or secondary sources? I believe then to be secondary, possibly tertiary sources - after all they were compiled and are constantly revised by teams of office workers by drawing on the soundings, observations and note made teams of field workers and are used in much the same way as textbooks?


 * Wikipedia [policy] regarding primary sources states “A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.” Requirements for the use of secondary and tertiary sources are less rigorous. Since Admiralty charts have been reliably published and can be verified in the manner described for primary sources, does it matter whether they are primary, secondary or tertiary sources?  Martinvl (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Maps are just a database of facts rather than an analysis of facts. The original research is finding bits in it you think interesting to note. That's why a secondary source that finds things of interest is so important even if it doesn't have such good facts as a primary source. Dmcq (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that we are playing with words. As I understand it, the bottom line is that the statement that I wish to place in Wikipedia is allowable since source I am citing to support it has been "reliably published" and that "that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify [the statement from] ... the source". Martinvl (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Did a secondary source point out the features you noted? If so it would be perfectly okay to use the maps to give accurate information about what was noted. If none did then you thought of it yourself and my reading of the policy is that mining the maps is original research. Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Would somebody else like to comment on this please? I've given my opinion but the OP disagrees, somebody else like to plonk themselves on one side or the other? Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems like a clear case of "a picture is worth a thousand words". Given that the picture is already in the article, providing a text summary of it's minor features seems at best redundant.  As mentioned above, secondary sources should be used to determine which geographic features are worth noting. aprock (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur roughly with Dmcq here. The maps and charts are primary sources, and one would have to be careful using them. Absent some secondary source that puts the geography in some kind of context, I'm not sure what the value would be. I also think that it would be difficult or impossible to provide relative context absent 2ndary sources without engaging in OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The existence of many flat islands and shoals at the southern end of the sound is considered noteworthy in this secondary source, but I find nothing that mentions the depth of the channels - that would only be important I imagine if it constrained the route of vessels entering the sound. I have sympathy with Martinv, I'm not sure that I haven't overstepped this mark somewhere in my contributions, but if there are secondary sources there is no issue. Mikenorton (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Straight descriptions of data from the admirality charts is not OR, and a primary source for this purpose is perfectly acceptable unless there's some actual controversy over the data. WP:OR states "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research". There's no argument there's a reliable source for this data is there? I've checked a few of the edits and things like "It provides a natural shelter to shipping" is however interpretation of that data, so that's OR and problematic. There's no particular WP requirement for a secondary source to determine notability of content within an article. So I think (sans the interpretation parts) it's perfectly acceptable to use the source - the real question is whether it's worth including or not, not whether it can be included or not. --Icerat (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If your observations are notable then you should be able to find a source that mentions them. TFD (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why should the particular facts have to be notable? WP:NNC: "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article ... Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:IINFO, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't have to satisfy the same standards as notability as for starting up an article but just because one day a person thinks something in a map is interesting does not make it a candidate for inclusion. Dmcq (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a more reasonable argument than WP:OR. OR is basically about keeping out crackpottery and contentious stuff, or at least I believe that was the initial motivation. Now as to indiscriminate information, and we can all just look at the map, the latter is not true for everybody and the featured article people used to spend a lot of time describing pictures for the alt texts, to make articles completely accessible to blind people. This involved similar decisions on what matters and what doesn't, with no guidance from reliable sources. It is unfortunate that editors keep hitting each other with policy hammers when they can't agree whether to use a particular screw. Ultimately editorial decisions must be taken by consensus of editors. Wikipedia is not an exercise in automatic writing guided by our policies. Hans Adler 23:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is very little material on the Falkland Islands - after all their population is about the same as an English Village, so something which is notable in relation to the islands is not neccessarily notable in relation to the works as a whole. Putting aside the question of notability, which I agree is a matter of consensus, the original question is whether or not information gleaned from reputable maps is WP:OR. Since I first asked this question, an additional link to the article WP:OR has been added - WP:SYNTHNOT.  The article states quite clearly "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources." (My emphasis).  In the case in question, any secondary school pupil who is being taught GCSE geography (exams taken at the age of 16) is taght the principles of map-reading. I therfore resubmit my assertion that extracting information from a map at the level taught in secondary school os not synthesis and is therefore cannot be original research by synthesis. Martinvl (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at that bit of the article and there seem to be a number of citations which have quite adequate descriptions of the sound and shoals the islands, quite sufficient for writing about them in the article. There's enough there to establish it doesn't fall under WP:IINFO and I don't see a problem with using the Admiralty charts as a primary source for basic checks on what's written in reliable sources. You don't have to start interpreting the charts and violate WP:SYNTH to write things, so what is this all about? Are you trying to establish a right of editors to just look at maps in future and write things about them without finding the sources and establishing it isn't just some original thought that occurred to them one day while perusing a map? Dmcq (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how WP:IINFO applies. It's about what "articles should not be", and it doesn't give much guidance on what should be included in articles that are not of the described types.  I'm not trying to claim there's a bright line around that: if you started listing all the gas stations on the Falklands, all the stores on the Falklands, and so on through dozens of categories, turning the article into a massive list of lists, then yes, that would run afoul of IINFO even though IINFO doesn't include a BEAN about exactly that.  But including a reasonable description of the islands' geography isn't anything like that.  The only question I see is whether the map suffices to verify the statement: can a reader with no special skills look at the map and have it be obvious that the description is accurate?  (Accurate as a description of what's shown on the map, that is, not as the truth about the islands themselves.)  And that question should be settled by argument on the talk page.  Interpretation of WP:NOR can stop once a standard like that is agreed on. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The policy is there to stop people just sticking in things they just think of. We are only supposed to be summarizing what has been already noticed, not noticing things ourselves. We don't go around saying an article about a place should contain something about its bays, we find a source that talks about the bays or we don't write anything about them. We cannot check new maths or check that what an editor writes here is a good summary of some history, we can however check that what they say is a reasonable summary of what is said in a reliable source. Dmcq (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a policy saying (more or less) that we're summarizing what's already been noticed, not noticing things ourselves. Two, actually.  But those pol for a living.icies are WP:Verifiability for particular facts and WP:Notability for subjects of articles, not WP:IINFO.  There's an inexhaustible supply of stuff that has already been noticed: WP:IINFO says that rather than indiscriminately collecting it (or instructing about it, or writing an owner's manual for it, and so on down the rest of the page), we write informative encyclopedia articles about it.  But obviously someone already noticed the bays.  You don't make a map of a bay without noticing that it's there.  If we were writing about a detailed map of Mars just sent back by a space probe and released in electronic form, and using Google Mars to dig through a world of data that mostly had never been seen, then it would be problematic to summarize what's on a map.  We could be picking an unrepresentative set of features to look at, or misinterpreting unearthly geography.  With a sufficiently straightforward description of a map of the Falklands, an ordinary reader can look at the map and see whether the text is an accurate description -- of features that obviously have been noticed before. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The name of a bay on a map is simply a database fact in a primary source. There is no reason to mention it when talking about a nearby town unless some reliable source mentions it. It is not up to us to write things about places using maps. Editors on Wikipedia are not reliable sources. That somebody has measured the dept of a channel and put it on a map does not mean it is an interesting fact that should be stuck into Wikipedia. The person who measured it probably was paid as a living to do thousands of such measurements for the map. It is a database just like registers of births and deaths. Everybody has a name, I can look up a telephone directory and possibly find a person named Parrogivan, I will not then say that the town he is in has a person called Parrogivan even though his parents noticed him and named him so somebody must have noticed him. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to notice things independent of secondary sources and it is wrong for them to go writing about something they noticed over breakfast while perusing a map just like it would be wrong for me to write about somebody I noticed in a telephone directory even though they lived in a very notable town and I was writing about the town. Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We seem to be stuck, for this sub-thread, until and unless someone else weighs in. I think WP:IINFO clearly does not depend on what secondary sources have noticed.  Wikipedia includes articles only about notable subjects, but within articles, we the editors of Wikipedia decide what constitutes encyclopedic coverage of that subject.  For the question of whether a particular fact belongs in Wikipedia, there are no reliable sources, only consensus of editors in applying the policies and guidelines.  I think a general description of the geography of a notable place definitely is suitable for inclusion in an article about the place.  And I think that information from a map can be used in such a description, as long as we're careful not to do any non-trivial interpretation, i.e. so that an ordinary person can use the map to verify that the description is accurate.  --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Does any of the users working in the article actually live there? If they do, I guess that a book with the geography of the islands, or a book of general topics including the geography, should be easy to find. The geography of the place where someone lives should be a basic topic in elementary or high schools Cambalachero (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In answer to the two previous editors - neither I, not the editor who challenged me live there. Text books, where they exist, tend to describe the landforms above sea level, but often neglect to describe what lies below sea level. So lets get back to the question - I could not find anything in text form to back up what I wrote, but I found a fantastic source in the form of the Admiralty chart and my interpretation of it was so fundemental that I would expect a GCSE student to make a similar interpretation.  So back to the original question "Was this original research"? When responding, please think of this as an exam question - answer the question, don't write what you think the question should have been. Martinvl (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * From my point of view, detailing the presence of geographic formations that can be seen in a map seem as trivial as detailing that "the sky is blue". But to get everyone satisfied, you may try asking in the wikiproject or the talk page. The islands may be small, but the people there speak English and their GDP per capita is high: it's reasonable to think that there should be somewhere an editor that lives there. Those geography books that may be hard to find elsewhere, because of the low size of the islands, should be more easily find at the islands themselves. Cambalachero (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I haven't posted here, let my detail my concerns. All geographic references are based on the topographic map in this section.

The edit said that the southern part of the sound contains numerous islands, while the northern sound is clear. So far as I can see, this is accurate only if one puts the ends of the sound at the enclosing headlands near Port San Carlos, and at roughly Great Island. From what I have seen (and I haven't seen the source), this is a legitimate definition but not the only legitimate definition. One could equally use a line from Cape Dolphin to Pebble Island to mark the northern end of the sound, and a line from Cape Meredith to George Island to mark the southern end - a far wider area. In this case, the area around the Tyssen Islands is close to the geographic centre of the sound, not in the south of it. The southern end of the sound is thus clear of islands.

It seems to me that this edit relies on this interpretation to make its point, but I have not seen evidence that this interpretation is backed up by a source. I am also concerned, as reading information from maps has been considered OR in the past, that it might be a good idea to avoid relying on them, and that textual sources would be better. Pfainuk talk 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well there are two problems with just using Admiralty charts and not secondary sources. Firstly there is absolutely no notability so the stuff would come under the policy in WP:IINFO. Secondly interpretation of charts to say something like there was clear water in an area would not be straightforward enough to be allowed by WP:CALC. One really needs a secondary source to point out a feature that can then be looked at, plus the thing looked up in the Admiralty chart prompted by the interest in the secondary source must be very straightforward and require practically no interpretation. For instance what is clear water? Is it water a dingy can cross or an oil tanker? Having a secondary source saying it means no such interpretation is needed by a Wikipedia editor. If they really are saying they are trying to stick something in with no secondary source showing any sort of interest in an area and they are doing their own interpretation of an Admiralty chart to deduce and pick things they think are worthwhile sticking in then it just isn't a goer. Dmcq (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the secondary sources 'Prostar Sailing Directions 2004 East Coast of South America Enroute' and the geological survey mentioned in the article for anything anyone in their right mind would want to know about Falkland Sound? They also give enough information for very straighgtford references to the Admiralty charts if needed to clear a point as far as I can see. What is this business about just interpreting the charets without reference to secondary sources? Dmcq (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On a tangential point I see someone was taking about descriptions of maps for blind people. There is a precedent for straightforward, non-interpretive descriptions of books using the text as a primary source, however I believe there probably are enough secondary source descriptions of the geography of areas to enable us to avoid having to pick out features we think are relevant. Dmcq (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to even see this question. It is a perennial question regarding describing what is seen on a map as legitimate or not. I have never, in over 3 or 4 years at least, ever seen a discussion saw it is not ok. Every single road/highway article uses maps as sources for describing the route of the highway or for route changes (a map of 1960 shows a route, a map of 1965 shows the route changed, and those sources are used for the sentence "in the early 1960s Interstate XX moved from X to Y"). This isnt just a case of a few articles, we are talking hundreds use it and dozens of specific discussions on this very noticeboard. Without delving into the specifics of this particular map, this discussion at least should be under the assumption that "maps are reliable sources and can be described by a Wikipedian". As long as the average Wikipedian can look at a map, and see the same feature it is no different than a book in which, as long as an average Wikipedian can look at the book and read the sentences and gleam the same information it is legitimate. Just as some Wikipedians could read too much or too little into a specific sentence or paragraph in a book and the Wikipedian rewrite the information slightly wrong in an article, so could a specific feature in a map be interpreted incorrectly by accident when being written in an article. Dont throw out the baby with the bathwater. Describing maps is not original research, but you may end up doing original research when describing a map.Camelbinky (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said a map was not a reliable source. In fact just recently I said explicitly that google maps was a reliable source. The problem is that it is a primary source rather than a secondary source. A map doesn't express any interest in anything in it except in special case like when things are marked as 'places of interest'. It is a database of geography. Dmcq (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

