Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 2

Graphical family tree off-site
In our no original research policy, we specify that photographs, drawings, etc are given a broad exception under the policy. Hang on let me get the exact phrasing... Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.... Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.

Long moons ago, I had added to the Lettice Knollys article here this link, which shows graphically how various people are related to Lettice. I don't think at that time, I'd really any idea how you actually upload, and I'm not really sure I do now. I would have no problem with uploading and releasing under GFDL. My question is, is that a requirement of NOR? The way it's worded now, it doesn't seem to state that you must do it that way, only that that way is a specified way. If we're saying it must be this way, perhaps the language could be tightened?Wjhonson (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be a pretty silly requirement if taken literally, as the (un)original nature of a picture/drawing's ideas are obviously independent of their license. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you asking whether, if you make a graphic of a family tree, it's better to link to it vs. upload it? Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I first take as a premise that it appears that a graphical family tree is appropriate to cite in an article and that is an OR exception. My question is, in order to cite it, must it be uploaded to Wikipedia and released under GFDL, or can it reside in its off-wiki location and be cited by link-only and still remain acceptable for wikiuse?Wjhonson (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me the family tree you cite is original research by somebody else and definitely copyrighted (that is, the arrangement of the lines and boxes, etc., not the info itself), so you could not upload it. A cite would be OK by me. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not by someone else. It's my own work.Wjhonson (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it sounds like what you're asking about is the difference between the "original research" policy versus the "reliable sources"/"verifiability" policies and the "external links" guidelines. There's three ways to use the family tree.  The way the article is now, it's being used as an external link, and that's fine.  That is often done when there's some resource on the WWW that might be helpful for our readers.  The second way is to footnote it as a reference for who married who, etc, but we usually limit that to published works.  The third way is if it's your own work you can upload it to Wikipedia.  "Original research" only applies to content that's _in_ the Wikipedia, but drawing the chart is not "original research" if the facts of who married who are already established. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about you uploaded it and in the description page you provide citations so that the information in the image is verifiable. --Salix alba (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. The arrangement of previously published information via a chart or graph is nothing more than using a visual instead of a text to provide the exact same information, and it should be subject to the same requirements. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A similar problem is maps; these can sometimes be particularly contentious. I remember one disagreement about a map of the world with colours ordered by health indices. Was the choice of colour somehow OR? (I'm serious.) Relata refero (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The choice of the colour was no more Original Research than is the choice of words in writing any given article in the first place. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For what its worth there are a handful of images tagged as here. --Salix alba (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-frogman techniques
Can someone with more experience than me look at Anti-frogman techniques with their NOR hat on? I added a tag to one section to flag a particularly eggegious paragraph, but I think that quite a bit of this article looks to be systhesis and back-of-the-envelope calculations based on disparate (and unverifiable) sources and what may be in the various editors heads. I realize that there is _also_ a broad 'citation needed' problem with the article as well. But am not quite sure how to do the division between the two problems. I should note that I did find the article to be quite interesting -- so I hope it is improved without throwing too much of it out. Good NORing. N2e (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, there's a lot of information in that article. I feel like going to repel boarders right now.
 * A lot of it seems based on one particular US military source, helpfully mentioned right up top. Relata refero (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)re
 * Can't help you. There are lots of citations, but maybe not in the form we are all used to. Why not go to WikiProject SCUBA and ask over there? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it sounds like original research but it's hard to know because much of it is written in the "old style" of the 'pedia when sources weren't inline cited in the articles so much. When I pulled up an archive of deadlinked cite, I found a bit more license taken with claims than should be done, I think.  But it's going to be a big job sorting out, since the article is long, and the most of the claims were put there quite awhile ago.  Professor marginalia (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)  Update: the claims in that section marked NPOV can be check out against the source identified at the top of the article. I'll tighten up the loose spots in the copy with copy edits.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd update: The article I spoke of is no longer linked at the top, but now has a long list of footnotes attached to it in the reference section. I cleared N2e's tag because the section there is okay, but I don't know there aren't other instances. This is a unique case to me, with the article probably not synthesizing claims from various sources.  The claims come across right away as original research probably because the one source which is used most heavily does itself include a lot of literature review, meaning that it recites a lot of claims from disparate sources that don't connect, or can't be connected.  For editors here, the source demands careful study to follow which of those disparate claims it goes into, from a huge range of disparate claims and sources documented in the lit review, match up with the author's findings or conclusions.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all of you for helping me with my question, and especially to Professor marginalia for working to improve the specific article! I think the NORN noticeboard will be a helpful addition to the tools editors can use to ask questions and learn.  N2e (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of published public records OR?