To build on what Camelbinky said, there are literally thousands of articles on highways in the United States alone, and their main references are to maps for the route description. To date, almost 40 of these articles have passed through WP:FAC and been promoted as Featured Articles using maps to back basic descriptions of a highway's route. The key here is whether a non-specialist can look at the map and interpret the plain facts being asserted in writing. Most maps are secondary sources; the primary source material is aerial photography, surveyors' field notes, GIS data, etc. Creating a map involves significant editorial control (what features to include? exclude? what data to show? what gets labeled and how?) and so your basic map is a secondary source. Care has to be taken though not to overstate what the map tells us: it can give us the location of something, but it can't tell us why that feature is there.  Imzadi 1979  →   14:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you point out a highway where the information has been gleamed from a map but is not also in a text please. The map is allowable in a limited way as a source as all primary sources are but I would be very surprised if people have been getting away with describing new things which have not be noted somewhere else. Secondary sources are not a question of counting the number of people between it and data collection, it must evaluate and note things. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at California State Route 78 and while I don't have much trouble with it saying some things derived from maps like one road turn into another, but there are others which strike me as very iffy indeed. People have written an article about a route without basing it on anything other people have written about the route. Yes the route goes near a river and one can verify it from a map, but why was that stuck into the article? I think we really do need to have a proper discussion of this sort of thing. Wikipedia is supposed to have a gazetter component but I have a problem with people doing their own research to set up articles just looking at maps and picking out things that nobody else has bothered to note. There is also a big dependence on details in plans which haven't been taken up by newspapers or otherwise noted. Dmcq (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have raise an RfC WT:No original research on this question since I can see the problem affects a number of featured articles. Dmcq (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor re-added what I think is OR & told me to fact tag it
At Jacobite Succession has replaced text he'd added earlier that I'd removed as OR. I'd posted to his talk page and he says he is just summing up a widely known fact and "applying it to the bit about Moncreiffe's theory". He says " And I have had this problem in the past-editors and administrators seeming not to really read the text but only notice that there is no citation; No citation is required because I am not adding new information just summing up what is widely known fact ". The text he added says "Another interesting question raised by Moncreiffe's theory is that had the act of settlement not been passed, then George III would probably not have been born in Britain and so the House of Hanover as well as the House of Savoy would have had to be bypassed on Cardinal York's death". I can't source it and he isn't saying he can, just that he thinks it isn't OR. I believe it is. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There certainly needs to be a source for a historical counterfactual like that, not just an editor's inference from widely-known facts. But it's too far outside my areas of primary interest for me to hazard a guess whether it's OR or whether it's something widely-known for which a source presumably exists.  It well may have to be removed, and the presumption should be for removal if no one shows up here who can either source it or say it's widely-known.  But for now a fact tag seems adequate.--Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

OR on Eastern Orthodox Church article
An anonymous editor or editors are edit warring on the Eastern Orthodox Church article. Their arguments to justify their behavior is that an un-familiar source validated for them that the article should be modified to express their opinion. They have began an extensive argument to try an change the article on the article talkpage. Talk:Eastern_Orthodox_Church However they have not provided valid sources for the point of view that they wish the article to contain and or reflect. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

USANA Health Sciences
Dealing with some undue weight issues with this article, and I proposed adding (what I thought was) a rather benign factual statement about a certification this company has on its main product line:

"The tablets that make up the Essentials product are certified by the INFORMED-CHOICE Certification Program to be regularly tested for substances considered prohibited in sport and that the products have been manufactured to high quality standards."

The WP:RS for this statement is the certification program itself:

One of the editors on this page feels this is WP:SYNTH because one URL of this source explains what the certification is, and the other URL shows the list of products certified in a table.

You can see the discussion on the talk page here: Talk:USANA Health Sciences

I would appreciate any feedback - thank you!  Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 14:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with your edit or violations of WP:OP. But is informed choices a reliable source? The issues in the discussion seem very trivial to me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's SYNTH. It would be nice to have an easier-to-read source, where you don't have to go to one URL for the table and another URL to see the label of what the table is.  But the criterion is what's verifiable, not what it would be nice to have.  SYNTH is synthesis that advances a point.  If you mentioned the banned-substance-free certification right next to something about banned substances turning up in competitors' products, that would be SYNTH suggesting that USANA products were better than competitors' products.  This is just reading a poorly-presented but unambiguous table. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * HFL Sport Sciences (the company that is behind the certification) is certainly a RS as far as the particulars of their certification program, which the text I am proposing stays within that realm. I appreciate your comments, and will point the discussion here on the article's talk page - and hopefully reach consensus with the additional noticeboard commentary.  Leef5  TALK &#124;  CONTRIBS 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It would only be SYNTH if the editor said the company satisfied the standards based on various things the editor pointed out in the standard. It is not SYNTH to point out that they are certified to satisfy a standard. Saying 'as having the identity and quantity of their dietary ingredients accurately described on the product label and containing no undeclared ingredients' and giving the standards site saying this is slightly against policy as that site does not deal directly with the topic of the article but it seems short enough and well based and neutral enough to me to not be something editors should be arguing about. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree it's not WP:SYNTH. However, is "Informed Choice" a reliable sources about their testing standards?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When I looked over the certification program, (3 paragraphs up), HFL Sport Sciences appears to pass the RS test, and INFORMED-CHOICE is one of their certification programs. (Minus the fact I despise all caps...)  Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 11:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dante Anderson
This article has been up far too long it is a biography written by the subject's mother or something. Contains all these references to camps and games that no one but the author could really know about. [Dante Anderson] 50.80.150.100 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

To be or not to be the largest ancient canal
Imagine you are an editor working on a List of ancient architectural records and you want to determine the largest Greco-Roman canal from modern scholarship. You find that no classicists explicitly calls the Ancient Suez Canal the largest canal in antiquity. Yet this must be almost certainly the case because in the texts and (unsorted) lists they have published this canal features as the largest by far, just not expressis verbis referred to this way. Is it WP:SYN to list the Ancient Suez Canal as the largest ancient canal or not? Note that this is not an isolated examples, but an almost common occurrence in the List of ancient architectural records, main author of which I am. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If some reliable source with a reasonable record says that then you can stick it in. It is up to the sources to say things and if other people don't like it they have to get a source that shows it is wrong or says differently. If no-one reliable says something like that then there's probably no good reason for you to stick it in even if probably true. Dmcq (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Criticism
Over several weeks we have been patiently revising the criticism section of the NLP article on the talk page. After a lot of discussion the material was posted with the title "Scientific Criticism". One editor is refusing to accept that title on the grounds that several of the articles referenced describe NLP as a pseudo-science which is not (he asserts) a scientific term. He therefore argues that to use Scientific Criticism as a title is original research unless a reference can be found that says pseudo-science is a scientific term. It has been countered the language used in scientific articles is the language of science and this is the title used for creation science. I have debated taking this to ANI as a behaviour issue, but decided its better to keep the temperature down and deal with things issue by issue. So the question is very simply:

'''If the term pseudo-science is used in articles from scientific journals as a criticism is it original research to use the title "Scientific Criticism"? -- Snowded TALK  05:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)'''

Use of the word "cholo" to describe a type of role in Guillermo Díaz (actor)
I had previously requested a third opinion, which the other party had decided to completely ignore, with a rationale that brings me here.

In question is the use of the word "cholo" to describe a certain type of role that an actor has played multiple times. The source is an interview in which  the interviewer uses the term "Mexican thug" (which is the term I believe should be used in the article), and  the interviewee describes it " the leader of a gang again" and "—all these thug characters". But neither uses the term "cholo". The other editor keeps reverting to a linked and piped "cholo" because "the article is about a US actor who played the same role several times, which matches the cholo subculture right down to body language, intonation and accent (which Diaz fakes for the character's sake). Therefore, the US usage fits as we are talking about several US films that depict US culture." and he is refusing to listen that that is original research and that we should use the common English phrase "Mexican thug" rather than having to pipe to a term that has multiple meanings, the major usage of which is an ethnic slur. Active Banana    (bananaphone  03:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit funny of Active Banana to use the word "ignore" on me, especially when I addressed all of his concerns multiple times, but somehow it all bashed into the (non-existent) OR wall.
 * To quote from the piped paragraph: "In modern usage in the United States, the term "cholo" usually indicates a person of Mexican or Mexican-American descent who is associated with a particular Southwestern "gangsta" culture. The term[...]has infiltrated into mainstream American English use, specifically in association with American youth movements such as the "lowrider" subculture, or the hip hop scene in general. The word is sometimes associated with Hispanic gang culture, especially in popular media[...]"
 * Therefore, as WP:NOTOR tells us, "Accurate paraphrasing of reliable sources is not considered original research.[...]Identifying synonymous terms[...]is also part of writing an encyclopedia.[...C]alling the same thing by different names[...]does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources" which your conclusions are not. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Paraphrasing is not normally OR. If the paraphrase is unclear, the problem is that it's unclear, not that it's OR.  Active Banana, what do you understand calling the characters "cholos" to mean, that isn't supported by the sources?  On the other hand, Hearfourmewesique, why should "cholos" be preferred over the exact quote, "Mexican thugs"?  It's less clear to many readers. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "cholo" has multiple meanings depending upon the context and the speaker[], but the primary and historical usage of which (even according to our own Wikipedia article which is not a reliable source and for which Hearfourmewesique is basing his claim of usage on) is a racial slur. No content presented in Wikipedia's voice (ie not a direct quote) should be presenting a word that is predominantly a racial slur requiring a reader to click a link to see the non-racial slur definition, particularly when there are clear English alternatives available. There is no doubt that if there was an attempt to describe the roles with the "reclaimed" slur of "nigger" or "queer" that it would have been removed immediately and the person edit warring to reinsert it would have been blocked.  Active  Banana    (bananaphone  21:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Two of those three sources seem to be about the meaning of "cholo" in Spanish. The meaning of a word in another language is not directly relevant to English Wikipedia.  But the meaning as a slur certainly is there in English, at least, whether it's primary or not.  That's reason enough by itself to prefer the phrase "Mexican thug".  The difference in clarity is likewise plenty of reason.  That's to be weighed against absolutely nothing, so far, in favor of the word "cholo".  So there's no need to bring in the dubious claim of OR. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this was yet another successful attempt to present arguments that no one took under consideration. I already stated on my talk page that "cholo" is not the same as "nigger" or "queer", and in the quote above you can clearly see that the term has infiltrated into mainstream American English use. The word used to be a slur, historically, and still is in certain parts of South America, but it is not a slur in US. This is why using "cholo" instead of the direct quote "Mexican thug" is more appropriate for Wikipedia, as it is not a collection of quotes (under WP:CP, to say the least). Finally, since the usage of "cholo" in US culture is the exact description of a Mexican thug/gangster that acts and talks in a certain way that is strongly present in the role that Diaz is known for portraying, the conclusion is obvious and does not constitute WP:OR as such, as (again) demonstrated by the quoted Wikiarticle above. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, give the reader a break and use English if you can. Either "Mexican thug ("cholo")" or "Mexican gangster ("cholo")" are fine. Either purveys the necessary info about the kind of roles this actor was known for. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC notice
There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:Santorum (neologism) that may be of interest to editors here. Dreadstar ☥  18:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The link above won't get you there. The correct section is: Talk:Santorum_(neologism). Gacurr (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I thought that was about the current OR issue. Gacurr (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

USANA Health Sciences - (Sponsorships)
I started a new OR noticeboard discussion section in particular about the Sponsorships section of this article since the prior OR noticeboard on Informed Choice appears to be concluded.

Talk discussion here between myself and 2 other editors: Talk:USANA Health Sciences

The current article text is in its own section "Sponsorships", with the following two sentences: "USANA is a paid sponsor of various athletic organizations. In 2006, USANA signed a co-sponsorship agreement with the Sony Ericsson WTA tour."

I proposed expanding the text since the organizations listed by the Usana's website are notable. Even though WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed for non-controversial information, I also cited the organization itself where they listed Usana as a sponsor. The following text was proposed:

USANA is a paid sponsor of various athletic organizations and individuals. Notable organizations include:
 * Sony Ericsson WTA Tour
 * US Speedskating
 * TeamBiathlon Canada
 * Tuzos del Pachuca Soccer Club
 * Speed Skating Canada
 * Cross Country Canada
 * Women's Ski Jumping USA
 * Great Britain Short Track Speed Skating Team

The citations are viewable on the talk page link (If there is a way to keep refs within 1 section of a talk page, I would be happy to edit the refs back in here rather than point to the talk page).

Arguments against expanding the text are summarized by one of the editors here:

I would appreciate any further commentary so we can move the stalled consensus along. Thank you for your time.  Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 14:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any comments regarding the arguments linked in the diff above? (SYNTH, RS, UNDUE)  Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 13:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Tsardom of Russia"
Vmenkov has put together a list of sources showing that a term "Tsardom of Russia"/"Russian Tsardom" is simply a generic phrase referring to "tsarism" in general or Russian monarchy in general. At the time when historians and sources discussing the name of the state during the era pr WP:RS refer to Tsardom of Moscow/Tsardom of Moscovy.

Yet there's an editor who puts together

1.|a google search for "Russia" |


 * + 2.|an opinion '"the only tsarist period was pre Peter I era, the rest "is not precise and accurate enough"|


 * = 3.|"Tsardom of Russia" is the official name of the state during the period.| ,

The problem is "Tsardom of Russia" with its about only 184 results on google books like shown by Vmenkov are:


 * Wikipedia clones;
 * books where "tsardom" refers to "tsarism" in general or Russia the monarchy in general (with primarily Russian Empire) in mind
 * books that indeed confirm that "Russian Tsardom" (Tsarstvo Russkoye") was used by Russian writers in the right time period (17th century) to describe the country they lived in. Every time, however, the term appears as part of translation or paraphrase of the original Russian work, not as the expression used by the modern author him/herself to name the country when writing in English.

At the time when for example "Tsardom of Moscow/Tsardom of Moscovy" returns |%22Muscovite+Tsardom%22+-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C+LLC%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t#q=%22Tsardom+of+Muscovy%22|%22Muscovite+Tsardom%22+-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C+LLC%22&oe=utf-8&safe=on&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&fp=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b 1,930 / |%22Moscow+Tsardom%22+-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C+LLC%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t#q=%22Tsardom+of+Moscow%22|%22Moscow+Tsardom%22+-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C+LLC%22&oe=utf-8&safe=on&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&fp=1 1,360 results on google books, the sources that speak about the name of the state during the era in question in Russian history indeed.

Any comments anybody? and please outside input only. It is very clear that some involved editors simply prefer to use "Tsardom of Russia" for whatever reason. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am somewhat confused as to what the issue is... are you saying that editors are in some way inappropriately applying the term "Tsar" to rulers (and "Tsardom" to states) that did not themselves use the term... or where scholars normally apply some other term? Say, for example, to the Grand Dukes/Grand Princes of Moskow prior to Ivan IV? Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Abstract: it has been implied like "Tsardom of Russia" is/was the official name of the state at the time when sources speak about "Tsardom of Moscow/Tsardom of Moscovy".--Termer (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ah, thanks for the clarification... This sounds more like a "naming dispute" than an OR issue... I'll note that according to WP:Article titles we don't necessarily use the "official name", but instead defer to the term most commonly used in reliable english language sources.
 * That said... The problem is that there is an era of Russian History where historians use the terms "Moskovy" and "Russia" synonymously... the terms are used by different historians to refer to the same state during the same era (and in a few cases, individual historians use both terms interchangeably). I would agree that the term "Tsardom" should not be applied to Moskovy until the reign of Ivan IV... but determining when "Moscovy" became "Russia" is a much harder line to draw. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry, it seems I still wasn't clear enough because we're still not on the same page here. Even though this is a part of naming dispute where I agree WP:COMMONNAME should apply ("Tsardom of Moscow/Tsardom of Moscovy" |%22Muscovite+Tsardom%22+-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C+LLC%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t#q=%22Tsardom+of+Muscovy%22|%22Muscovite+Tsardom%22+-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C+LLC%22&oe=utf-8&safe=on&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&fp=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b 1,930/|%22Moscow+Tsardom%22+-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C+LLC%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t#q=%22Tsardom+of+Moscow%22|%22Moscow+Tsardom%22+-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C+LLC%22&oe=utf-8&safe=on&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&fp=1 1,360 vs "Tsardom of Russia" 184 results on google books).


 * The question here however is how the implied "official name" of the state "Tsardom of Russia" (Русское царство) is achieved by the calculation listed above (1+2=3) on the talk page what looks very much like a synthesis of published material to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Additionally in the article there's only one offline source in Russian that can not be verified backing up this "official name".--Termer (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS, it's my understanding that the closest we can get to a "official name", its "Tsardom of Moscow and all Russia" spelled out in a chapter "The Tsardom of Moscou, 1547-1682" in A History of Russia by George Vernadsky, Michael Karpovich, Yale University Press, 1969. --Termer (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you prefer to move in the circle? All of your so-called arguments where already countered in the course of the discussion while you are telling half of the truth here. I invite everyone the check the discussion there. Especially the last argument of Termer is funny because it backs the broader term Tsardom of Russia not less, if not more than Tsardom of Moscow. BTW, if you need an online source of Khoroshkevich, here is one, where she speaks of Российское царство. Do you speak Russian, at all? --Voyevoda (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, it was Vmenkov, not me or "my arguments" that have proved beyond taught what do published sources say about the subject.--Termer (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where exactly does the online article you posted here say the "official name" of the state during the period in Russian history was "Российское царство" (which according to sources provided by Vmenkov can refer to "tsarism" in general or Russian monarchy in general)? Once we have established the "official name" according to the source we can take it further and see if it is a WP:RS. Then we'd need a source published in English saying exactly the same thing. Anything less is unfortunately WP:OR.--Termer (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The official name derives from the title of the Tsar which was introduced to you. Khoroshkevich states the official name in her book.--Voyevoda (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * !--Termer (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * В Вильно «Ивана III упорно именовали князем „Московским“, а страну — „Московским государством“. Долго общаясь с польско-литовскими послами, эту терминологию усвоил и Иван Грозный, хотя официальным названием страны после его венчания на царство в 1547 году стало „Царство Русское“». Хорошкевич, А. Л. Символы русской государственности. -М. :Изд-во МГУ,1993. -96 с. :ил., фот. ISBN 5211025210. Here is some information on Dr. Anna Leonidovna Khoroshkevich as far you speak Russian: . She is a Doctor of historical science at the Institute of Slavic studies of the Russian Academy of Science. --Voyevoda (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, here in a summary of Dr. Khoroshkevich's article "Russia or Muscovy", she once more clearly says that the official title was «Государь всея Руси» and further: "в объектной части титула московских князей при перечислении подвластных земель на первом месте по-прежнему оставалось определение «владимирский»." As we see, no priority for Moscow in the official title of Grand Dukes and Tsars. --Voyevoda (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetical types of biochemistry
The idea of novel biochemistry is old stuff in science fiction and in some essays. Thus, the topic and the article on Hypothetical types of biochemistry are not necessarily ill-conceived. But large parts of the article are simply essays. For example, Hypothetical types of biochemistry is basically a discussion of some chemical facts, implying that somehow these chemical phenomena are or could be the basis of life. Well, this kind of discussion could go on for ever. I could imagine that xyz reaction could be used for replication, etc. So restated factoids and novel views may or might not be valid, but Wikipedia main space is not the place for editors to discuss ideas. This article contains a lot of this kind of essaying.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article has OR problems. I'm not aware of any sci-fi works or academic speculation that has life based on hydrogen fluoride, and an NO2 atmosphere seems too implausible to have played much role in either.  And so on.  Notability doesn't limit content within an article, but due weight does.  On the other hand, if it does exist I wouldn't really expect to be aware of it.  Lots of science fiction contains stuff I find pretty implausible.  So maybe there is a significant body of speculation out there about those chemistries.  The deleted sections certainly need sources, and sound as though they probably won't make the cut after a few people have looked, but in the short term tagging seems like a better response than mass deletion. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article needs more references. I also think that non-fiction references can be found for a lot of the content, given a little effort. Regarding hydrogen fluoride, for instance, it is mentioned as a possible solvent for life in chapter V of Carl Sagan's Cosmos "Perhaps elsewhere some solvent other than water is used. Hydrofluoric acid might serve rather well, although there is not a great deal of fluorine in the Cosmos; hydrofluoric acid would do a great deal of damage to the kind of molecules that make us up, but other organic molecules, paraffin waxes, for example, are perfectly stable in its presence." Also mentioned in the book Extraterrestrial Encounter by Chris Boyce. Boyce cites P.H.A.Sneath as someone who has written about hydrogen fluoride (along with hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen cyanide) as possible solvents for ET life. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Visible penis line
Within the article mentioned in the subject heading there is currently mention that Beau Brummell helped to popularize in the 18th C. a style of gentlemanly dress involving snug-tight breeches at the area of the genitalia. It it has been suggested that such sourced scholarship is original research within the context of an article about [the exact phrase(?)] visible penis line--if not the general subject matter of the visible outline of penises in clothing (I'm a little confused as to the objection, actually). Thoughts?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there is no mention in the article Beau Brummel of him introducing the "snug-tight breeches", which were clearly in fashion years before Brummels birth, only of him introducing clothing pieces that would later evolve into the classical 19th century three-piece suit. Could you quote the cited passage to the Ian Kelly book, please? Does it even mention the term "visible penis line"? --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops! It's at crotch bulge: "Some scholars believe that the tight-crotched, pale trousers of the eighteenth century, such as those introduced by the era's (and subsequent eras') formative arbiter of men's fashion George Brummell, were designed to copy the style of dress in classical statuary and so can be thought of as aligned with the Classical Revival in architecture" (with the reference pointing to the biography, Beau Brummell, page 121, where the quote can be found,  "...tight pale breeches, such as those pioneered by George Brummell, accented the crotch").--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories
There's a section in the article Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories dealing with FOIA requests. None of the sources provided link the information to conspiracy theories, so I (and several other editors) have removed it as WP:SYNTH, but it keeps getting restored by Erroneuz. I'd like some people more experienced with NOR/SYNTH than I am to take a look at it and provide some input. Kevin (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation of book titles from Chinese to English
A user is creating various articles about Chinese books (see, , for instance). However these books have never been published in English language so he gives his own translation of the title. Translation is a form of interpretation, especially when translating from Chinese to English, so I get the feeling this is original research. For instance, he translated "神拳" as "Divine Boxing" which is an acceptable translation, but it could also be, more literally, "The Fist of God" or the "Divine Fist", etc. Also it doesn't feel right that we become the only one source where the book is titled that way. What do you think? Laurent (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Hmmm. I think you probably should raise an WP:RfC on this to get a wide opinion. It looks like it could be the start of a big problem if it isn't dealt with right. There might be something about it already but I don't know of it being dealt with as a general thing. Dmcq (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An rfc would certainly get comments and feedback is generally a Good Thing. My initial feeling is that if Laurent has sufficient skills in Chinese, and the translations are reasonable, there's probably not a problem with it. A solution might be to request that the author of the article provide some alternatives, as Laurent has done above. That's pretty common in academia where a single translation fails to provide sufficient nuance for the foreign terms. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that translation by Wikipedia editors is indeed a form of OR. However, in the hands of a competent translator it may be an acceptable form of OR.  That has to be judged on an article by article (translation by translation) basis.
 * My solution... We could form teams of "translation checkers", made up of editors who are fluent in various non-english languages and would be willing to spend time checking contentious translations.... when editor-translated material is challenged, the working group for the relevant language would be called in to discuss the translation, and either "approve" it (by consensus) or make any necessary corrections. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like a case of "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research." If it's a poor translation, you don't need to invoke OR to get a better translation.  If it turns out that the book has a name in English, that will be a reason to move the article when someone finds that out (again with no need to invoke OR), not a reason to make it difficult to have articles on such things in the first place. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk)

Manipulation of historical data in Jefferson's article
Editor is engaged in highly ideological battles to preserve/maintain the reputation of Jefferson. In this example (by no means the only one), he distorted the facts, adding material not supported by the cited text. In fact, he went so far as to claim the opposite of the text:


 * "Jefferson was reluctant to free his slaves due to his fear of freed blacks living within white society, his dehumanization of black slaves, and his personal financial debt." He changed it to this: "Jefferson was reluctant to free his slaves out of his concern of freed blacks living within white society and his personal financial debt.".

Nowhere does Finkelman say that; Gwhillickers made it up. This makes TJ's behaviour towards slaves look better than it really was. This is part of a systematic effort by this editor to present a whitewashed version of history. Why is Gwhillickers allowed to invent history, distort the facts and get away with it time and time again? This is not the first time on the OR or fringe theory board. I have warned this editor many times about this exact problem. I request an investigation. Ebanony (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This one in isolation sounds like good faith paraphrase, but as a pattern it could be problematic. I haven't really looked into how  dispute resolution is supposed to go, so I'll leave it to others to comment on the idea of an investigation. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (neologism)
Ongoing discussion at the talk page about whether reporting our original observation that a source omits something is or is not OR. See Talk:Santorum_(neologism) Gacurr (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To summarize for those who don't want to plow through the wall of text there: A dictionary of slang widely accepted as highly authoritative does not list a certain word in its lexicon.  However, the introduction to said dictionary does mention the word, citing it as an example of the sort of word that the editors declined to include in the lexicon, and providing a reason for excluding such words.  However, it doesn't explicitly state "We excluded this word." Is it original research to specifically note the absence of the word from the dictionary in a sentence that summarizes and/or quotes the word's use in the dictionary's introduction?
 * The argument that it is not OR is that, in this case, the introduction tells us that the editors of the dictionary considered this particular word, and felt it belonged to a category of word they had chosen not to include, so therefore we can infer with confidence that its absence is intentional and not a mere oversight—and that any educated person with access to the dictionary could verify this and come to the same conclusion. Further, not mentioning its absence from the lexicon, but quoting the introduction, could cause readers to mistakenly assume that the word is listed, when the point to be made is that this dictionary does not consider the word to be a valid slang term. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be dense, but what difference does it make that a particular dictionary does not list a particular word? It ain't like ain't weren't in use before it was listed in a dictionary. But if the introduction of the dictionary says it not a valid slang term, I think you could add that statement. But if they don't say that, I think you're limited to saying what they say, rather than saying that they say they did not include it for reasons X and Y, and thus it is not a valid slang word, since you're be drawing a conclusion. I confess I am confused at what could possibly be meant by "valid slang term". --Nuujinn (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say I blame you; it is somewhat silly. In one edition, The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English mentions the term santorum in its introduction, but not in the lexicon itself.  The introduction's mention is among the few high-quality uses of the term (I would say neologism, but believe it or not that term is controversial applied to santorum, it seems) in a reliable source that isn't related to Senator Rick Santorum's political campaign somehow.  The initial concern was that mentioning the introduction from Partridge, without mentioning that the word is not actually in the lexicon, would mislead readers into thinking that Partridge had given the word some measure of legitimacy.  This then devolved into a disagreement over whether or not mentioning the word's absence from the lexicon was impermissible because it would then constitute original research by saying the word was not listed. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for that situation, my first inclination would be to say that if Partridge says that they didn't not include santorum explicitly, saying that they said it would not be OR. Whatever Partridge said about santorum is what they said, so citing that would be fine. To make any additional judgements beyond what they actually said would likely be OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifically, let's mention the sentence in the Santorum article that Gacurr doesn't agree with:
 * The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English did not list "santorum", but discussed it in the introduction as an example of "deliberate coining", noting: "An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage."
 * Gacurr contends that saying the dictionary *didn't* include the term is original research. However, this fact is easy enough to prove by simply looking, and without that mention, the reader might be led to believe that because the introduction of the dictionary mentions it, that it must be in the dictionary as well. The specific mention of its absence prevents the reader from assuming. -- Avanu (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any particular problems with that paragraph (other than its length and lack of a page number for a direct quote). Going any further than that, particularly if editors were to try to ascribe cause for omitting the word, would be problematic and OR without additional evidence.  But neutrally stating a fact that adds clarity to the article seems like a good idea to me. ElKevbo (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that a dictionary's alphabetic format makes a difference. If all the entries were jumbled around at random, it would require a non-trivial amount of research to determine whether an entry is present or not.  That would be non-permissible under WP:NOR, I think (as it would be non-permissible, for example, if the article stated that Partridge does not use or mention the word).  But thanks to the dictionary format, it is just as easy to cite the specific page that doesn't include an entry as it would be to cite that page if it did include the entry.  IMO such a trivially citable statement cannot possibly rise to the level of OR.  (Which is not to say that it necessarily belongs in the article.) -- Visviva (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So we have two answers:
 * Say what they say and say no more.
 * Say what they do not say.

So what answer is correct for (no) original research with a dictionary? Gacurr (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt there is a universal answer to your question; it depends heavily on context and intent. ElKevbo (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

TM-Sidhi
There has been a discussion regarding a proposal for additional text concerning the TM-Sidhi program and its effect on the country of Mozambique as expressed by its President Joaquim Chissano. Below is the text currently in the article: One editor feels that the article should include other significant points of view on the country's politics and drought even if the sources do not mention the article topic. Other editors feel that this violates WP:OR which says: “Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."
 * Current Text: ''In 1992, President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique learned Transcendental Meditation. Two years later he ordered all military and police recruits to meditate twice a day. Over 16,000 soldiers and 30,000 civilians were taught the TM-Sidhi techniques. When the program was ended in 2001, for "administrative reasons", the Defense Minister said that the country had experienced triple the expected economic growth and crime levels had dropped. Chissano also attributed the signing of the peace treaty with RENAMO in part to the practice of TM in his country.                                                                                                                                                                                                   **Current Sources: Meditation is path to peace, Mozambique leader says|James Astill The Guardian|22 Sept 2001|December 29, 2009 London                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Roach, Mary|The last tourist in Mozambique|alon| December 1, 2000
 * Proposed Text: In October of that year the armed opposition, RENAMO, signed a peace treaty ending a 16-year civil war. Two months later what was described as the worst drought of the century across southeastern Africa ended with heavy rains that also causing flooding and cholera outbreaks.                                                           **Source:  In Southern Africa, Rains' Return Averts Famine| LORCH DONATELLA| New York Times| April 23, 1993|page=A.3
 * Proposed Text: Some commentators say that RENAMO started negotiations because their funding had been cut off by the South African government in 1990. A diplomat serving as the United Nations' special representative said in 1993 that many in the country thought God had ended the drought as a sign of favor over signing the peace treaty.                                                                                                                                                                                              **Source: PEACE RAINS ON MOZAMBIQUE; AFTER YEARS OF WAR, MANY RETURNING HOME WITH GREAT HOPE| Rick Lyman| Philadelphia Inquirer|February 21, 1993|page A.1

What is the opinion of the community on this issue? Thanking you in advance for your participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not up to us to make our own analysis. I have no time for TM silliness but if you can't find something that references TM or what the minister said more clearly I think the article is better off without people adding their own speculations about it. Dmcq (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm the "other editor" in question, perhaps the only non-TM movement editor working on the topic now. The issue in question is whether TM caused an end to a civil war and a drought. One person says that it did. To use an analogy, that person is saying the "ball is blue". Other commentators say that there were other, unrelated causes for the ending of the civil war and the drought, in effect saying that the "ball is red". If a ball is red then it is not blue, so the implicit message of their views is that the "ball is not blue". This would be the equivalent of writing that "Smith says that Jones committed the crime, but Steinberg says it was committed by someone else". If it was committed by someone else then it wasn't committed by Jones. It isn't original research to add that point of view to an article about Jones.   Will Beback    talk    19:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They're not saying it has ended a war. They're saying that minister said it which is perfectly correct and notable too. That's really about the best one can do without some sort of source either specifically saying something they said is wrong or about TM. Something two months later than anything he talked about is not relevant. Some commentators conjectures about why the war ended is nowhere good enough. Dmcq (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your point. Everyone is conjecturing. Often, later conjectures are based on more information, though I'm not sure that's an issue here.
 * As for the original statement, the then-President of Mozambique, Joaquim Chissano said that TM may have led to an end to the war and the the drought. FWIW, Chissano was an avid practitioner of TM. His children and those of his cabinet members received scholarships to a TM university in Iowa at about the same time he was making these statements. So he is clearly a partisan source who had entanglements with the movement. Giving just one theory about a topic on which there are many theories seems like a violation of NPOV.   Will Beback    talk    20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about TM, not about Mozambique. Anything in the article should be about TM or very closely related to something about it. If you can find someone else talking about this minister's statements or saying some statement is wrong in t is wrong then fair enough. Otherwise just attributing the statement is correct. The theory is not Mozambique, it is TM. Original research by users to discredit things they don't like is not reasonable. You need a reliable source. These are not reliable sources for your argument. They don't make anything like your argument or refer to the ministers speech or anything in it. What you are trying to do is synthesis. I can see it bothers you. Sorry but we don't allow user's own arguments. That is what this policy is about. You just have to live with it if you can't find some source. Dmcq (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I see WikiProject Rational Skepticism has an interest in TM. Someone there might be able to help find a better source as they'll know what is requires. You could give them a call. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Dmcq (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. While we have your attention let me ask a related question. In the context of summarizing Chissano's claim that TM led to the end of the civil war and the drought, is it original research to note that his children were getting free tuition at the TM university, and his other financial connections to the TM movement? We have at least one source that mentions together the civil war claim and one of the financial issues. Or must we remain silent on factors that could call his judgment or impartiality into question?   Will Beback    talk    22:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Something talking about the TM claims for ending the war and financial problems sounds eminently suitable and is the sort of thing you need if it ties them together in some way. It could also possibly be used to justify including the business about the children and the TM university as well. Otherwise the business of the children would be just drawing inferences without a source. Personally I'd consider a persons judgement impaired if they said that about TM and didn't get some sort of comeback, but then there's plenty of religious people in the world and they are not normally considered crackpots. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is a source that calls Chissano's statement about the TM-Sidhi program into question because his children went to a "TM University" then we can accurately reflect that reliable source. But we don't make that conclusion on our own by stringing together facts from different sources. To do so violates OR and NPOV  in my opinion.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

SUMMARY:  It appears that two involved editors (Keithbob and Uncreated)plus one uninvolved editor (Dmcq) feel the proposed text and sources cited in this thread violate WP:OR and only one involved editor (Will Beback) feels otherwise. Thank you to all who participated in the discussion. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it'd be better if uninvolved editors do the summarizing. You seem to be phrasing this summary to get the answer you were looking for while ignoring other issues.      Will Beback    talk    20:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

OR vandalism on Ottoman Algeria related pages
Hello,

Some IP's are editing Ottoman Algeria related articles by Nationalistic/OR editing, by replacing all the information related to the Ottoman vilayet of Algiers with OR information stating that it was an independent kingdom :. Can an admin make an "autoconfirmed" protection on these articles or intervene by any way?

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Omar-Toons (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is discussed on ANI since one of the cited IPs blanked this request previously.
 * Omar-Toons (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple
This article is about an ancient building which the Bible says to have been in Jerusalem before the 6th century BCE. As the article says, the Bible is the only direct evidence for the existence of the building. Naturally there are arguments between archaeologists over whether the Bible story is plausible, and that would be a fair topic for the article. My complaint is that user Xtraeme wants to add a paragraph based on a National Geographic article that does not mention Solomon's Temple at all. It concerns, for example, a copper mine distant from Jerusalem that has been dated to the same period as the Biblical account of the temple. My view is that this is Original Research unless the source makes the connection to the temple, which it doesn't. The paragraph in question and some discussion is at Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive 2. Zerotalk 09:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree. What is needed is a source that directly connects the mines to the Temple (or at least directly to King Solomon). Without such a source, discussing the mines in an article about the Temple is just as irrelevant (and OR) as discussing an archaeological discovery in England or Peru that dates to the same period. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OR is "research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." The earlier publication material here is a biblical source (which is the primary source for the article I might add). The original source calls for roughly 3410 metric tons of copper for the altar (2 Chronicles 4). Recent archaeological findings by Levy   place such a mine in the area in the same time frame. I'm not exactly sure what's "original" or "new research" about any of what I'm saying. All I've done is place two well established and citable facts next to each other to give a summary of a very obvious correlation.  From the National Geographic article:  "But when Levy started probing the site known as Khirbat en Nahas (Arabic for "ruins of copper"), the samples he sent off to Oxford for radiocarbon dating confirmed that Glueck had been on the right track: This was a tenth-century copper-production site —and, Levy adds pointedly, "the closest copper source to Jerusalem."  As described in the opener to the Wikipedia article,  "According to the Hebrew Bible, the temple was constructed under Solomon, king of the Israelites. This would date its construction to the 10th century BCE ,[1] but it is possible that the temple continued an earlier Jebusite sanctuary predating the Israelite conquest of Jerusalem.[2] During the kingdom of Judah, the temple was dedicated to Yahweh, the God of Israel and housed the Ark of the Covenant.[3]"  And as the National Geographic article continues,  "The very existence of a large mining and smelting operation fully two centuries before Finkelstein's camp maintains the Edomites emerged would imply complex economic activity at the exact time that David and Solomon reigned . "  There's nothing new here that hasn't already been implied and written about in the Nat-Geo article.   --Xtraeme (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point... both the mention of the mine, and the source would be perfectly appropriate in a broadly focused article about Archaeology of ancient Israel or even a more tightly focused on Archaeology of the Solomaic era (or something like that)... but, to mention it in a narrowly defined article, one specifically focused on the Temple, we need a source that connects this specific mine directly (and not indirectly) to the Temple itself. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * RE: "we need a source that connects this specific mine directly (and not indirectly) to the Temple itself." I don't know how to make this simpler. The University of California San Diego editorial is titled " King Solomon's  Copper Mines?" Did you yourself not state, "What is needed is a source that directly connects the mines to the Temple (or at least directly to King Solomon)"? Or are we moving the goalpost? The implication is there in the Nat-Geo article, it's been established. King Solomon is known primarily for his temple. The article has a section titled, "Related Archaeological Facts." The research (not my interpretation) substantiates correct period (10th century BCE), correlation to purported location (as Nat-Geo writes, "Levy adds pointedly, "the closest copper source to Jerusalem"), and usage ("The very existence of a large mining and smelting operation fully two centuries before Finkelstein's camp maintains the Edomites emerged would imply complex economic activity at the exact time that David and Solomon reigned."). All of this relevant since the current Solomon's Temple article is primarily written from the POV of Finkelstein. The fact that modern research shows counter evidence is noteworthy and NPOV. Removing the contents is antithetical to the wikipedia mission statement, "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Thanks for your time. --Xtraeme (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't make the jump. You have a source that says that a certain amount of copper was used to make an altar in the temple (A), and a source that says that a copper mine from the period of Solomon has been found (B, but you're linking them to form a conclusion. That's WP:SYNTH. Also, I note that the source say explicitly: "Future research at Khirbat en-Nahas, Levy said, will focus on who actually controlled the copper industry there – Kings David and Solomon or perhaps regional Edomite leaders (who had not been written about in the biblical texts)", which does not directly link the mine to Solomon--the most that could source is that the question exists. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that some mines exist from the period is not more relevant than the existence of quarries or forests or any of the other things that would be needed to make a temple if one existed. As far as I can see no direct evidence exists that a person called "Solomon" controlled or used these mines let alone drew on them to make a particular building. All you have is speculation linking them to a figure everyione has heard of. It makes good copy to popularise archaeology, but that's all. There is no source saying these mines were used to make this thing. Paul B (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * re:Also, I note that the source say explicitly: "Future research at Khirbat en-Nahas, Levy said, will focus on who actually controlled the copper industry there – Kings David and Solomon or perhaps regional Edomite leaders (who had not been written about in the biblical texts)", which does not directly link the mine to Solomon--the most that could source is that the question exists. The Nat-Geo article addresses this, "The very existence of a large mining and smelting operation fully two centuries before Finkelstein's camp maintains the Edomites emerged..." This would seem to offer a more definitive statement on the issue. However this is all tertiary to the main point. Please read this carefully, "The very existence of a large mining and smelting operation fully two centuries before Finkelstein's camp maintains the Edomites emerged would imply complex economic activity at the exact time that David and Solomon reigned." Solomon is known for one major thing -- a temple. Ergo the implication here is that the "large mining and smelting operation" is in relation to such an operation. The article does not state that this is conclusive fact. I don't assert this as fact either. This is why I correctly state in the paragraph that further research is being funded. To remove a "related archaeological" finding from a section titled "Related archeological artifacts" is POV. If the subheading was perhaps relabeled "direct and verified archaeological artifacts" the argument might be more tenable. However as it stands it is related; correlated to King Solomon (by the authors respectively, in the title no less); and published in two large journals. --Xtraeme (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Listening very careful I hear that "ergo", and that's the problem--you are the one linking the temple to the copper mines, not the source. That's OR. And I think it's appropriate to say that Solomon is known for more than just the temple. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Ergo the implication here - no, there is no such implication. Perhaps it was for making gifts to give to his many concubines, or the queen of Sheba. I fail to see how this is even relevant to the article. All Finkelstein is used for is the suggestion that the design followed Phoenician models. How does the mine challenge that in any way? How is it relevant at all? Paul B (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So if we have an article by the University of California San Diego titled "King Solomon's Copper Mines?" and then a narrative that explores the details of this. What other things is Solomon known for building? I ask in earnest. --Xtraeme (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibility #1 provided by Paul B: "Perhaps it was for making gifts to give to his many concubines..." (citation needed)
 * Are you serious? It was the bronze age. Copper was the basic metal used for weapons, tools, and pretty much everything. Paul B (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From the editorial" Mining trails and mines abound. The size argues for industrial-scale production at Khirbat en-Nahas, Levy explained." That hints at something larger than mere weaponry and tool making. I believe this is further detailed in the Nat-Geo article. Let me go check it. Otherwise I might accept this as a good enough answer for now. Xtraeme (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much the same thing in the Nat-Geo article, "This place was hell," says Tom Levy cheerfully as he stands over an open pit filled with ancient coal-black slag. Sprawling around him and his volunteer undergraduates from the University of California, San Diego is a 25-acre copper production site—and adjacent to it, a large fortress complex that includes the ruins of 3,000-year-old guardhouses. Apparently the sentinels lived practically on top of the smelting operations, while overseeing a presumably reluctant labor force. "When you have industrial production of this scale, you have to have a procurement system for food and water," Levy continues. "I can't prove it, but I think that the only people that are going to be working in this rather miserable environment are either slaves—or undergrads. The point is, simple tribal societies couldn't do something like this." Which still seems to hint at some larger scale operation. Xtraeme (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A large scale operation does not imply a single project at all. Copper was the basic metal used for both decorative ansd practical purposes. It was also a valuable trading commodity. There is simply no logic to your argument that a large scale operation has to be for a single project. Paul B (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibility #1: "Perhaps it was for making gifts to give to his many concubines..." (citation needed)
 * I don't need to cite something I don't intend to put in the article do I? Paul B (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to hold it up as a possible explanation it should be based on more than random speculation when we're trying to identify what the mines could be used for based on current knowledge. Xtraeme (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...we're trying to identify what the mines could be used for based on current knowledge'. No, we're not. We are trying to write a comprehensive encyclopedia, we are not supposed to engage in original research. If you want to do that, by all means do so, but you cannot do it here. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nearly every article on WP has synthesis. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Conjoining two sentences with new wording that isn't explicitly in the original source is in and of itself synthesis. Perhaps writing a letter to Dr. Levy to him to get him to make a statement would resolve the conflict. This way it can based on something authoritative. Xtraeme (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A letter wouldn't be good enough, he should get it published. Better yet would be if it was peer reviewed. Dmcq (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Email's away. It'll be interesting to hear his thoughts and whether his intention was to imply if there was correlation of the usage of "King Solomon's copper mines" (in the title) for an "industrial production" of "10th Century BCE" copper artifacts near "Jerusalem" could have or likely would have been used to manufacture a 382.3 cubic meters copper altar detailed in a primary ancient text describing "King Solomon"'s temple which was purported to be built somewhere in the vicinity of "Jerusalem" in "10th Century BCE." Since all of these quoted words are used in his articles discussing the site. I'll be surprised if he expects people to think he was intending something different. --Xtraeme (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:IDHT. Interesting, perhaps, useful, no. As Dmcq suggested, a letter or email is insufficient for what you want to do. Obtaining same and trying to use it here is OR. If the good doctor publishes his opinion in a reliable source, then we can use it. And claiming that WP is full of SYNTH does not justify addition of more SYNTH. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, got some feedback. It appears NOVA and National Geographic aired a special on November 23, 2010 titled "Quest for Solomon's Mines." At 22:33 here's the commentary, Narrator: The size of the slag heaps indicates that over its lifetime the site produced 5000 tons of copper. Enough to supply copper to the entire region. Isotope analysis of copper objects from sites all over ancient israel has proved that they came from the Wadi Faynan area.  Amihai Mazar: Right now in Israel metallurgical study of copper objects that were found in contexts of ... late 11th century BC were proven to originate from Faynan.  Narrator: Perhaps this copper even reached Jerusalem. Where Solomon built his temple.  Thomas Levy: The bible tells us that the temple would require precious metals including tons of copper. And the closest source of copper for Jerusalem, it's about a three day ride from here, is this area of Faynan."     --Xtraeme (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant discussion clearly states that the mine produced huge amounts of copper which could have been used for any number of purposes of a long period. This completely contradicts your claim that the existence of the mine is somehow evidence of the temple. It is not evidence of anything other than the fact that it was the bronze age and copper was mined for widespread use. Since no-one disputes that copper existed and could be sourced from various places I still fail to see why this is relevant to the article. Indeed the passage you quote clearly says that copper could be sourced from elsewhere. In other words if Solomon wanted copper he could get it from several places, but this happens to be the nearest one currently known. I am at a loss why you think it somehow challenges Finkelstein's views as expressed in the article, who is only quoted to say that the temple may have been based on Phoenecian designs. At most a sentence could be added saying that this is the nearest known source of copper. It might also be useful if the nearest known sources of other materials could be identified, but this is all that is stated. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The conversation we've been having was to establish whether Levy and National Geo were implying anything about the Temple. That's been established. Everything else you've added is your own personal innuendo. The details about Finkelstein are largely taken from Nat-Geo's article published in December of 2010 titled, "The Search for King David." I've already sourced the article. So if you have a bone to pick it's best for you to take it up with the journal. I'm simply adding the relevant commentary, which is citable, NPOV, no synth, and lacking in anything OR. Thanks for your thoughts. --Xtraeme (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The most you can source to Levy and National Geo is that Levy believes that the bible suggests that a lot of copper would be needed to build the temple, and that the site he is working is about three days ride away from Jerusalem. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, everything else I have added is about your actual edits to the article. This is not the RS board, it is the NOR board. Your edits - not my "innuendo" - listed a load of largely irrelevant stuff about radio carbon dating and concluded with a line that this evidence "has put "[Israel] Finkelstein's theory ... under siege." But this article is about Solomon's Temple. The only theory of Finkelstein's quoted in the article is that the design was based of Phoenician models. This is the third time I have pointed this out and you have consistently evaded responding to this point. How does this evidence in any way contradict what Finkeelstein says? It is merely evidence that copper was available, which no one has ever doubted. Paul B (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Narrator: Perhaps this copper even reached Jerusalem. Where Solomon built his temple. Thomas Levy: The bible tells us that the temple would require precious metals including tons of copper. And the closest source of copper for Jerusalem, it's about a three day ride from here, is this area of Faynan.  Amihai Mazar: I believe that if, one day, we should find the copper objects from the temple in Jerusalem, it will prove to come from this area. " ... Um no. Nice try though. --Xtraeme (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds better, please note that you did not post that quote from Mazar above. So at this point, you can say that Mazar believes that if, one day, copper from the Temple is found, it will be shown to have some from the site. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up from me. All I've done is take the above citation and add it in to the article next to Levy's comment. The original wording was an attempt to express it in such a way that the mine was a potential lead. I've included the full quote from the Nat-Geo/PBS special (in the ref tag) so people can draw their own conclusions. Appreciate your time and help in coming to a resolution on the matter. :) --Xtraeme (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "All I've done is take the above citation and add it in to the article next to Levy's comment." Please do not be disingenuous. You restored a long paragraph of irrelevancies that ended with the claim that "Finkelstein's theory" was challenged. This discussion is about that paragraph. But there is no theory to be challenged discussed in the article. Sure, his "minimalist" theories are discussed in other articles, but not in this one, in which the only theory presented is the influence of Pheonician design. This whole paragraph is WP:SYN with regard to the topic of the article. Paul B (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We were having a very long conversation about a specific point. That is whether Levy and Nat-Geo were discussing anything about Solomon's Mine in relation to the temple. Once we come to some form of resolution. You then go in to the article and remove the entire section and all the citations from Nat-Geo and UC San Diego? The Nat-Geo article discussed Finkelstein's theory (that is: his description of 10th century BCE Jerusalem, the period associated with the biblical kings David and Solomon, as a mere village or tribal center.,(cf. Tel Aviv University. Digging Biblical History At 'The End Of The World'. ScienceDaily 2007-11-21. retrieved 2007-11-30.; and: Miller, Laura King David was a nebbish Salon. 2001-02-07 retrieved 2007-11-30)). Draper, of Nat-Geo, pointed out that Mazar, Levy, and other findings may throw in to question whether that theory is as tenable. This is NPOV and relevant. If you'd like to start an edit war I will seek a post ban against you. --Xtraeme (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, stop being dishonest. This discussion was initiated because you restored a paragraph which had been raised on the article talk page. The content of that paragraph as a whole was at issue. This is the NOR board. I did not remocve the entire section. That is false and you know it. You have now behaved in an outrageous fashion by reverting my entirely legitimate edit as "vandalism". That is totally unacceptable. There is no discussion of Finkelstein's theory of the size of Jerusalem in the Solomon's Temple article. The only theory of his mentioned is that the temple design was based on Phoenician models. This is the fifth time I have pointed this out and you have evaded the point once more, after changing your argument entirely during this discussion without acknowledging the fact. I would welcome your raising my edit anywehere you want to. There is no point in having a paragraph debating a theory that has not even been expressed in the article. I wonder if you have even read the article under discussion. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only one being dishonest here is you. To claim you're acting in good faith when you've removed citations: * The original piece by Dr. Levy from UC San Diego discussing "Solomon's Mines" being dated to the period and being the closest source to Jerusalem, which is then commented on as possibly relating to Solomon's temple ...  Is pretty questionable. Now that we're done discussing the original OR contestation -- having illustrated that Nat-Geo, Levy, and that Amihai Mazar all were drawing a parallel to the historical text the entire article and temple derive from. Lets address your completely and altogether different contentions (hopefully this time we can stay focused):  a) "Indeed the passage you quote clearly says that copper could be sourced from elsewhere."  b) "How does this evidence [of the mine's being dated to 10th century bc] in any way contradict what Finkeelstein (sp?) says? It is merely evidence that copper was available, which no one has ever doubted."  c) "There is no point in having a paragraph debating a theory that has not even been expressed in the article."  d) "This whole paragraph is WP:SYN with regard to the topic of the article."  First (a) is unsupported and doesn't exist outside your unexpert conjecture. In fact the current commentary runs contrary to this statement, "The size of the slag heaps indicates that, over its lifetime, the site produced 5,000 tons of copper, enough to supply copper to the entire region. Isotope analysis of copper objects from sites all over ancient Israel has proved that they came from the Wadi Feynan area. " (cf. NOVA/Nat-Geo 2010, @22:30) Show me a citation from a reputable source that suggests "copper could be sourced from elsewhere."  Second (b) "How does this evidence [of the mine's being dated to 10th century BCE] in any way contradict what Finkeelstein (sp?) says?"  If you had read the sources you would have realized,  '"Now," said Levy, director of the Levantine Archaeology Lab at UCSD and associate director of the new Center of Interdisciplinary Science for Art, Architecture and Archaeology (CISA3), "with data from the first large-scale stratified and systematic excavation of a site in the southern Levant to focus specifically on the role of metallurgy in Edom, we have evidence that complex societies were indeed active in 10th and 9th centuries BCE and that brings us back to the debate about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible narratives related to this period.""' (UC San Diego, 2008)  "Now it is Finkelstein's theory that is under siege. On the heels of Mazar's claim to have discovered King David's palace, two other archaeologists have unveiled remarkable finds. Twenty miles southwest of Jerusalem in the Elah Valley—the very spot where the Bible says the young shepherd David slew Goliath—Hebrew University professor Yosef Garfinkel claims to have unearthed the first corner of a Judaean city dating to the exact time that David reigned. Meanwhile, 30 miles south of the Dead Sea in Jordan, a University of California, San Diego professor named Thomas Levy has spent the past eight years excavating a vast copper-smelting operation at Khirbat en Nahas. Levy dates one of the biggest periods of copper production at the site to the tenth century B.C.—which, according to the biblical narrative, is when David's antagonists the Edomites dwelled in this region. (However, scholars like Finkelstein maintain that Edom did not emerge until two centuries later.) The very existence of a large mining and smelting operation fully two centuries before Finkelstein's camp maintains the Edomites emerged would imply complex economic activity at the exact time that David and Solomon reigned. "It's possible that this belonged to David and Solomon," Levy says of his discovery. "I mean, the scale of metal production here is that of an ancient state or kingdom."" (Draper, 2010)  Nat-Geo's Draper makes the point not me. Your opinion as to whether or not this rebuts Finkelstein's theory is WP:SYN and OR. Which as we've established isn't acceptable on WP.  Third (c) your five repetitions that "The only theory of his mentioned is that the temple design was based on Phoenician models" is irrelevant. Finkelstein's primary thesis (as fingered by Draper) has everything to do with the 10th century BCE and Solomon. Seeing as how "Solomon's Temple" is dated to this period and Finkelstein's theory argues the "biblical kings David and Solomon, as a mere village or tribal center" (cf. Tel Aviv University. Digging Biblical History At 'The End Of The World'. ScienceDaily 2007-11-21. retrieved 2007-11-30.; and: Miller, Laura King David was a nebbish Salon. 2001-02-07 retrieved 2007-11-30) then this is a statement about Solomon's accomplishments as it rebuts the possibility of such a structure like the temple. The evidence as it stands runs counter to this. This is again Draper and Levy's commentary. Your opinion of what is relevant has no bearing here.  Fourth (d) "This whole paragraph is WP:SYN with regard to the topic of the article."  As it stands your edits and behavior are reductio ad absurdum. Please tell me when did Nelson Glueck "excavate" a site known as Khirbat en Nahas? This was your last edit to the article, no? I'll answer that for you. It didn't happen. That was Levy. Glueck simply identified the site. Furthermore you removed all the content that identifies periodization, counter arguments, and primary texts in favor of conjecture and personal innuendo. But this is all a part of your good faith "entirely legitimate edits," no?  For the time being we'll leave the edits as you currently have them in favor of some compromise. Perhaps if you would like to change the wording of "Finkelstein's theory is under siege" to something like, "His minimalistic theories of 10th century BCE are being challenged by new findings." That would be fine. We can just cite it to Draper since he's the one who made the claim that "Now it is Finkelstein's theory that is under siege." However if over the next week you can't come up with a wording to re-add the sources you pulled and the argumentation that exists against Finkelstein's theory I will revert your modifications. --Xtraeme (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Leuren K Moret
The article on Leuren K Moret is substantially inaccurate. My attempts to correct this have fallen into the "No Original Research" rule. I posted copy of a letter I received in response to a California Public Records Act request to the Internet Archive. This letter proves the actual job and duration of employment that Moret had at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and is an "original source document". It should carry more weight that Moret stating that she worked at Livermore for two years and in some variants that she was a "nuclear scientist"

http://www.archive.org/details/LeurenKMoret-RealJobAtLawrenceLivermoreNationalLaboratory Leuren K Moret often asserts that she was a "nuclear scientist" at two DOE National Laboratories. This letter, obtained from the University of California operated Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under the California Public Records Act shows that Moret was not a "scientist" and worked very briefly at the Laboratory. Moret was a Senior Scientific Technologist in the Center for Applied Scientific Computing for less than a year from 1989 to 1990. Moret also claims to have been trained in radiation detection by Manhattan Project Scientist Marion Fulk. Fulk's employment from 1964 to 1984, a normal 20 year career, as a Chemist at the Laboratory is also addressed in this letter. Moret never worked with Fulk either since Fulk retired in 1984, five years before Moret began work at the Lab. (I have since learned that Fulk worked at the University of Chicago in some capacity from 1945-1947; this may have had some connection to the Manhattan Project, but it is still very unlikely that newly graduated Mr Fulk was a "Manhattan Project Scientist")

The article begins with calling Moret a "Geoscientist". Moret has a BS in Geology and no known work experience as a Geologist in any capacity. She has no peer reviewed published papers in Geology. She has co-authorship of three papers derived from the doctoral research of two other graduate students who now are past Departmental Chairs at major universities. One of them advised that he gave Moret the co-authorship because she operated the differential scanning calorimeter that contributed essential data for his research and he advised that this role as a "technician" was repeated for the other doctoral candidate's research.

I am concerned because Moret is using Wikipedia to advance her false claims that the University of Alaska HAARP Research Facility is being used as a tectonic weapon to cause earthquakes such as the ones in Haiti, Chile and Japan. Moret uses her "verified by Wikipedia" to be a Geoscientist to make this and other claims. She has never performed any scientific research into the causes of earthquakes and knows nothing about radio frequency radiation.

I first ran afoul of Moret when I noted that she was to speak as a whistleblower at a Berkeley bookstore in the summer of 2005. I sent them an e-mail questioning Moret's being a whistleblower since she is not and her speaking there. Moret claimed in e-mails that I had been thrown out of the bookstore. I never was there. I was with my wife and daughter at a grief therapy session more than ten miles away. That is my first first-hand experience with Moret's failure to tell the truth. Anyone who carefully examines her voluminous internet articles, YouTube videos, internet radio interviews, etc. will also quickly conclude that Moret is a pseudoscientist charlatan con artist. Wikipedia should not advance the cause of such a person. I welcome contact with all. I now have copies of all three of the co-author papers, e-mails and documents I obtained from the Berkeley City Clerk pertaining to Moret's service as one the nine members of the Community Environmental Advisory Commission and her removal for failure to attend sufficient meetings and other correspondence.

Roger Rhotel1 (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia isn't here to advance the cause of any person. What I'm not seeing here is that this person is notable enough for an article. Notions of deliberate causing of earthquakes are what we call "extraordinary claims" and would call for extraordinary sourcing, but this article is poorly sourced. The onus is on people who wish to include material on his person and her claims to show that they have good sources for every statement. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just seen that it has gone through 4 AfDs. I didn't see a great consensus to keep, or really any very good reasons to keep. I am going to raise the issue at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, as I think it will get wider community attention there. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Walam Olum
I am arguing on the talk page that sources need to actually discuss the subject of an article, but am being ignored by the IP originally inserting the material. I don't want to hit 3RR and a mysterious IP has suddenly shown up to avoid the original editor hitting 3RR. The subject of the article is a 19th century document claimed to be a translation of a Native American document but almost undoubtedly a hoax. I hsve no reason to think that " Gerald Vizenor wrote in 1994 that "Native American Indian literatures have been overburdened with critical interpretations based on structuralism and other social science theories that value incoherent foundational representations of tribal experiences." isn't an accurate quote from The Ruins of Representation. Shadow Survivance and the Literature of Dominance. American Indian Quarterly. Volume 17. Winter 1993., but it's a general statement and the IP makes no effort to suggest it's discussing the Walum Olum. I've had amazing problems with this editor in the past and given his use of IP addresses (he used to editor under a named account) am not likely on my own to do much about this (there's another issue there I'm taking to RSN, the use of a writer whoses expertise seems to be the role of American Indians in the media, sports etc as a commentator on this document). Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

European Monitoring Centre Review on Needle Exchange
I believe that two editors are inserting their own private surmises into the Needle-exchange programme page and elevating these surmises over the clear and direct statements of an authoritative publication I have cited on that page. I am concerned that they are trying to sanitize for Wikipedia readers the impact of a recent review on needle exchange effectiveness which found serious errors in previous important reviews which nullifies their claim to demonstrated effectiveness.

The publication I have cited is the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction here which published a 2010 Monograph on Harm Reduction here. Chapter 5 deals with the evidence for the effectiveness of needle exchanges in preventing HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C transmission via a review of reviews by Norah Palmateer and colleagues, who also published a very similar review of reviews in Addiction at the same time. The Palmateer review of reviews describes their method. . . "Selected reviews were critically appraised using a tool that considers the rigour of the methods used to identify the relevant literature, the appraisal of the primary literature, the quality of the analysis in the case of meta-analysis, and the appropriateness of the conclusions (Kelly et al., 2002; Palmateer et al., 2010). Reviews rated 1 or 2 were included as high-quality (‘core’) reviews. Reviews rated 3 were retained as ‘supplementary’, not considered to be of sufficient quality to rely on the author’s conclusions but viewed as providing complementary information on the effectiveness of the interventions.” They then state which reviews were considered ‘core’ . . . "Evidence of the effects of NSPs on HIV incidence/prevalence was considered in four core reviews (Gibson et al., 2001; Käll et al., 2007; Tilson et al., 2007; Wodak and Cooney, 2004), which included a total of 18 primary studies with HIV incidence or prevalence outcomes."

The two aforementioned editors that have prompted my concerns here then disparage the most damaging review by Käll et al by claiming that Palmateer et al considers it to be of 'poor quality'. The text, to which they have interpolated their criticisms now reads “The two 2010 Palmateer et al 'review of reviews' scrutinised previous formal reviews of needle exchange studies and after critical appraisal four reviews met the inclution criterias, where three where deemed to be of good quality (Gibson et al., 2001; Tilson et al., 2007; Wodak and Cooney, 2004) while one was of poor quality (Käll et al., 2007). ” To back this claim the two editors reverting my text cite an obscure paragraph on page 127 of the Palmateer study, which says “The United Kingdom National Institute for Clinical Excellence’ review of optimal NSP service delivery (Jones et al., 2008) included a review of reviews component on HIV prevention that evaluated the four reviews considered above. Consistent with our assessment, they concluded: ‘There is evidence from two good-quality systematic reviews [Wodak and Cooney, 2004; Gibson et al., 2001] to support the effectiveness of NSPs in reducing HIV infection among IDUs. However, findings from two other systematic reviews [Tilson et al., 2007; Käll et al., 2007], including one good quality review [Tilson et al., 2007], suggest that the evidence may be less convincing.’”here.

From this they construct their view of supposed ‘poor quality’, despite Palmateer specifically saying that ‘core’ studies only have sufficient rigour. My observation is that the judgment, ‘poor quality’, is never stated by Palmateer of the Käll et al review, and that these editors have to argue from silence to make their conclusion. My belief is that arguments from silence, and creating judgments that clash with the clear words of the cited source is Original Research. Interested in other views. Minphie (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Seamus Blake
Hi,

My name is Dan Blake and I am Seamus Blake's father. I recently came across a Wikipedia entry for my son, who is a professional saxophone player. The basic information is factually correct. However, the entry had been identified as one lacking acceptable citations. Following your directions I entered a citation for the biographical information and a second citation for the reference to the Monk Competition. I hope this meets your requirements.

I also made some minor changes to the text, but did not alter any facts. Finally, I updated the discography. I'm not clear what constitutes a citation for the discography, so I listed the websites for the record companies which produced the CDs.

I am anxious to expand the entry and would appreciate any direction you can provide.

Dan Blake


 * The citations have been added in an incorrect format, but it looks as though the article is undergoing copy-editing, so they should be corrected soon. I think you should wait a dew days before adding any more material. Paul B (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Done now, I added a couple of references, reformatted, did some copy edits and added a bit. Dan Blake, I think adding non-controversial material directly would be fine, as long as you have reliable sources but if you are the least bit uncertain, it is good practice to post a note to the article's talk page about what you'd like to change or add. See WP:COI for some additional information regarding conflict of interest issues. I added a welcome banner with some useful links to your talk page, welcome aboard! --Nuujinn (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

InfinityDB
At first look, this article appears to be advertisement, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. That being said, it only has two referenced sourced, neither of which mention the subject matter in any way. Should it be labeled as SPAM, NOR, or NPV?

74.93.193.189 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

George Seldes
Please see the latest updates to George Seldes by Rgoldfilm, one of which carries this edit note:


 * Beefed up acts in Soviet Union section; added facts and quotes in the "In Fact" section. All quotes were from videotaped interviews I conducted in the course of making my film, Tell the Truth and Run.

Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

2010s in music
This article has a lot of possible original research. Does calling certain musical acts and genres "Popular" indicate original research?


 * Every single existing Wikipedia article about films is original research, you cannot get away from contributing original research to Wikipedia in certain articles. If Wikipedia wants to quibble over the original research articles on films I could always offer extensive quotes from my "Films and Filming" magazine collections. Lung salad (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is opens an interesting can of worms. On the one hand, the prohibitions against POV and OR are what make Wikipedia a more reliable and balanced source of information than, say, your average blog or LiveJournal page, and I support editors who say if you want to crank up 'n' glorify your precious personal opinions on stuff like movies and music, there are plenty of other venues for it. If I didn't agree with Wikipedia's Verifiablity Über Alles, I wouldn't be here.

On the other hand, there are some types of information where it's much more difficult to try to expunge all biases than others. Anything interpretive, for instance. And not just in the realm of art criticism (where it's all glorified opinion, anyway), but in scholarly disciplines like history and literature. Academic fashions come and go; although e.g. deconstructionism/post-structuralism has been fading fast from American universities for the past decade, there's still tons of it out there (not to mention a crop of adults who went to school during its reign in the 80s-90s) which will continue to inform the sources of someone like myself who would love to write/edit articles about postwar American fiction.

But me, I agree with (one of my heroes) David Foster Wallace: I think rumors of The Death of the Author are greatly exaggerated ... And yet Barthes and Derrida are still the order of the day if I want to put something up about him or Don DeLillo or William Gaddis or my main man Thomas Pynchon. Unless I don't mind seeing my sturdy, pre-postmodern 70s sources continually "updated" with ideas currently stuffing the university stacks they happen not to teach anymore.

There are two general ways to write about movies or popular music. The much more Wikipedia-friendly way is not at all to try to be an art critic, but rather to take a cultural studies perspective and focus (like most published pop music critics) on the music's social impact. I mean, does it really matter what sorts of chord progressions, meters or song forms Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber use? Of course not; their notability doesn't at all revolve around anything verging on the precincts of the aesthetic. It's very easy to source comments on the impact and social influence of music like that. In fact, taking Wikipedia's Notability guidelines straight-no-chaser for pop music leads one to the inescapable conclusion that, with everything else being mere gusts of vaporous self-interested opinion, the most significant criterion for Wiki-worthiness is chart position.

Of course this is a straw man; not even the most rigid-minded defender of Wikipedian values would argue against Wikipedia as an invaluable source of information on obscure, commercially unviable music provided, of course, the information is properly sourced. Ever hear of Miriodor? I didn't think so. They're a fantastic French Canadian RIO band, supported by the country's art councils, and they've taken America by storm at progfests. Their reviews on AllMusic are great. And the Wiki article's a stub "which you can improve by adding to it." That always makes me chuckle. Really? After you've stated the basics, established their notability, listed your sources (and the article is unflagged) what do you do for an encore? Even if I could translate the French reviews, we really aren't supposed to pad articles with extensive source quotes for copyright reasons. And why would I want to? I have an ear, a knowledge of music analysis and a whole library of similar complex progrock in my head. I could write a couple bang-on paragraphs describing the music (because with Miriodor, it does matter what sorts of time signatures and structural devices they use) and comparing it to like-minded progrock in a language that would be understood by the sorts of people who might seek out that music. But of course it wouldn't be advisable because (naturally) it would be original research. Or would it? I suppose I could try ...

I already did a little cleaning up of the Allan Holdsworth page. I tweaked some theory-speak to make it more accurate (the article itself is volumnouously sourced but no inline cites for the Composition and Style section). Original research? I suppose so. Anybody's welcome to have a look and whack it, but it was written after extensive perusal of his interviews.

I did join the Progressive Rock project to see if I can't help my fellow proggers improve the access here to obscure music. I'm not trying to be contentious and claim that it's strictly impossible to use proper sourcing for what is inevitably advocacy by enthusiasts. I'm only trying to set out the conundrums before I find myself in them ...

Snardbafulator (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may attempt a brief answer, such articles are inevitably going to have some subjectivity, but also there are objective things to help, like who won an award. We can usually find a source for the genre of a particular artist or band. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Judith. Indeed, brevity is not my strong suit :(. I'll try to keep this a little shorter.  You're of course spot on when it comes to pop music.  Fellow progheads and myself, though, have spent lifetimes listening to, collecting and advocating for types of music on the fringes of fashion for which these sorts of distinctions aren't so cut and dried. Chris Cutler, the intellectual force behind the Rock in Opposition movement, is coming out of both a tradition of Little England artisanship that your page leads me to believe you'd appreciate, and a neomarxist-informed, Adornoite wholesale rejection of the culture industry.  He and his RIO confreres wouldn't accept any industry "award" and they don't make it easy for rock journalists, either.

At this point, there are secondary sources for his colleagues and he (Fred Frith was just granted an honorary degree), but it's taken 40 years of scraping to get there. What about the up-and-coming Chris Cutlers and Fred Friths out there?

As for pegging genre, unfortunately that's a perennial problem for sorts of music much more popular than the stuff I listen to. As the saying goes, don't call a grindcore band "death metal" to their fans unless you want your lights punched out in the venue parking lot. Unfortunately, I'm not exaggerating all that much; genre vandalism is a real problem on Wikipedia. I tweaked some genre things in the Holdsworth article (detailed reasoning on the Talk page). Sometimes a paid rock critic, who has his/her own agenda, isn't exactly the best source you can look to for this stuff. You have to dig deeply into a multitude of secondary sources to find a consensus and this is much more difficult with obscure music.

Difficult; not impossible. I'm not disputing your suggestions, just outlining why so many acceptibly-sourced articles for so many musically noteworthy bands are only stubs. Objective attributes only go so far to stretch out an article.

Snardbafulator (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm interested in adding/adding to some band articles that would otherwise have no Notability issues per se, who will be or have been duly secondary-sourced. I'd appreciate some editorial feedback before I began, so I will be as concise as I can in asking the question. Understand that I'm not interested at all in adding fancruft, peacockery or weasel-wordage. I'd like to simply describe the technical musical attributes of certain outfits whose styles aren't encapsulated by the usual genre labels. I don't consider what I'd be adding as opinion-based; something either is or it isn't in odd time signatures, is or isn't influenced by Stravinsky's conception of neoclassicism, etc. While some of it might be above the heads of the average music fan, any music student, e.g., could confirm or disconfirm it. I'd use inline cites where I could of course, but I'd have to write some of this myself because large clearinghouse-type review sources like Allmusic which would most likely serve as a secondary source for obscure rock music, don't always have reviews written with the proper degree of care.

I consider what I'd be adding more descriptive than evaluative. Is this acceptible?

Snardbafulator (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, if I may be brief, don't add anything obscure unless you can show it has been important in some way."In music" means "in all kinds of music". Jazz and classical are the areas that need more attention in such articles; there's enough on rock and pop already. I say this as a listener to Late Junction, who finds the byways more interesting than the highways, but Wikipedia isn't Radio 3, or France Musiques. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Judith. I'll hold off, then, until a more definitive view pops up. As it stands, I wouldn't know how to define "obscure," "important" or "in some way."

I agree with you about jazz and classical that both sorts of pages probably need more work than the majority of pages for rock and pop. Here's an example from classical of what I'm trying to get at: In 1913, Igor Stravinsky's ballet La Sacre du Printemps caused a riot at its Paris premiere and scandalized modern music circles for years afterward. Le Sacre also makes extensive use of parallel polytonality derived from octatonic clusters. From the eagle eye's view of music history, which of these two facts about Stravinsky's ballet is more important, the social/cultural one or the musical/theoretical one?

I'd submit you can't answer a question like that. Both facts are balled up in each other.

I'm a newbie (obviously), but after reading the stuff on Wikimedia philosophy, apparently there's a diversity of opinion here on whether or not Wikipedia is, can or should be "Radio 3 or France Musiques," as it is so many other things for other people. I've personally found Wikipedia to be an enormously valuable resource for info on RIO/Zeuhl and other international jazz/rock/experimental musics. Oftentimes, it's the most convenient place I can get a track listing online.

Snardbafulator (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:USEPA_James
Hi. In response to a Wikipedian claiming that USEPA is not an citable source of information for Wikipedia, I thought I would ask for community concensus here. The exact quote on the linked page is:"Any EPA sources about the EPA fall under WP:PRIMARY and that makes most of the proposals for Clothianidin moot."

On a couple of different discussion pages,  including my talk page, I've been reminded about Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources. My response to the primary/secondary issue for citations linking to USEPA's web site is that: "I believe the vast majority of USEPA’s web content and other publications fall into the realm of secondary or tertiary source material. While USEPA does have labs that do original research, our scientists do not conduct research to support pesticide chemical registrations, and we don’t write the laws upon which we base our policies and regulatory decisions."

Unfortunately, nobody responded to my response so I was left to conclude that silence implies consent. This seemed reasonable, in particular since USEPA is widely cited in Wikipedia to support excellent, NPOV content as well as...shall we say...more tightly focused perspectives.

So, what say you? Excluding original research of the sort conducted at agency laboratories, are USEPA references (e.g. pesticide registration decisions, study review memos, web pages explaining agency decisions, etc) acceptable as a source when the Wikipedia content discusses pesticide chemicals, court decisions in which the agency is a named party, etc? Also, does the acceptability of referencing the agency's published material depend on the editor? I, for example, work for EPA and make my affiliation explicit in my username and personal page. Is there a COI if my edits refer to agency publications and/or online content? Thx --USEPA James (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * James, first consider that your username suggests that you represent the USEPA; this is probably in violation of WP:ORGNAME; you are hereby gently encouraged to change it, and edit only on your own behalf instead. Thanks for not editing articles, and just using talk and notice pages instead.  I think that USEPA sources, whether primary or secondary, are fine reliable sources for many sorts of info, especially for attributed analyses and opinions.  Using them as a source of hard facts may sometimes be questionable, depending on the situation, given all the potential political influence, etc.  And yes, in terms of WP:COI, it may depend on the editor; as an EPA employee, you should continue to restrict yourself to making suggestions on talk pages in cases where the content can reflect on the reputation of your employer; let other editors decide what to do with it.  Are there specific situations you want to ask about?  Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dicklyon. I instigated what became a rather extensive discussion about what username I might use on WP: Requests for comment on user names before setting up a user name. When I finally did set it up, I followed the recommendations of the community and Wikipedia admin Beeblebrox seems to approve. As to editing pages, I find the most common response I get to suggested edits is "go for it." Though I would have preferred to just let other editors make the edits, my experience thus far is that most folks are primarily interested in their own contributions to Wikipedia rather than in following up on suggestions from others. OTOH, it's also been somewhat amusing to observe editors who make little effort to hide their biases with regard to pesticide chemicals object to my mere presence here. Anyway, thanks for the comments. --USEPA James (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're in the wrong forum, where you likely want to be with this is WP:RSN. Here, the general concern is with what editors may be doing with sources, rather than whether a source is reliable or not, or primary or secondary--the prohibition on OR is only on us as editors, it is expected that experts in various fields will engage in research as that is their job. In regard to your main question, regardless of venue, I would suggest the issue you are addressing is the question of primary versus secondary sources. I would want to know which statement and which USEPA report/memo/reference/web page would be linked--what is a primary source for one statement might well be a secondary source for another. A summary, for example, of research conducted by various groups, posted by the USEPA, could be an excellent secondary source, whereas a study conducted by USEPA might be considered a primary source, which we would use only with caution. I also support Dicklyon's comments, if only because your handle may be considered a call to external authority and exposes you to charges of COI even if you edit with the best of intentions and in a completely neutral manner. Just my thoughts, I have not looked at your contributions, and I am assuming you are here with the best of intentions and contributing in a positive manner. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nuujinn. I was unaware of WP:RSN, but that's exactly what I was looking for. On my username, I have to balance Wikipedia's guidelines and policies with those of USEPA, and explicit Agency affiliation is one of our requirements. So far, comments here and at WP:RSN seem to support what I thought was the case: original research from EPA is a primary source, but our regulatory decision summaries, study review documents etc, are secondary. Cheers --USEPA James (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Frank Bossard
I have taken on the editing of this page using family records available since the death of my mother Marianne Clifton (2nd wife). The substance of the page dealing with his career from 1939 will be updated when I have time to go to the National Archives [UK] and read the newly released personnel file.

konrad02 [John Konrad]
 * Have you read Wikipedia sourcing policy (WP:V)? The biography should be based on reliable secondary sources. As a relative, you have a conflict of interest and should only edit with care. Having said that, this is an interesting story, and if you post on the talk page of the article, and in related WikiProjects you might get some editors who want to help you. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Four Trends to Differentiate Instruction in Math and Science
Editors created the essay for a school project (original synthesis). jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 04:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Corwin Amendment
Dear Wikipedia: Why are my changes being reversed. See what happened on the Corwin Amendment. Why are my changes called disruptive, Original Research, and fringe theory? I do not speak Wikipedia-ish and cannot understand these policies. I am only trying to help. As to my changes please consider:: Say a town has an ordinance that the 700 block of main street is a one-way street from east to west already on the books. However, before it was adopted some had proposed making ALL of main street one way in the opposite direction. Eventually, IF the council passes this proposed-but-previously-unadopted ordinance, it is reasonable to conclude that the ordinance about the 700 block is repealed. No one would object to it, and no article would be published to verify it. And it would not be a fringe theory. 71.139.156.8(talk) 04:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moved this question here since it was posted in the wrong place. I take no side in any relevant dispute. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this some sort of alternate history thing? If people have actually written about the possibility in WP:reliable sources then I guess you can quote that but I would stay well clear of doing any sort of deduction yourself. That's bad enough for a factual article with a real answer. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've copied this to the Corwin Amendment's talk page, which is where it belongs. The dispute is about how to read the source. No one has said it's an issue of original research. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In answer to Bmclaughlin9's post on my talk page, this question was originally posted at WP:NOR (not the talk page, the actual policy page). - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008
I have attempted to add the following sentence to the article Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.

"The Obama voters were 30% of the population 18 years or older."

Is the number of Obama voters divided by the number of people 18 years or older original research? The reference which is not visible is U.S. Census, Resident Population by Sex and Age: 1980 to 2009.

Id447 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do you feel the need to add this to the article if all the pundits haven't bothered to write it down in a reliable source? Wikipedia is not a blog for interesting things the editors think up over breakfast. This sounds like straightforward synthesis to me. Dmcq (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Calculation is technically exempt, but I don't see this as just math; even if this isn't the user's intent, it seems to have the potential to imply something about Obama supporters, thus violating NOR. Surely there must be a secondary source somewhere which has commented on the percentage of Obama voters in the population, anyway. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

UK Schedule 2 Waste Disposal Scandal
Is it to be swept under the carpet £Billions of pounds lost by: all places of learning, schools, universities, hospitals, care homes, residential homes, meeting halls, charities, military camps, camping sites, holiday caravan parks, prisons, penal institutions, royal palaces. Whether failure of procurement or lack of publication of legislation their entitlement benefit to be swiped away. Wrong and misleading advice over many years prevented proper application for free disposal entitlement presentation to local authorities. Statutory regulations provided re-characterisation of waste arising on premises from commercial type organisations most of charitable nature or amenity benefit having entitlement to "household" waste classification. Household waste has the disposal charge paid under national council taxation in advance each year. Desperate to change legislation government are seeking to remove these benefits by handing their legislation power over to local councils the intention to jettison some from the list. The difficulty arising most listed under Schedule 2 are of charitable nature and benefit to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hihen (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure to which Wikipedia article this relates. Can you provide more information? -- Kateshortforbob talk  13:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV over SYN?

 * Dear all, IF possible I'm requesting all to assist in the reviewing the aforementioned article and comment on the discussion page for the difference of "explained" (supported by the source, and an archive of the original source I found) over the word "said" (which isn't supported by any source), the latter is incessantly demanded by an extremely abusive Anon IP editor to replace the former, per WP:SAY. Similarly, I've placed this same request for review on WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard in order to give it a fair chance at hearing. Apologies for any disturbance caused, thank you. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear all, IF possible I'm requesting all to assist in the reviewing the aforementioned article and comment on the discussion page for the difference of "explained" (supported by the source, and an archive of the original source I found) over the word "said" (which isn't supported by any source), the latter is incessantly demanded by an extremely abusive Anon IP editor to replace the former, per WP:SAY. Similarly, I've placed this same request for review on WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard in order to give it a fair chance at hearing. Apologies for any disturbance caused, thank you. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If I understand this: using the word "said" in this context should be OK. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology
The above page has tables which an editor compiled in order to explain the findings of this somewhat controversial school of thought. Referencing is not detailed enough to trace which point comes from which author. Are any of them OK to include, or are they OR/SYNTH? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the table in question is here and the Talk page discussion about it is here. Memills (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That should be helpful. I'm asking about all three tables in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether the school of thought is controversial is irrelevant. As noted on the Talk page, it has been agreed the additional primary source references will be added to the textbook references that are already there. And, as noted by several editors on the Talk page, there is no OR or SYNTH because there is no new conclusion/information created that is not the in original sources. Memills (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)