A dispute has arisen regarding my use of published/printed/widely available public records (to wit, California Birth Records and the 1920 United States Census, both of which are easily available online and in libraries) to cite a statement in the article on actor Jack Larson. The crux of the argument is whether using published/printed/available public records is considered "original research" while using published/printed/available books or articles is not. The discussion began on the Jack Larson article Discussion page, but was taken by the other party to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, where it has gone on in detail, but with no input from third parties. I would like to request that other editors or administrators weigh in on this, as I am frankly puzzled at why one published source would be allowable but another would be "original research." Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the context, Monkeyzpop? Is this about a date of birth or something else? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's about a date of birth. Monkeyzpop (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the argument against having a birthdate sourced to a public record? Is there a dispute about it? Are there other sources that say otherwise? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, take a look at the linked discussion on the BLP noticeboard. Apparently Larson is quoted as saying he was born in one year, while the records show he was born in another. I don't think we can say that this is OR... it seems a good example of dilligent sourced based research to me.  My recommendation is that the article accept both sources... Mention both dates, and state that there is a conflict between what Larson says of himself and what appears in the public record... without any indication of which is "correct". Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a bit close to OR for comfort, but as it is harmless, it may be a good time to invoke IAR and have both dates as you suggest. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I am curious as to how you see this as being close to OR. I see no difference between going to a library and gathering information from books, and going to the records office and gathering information from public records.  What do you see as being the difference?  Is it because they are primary?  If so, I think that the normal cautions apply, but as long as we do not draw a conclusion from such sources, nor create synthetic statements based upon them... as long as we simply report what the records say, we are not in OR territory... such sources seem perfectly accpetable to me if used in that way.  Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I can't read Jossi's mind, the public records are of unknown reliability unless covered by a secondary source (especially considering people can lie on census records). Unfortunately, so can a person in speech or interview, so that's not really any better. Putting the two alongside eachother could be seen as a suggestion that one is wrong, and even if we don't explicate which one it is, that would be the OR, especially as we can't prove it's information worth noting. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of the California Birth Records and the U.S. Census for 1930 (the records at issue in this case) seems, in a weird sense, beside the point here. The subject, an actor, has on occasion stated that he was born in 1933. Yet he appears in the 1930 census as a two-year old and has a 1928 birth record. (Other details -- parents' names, address, siblings, etc. -- all match exactly subject's own remarks.) Therefore the only way the public records could be in error in this case is if the records suddenly contained data about this person several years before he was born. It doesn't seem remotely OR to me to conclude that if the subject truthfully described his family, residence, etc. that he cannot therefore truthfully have described his age. (Of course, an actor would _never_ fib about his age!) Finally, though, the question of the reliability of the public records is not greater than the question of the reliability of other citable references. Why should one published source be trusted (and be considered non-OR) just because an individual wrote it while another published source should not be trusted (and should be considered OR) just because the California Birth Records Dept. or the U.S. Census Bureau wrote it? Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that we can't trust either. Although, that was before I knew he was in a census record he claims to have not been alive for. I just did a search for reliable sources on his birthdays, and didn't turn up any (although plenty of private websites noticed the discrepancy). Only reliable source was the Associated Press which gives it as 1933, but then again, I'm sure they just went by what he said. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think that the California Birth Records Dept. and the U.S. Census Bureau are quite reliable sources. Why do you think they are not reliable? Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * They're not necessarily reliable for two reasons: 1) They only provide limited information and 2) People lie. A birth record is probably going to give you the child's name and birthdate, the mother's name and age, and the place of birth. For any of various reasons, the child's name might not exist yet, it might change, it might be the same as another child's. The mother's name is much less likely to change, but she can also lie about her age, and the people recording the information will probably just write down what she says. The place of birth can also be vague or ambiguous. And for the census records, people lie (especially about their own birthdates). And people can have the same names. And on top of all of this, neither the birth records department nor the Census bureau is going to do any detailed investigation of the validity of what information they're given. What you can be very certain of is that if a record appears in either, that someone with the name made in a census record or alternatively, someone with the name had a baby on at and said she would name it . I believe the margin for editorially faultless errors in using these as reliable sources is great enough to preclude such use in the general case. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think that noting that the US Census Bureau (or other sources) indicate that the subject was born in 1928, without actually saying that he was born in 1928 because they say so, might be acceptable. Noting the discrepancy is of value, I imagine - but saying that the subject lied about his age is far different that simply noting that a discrepancy exists, describing it, and leaving synthesis to the reader. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can assume that people have lied. And I certainly don't think the possibility that they might have lied is enough to declare an official government record to be an unreliable source.  I do agree that their use is limited... but within that limitation (reporting what the record says), I feel it is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As to Someguy1221's point: how is this different (much less, worse) than accepting citations from fan magazines or a book or a talk show interview?  If someone wrote a book about Larson, researched it by compiling data from the California Birth Records and the U.S. Census, and published that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  But because it hasn't gone through the "filter" of a SECOND publication, the credibility of the information is called into question.  I don't get it.  Monkeyzpop (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaonians

 * User Arditbido tried to change pageChaonians by using original research and his own interpretations of it.Then User:DragonflySixtyseven tried to remedy the situation that had escalated to an edit war with me and Ardibito by remaking the page but now its full of even more original research and the dozens of secondary sources are ignored with no reason and are on the talk page.I want the page restored to its original secondary sourced state normal state.Megistias (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the situation is well beyoned being remedied at this board. I'd suggest you open a request for comment on the article's talk page and ask Dragonfly to participate. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We have already discussed and he doesnt agree as it seems.I am going to revert the page according to no original research rules.Megistias (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I cant .Megistias (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can't revert because the page has been protected from editing, and there were no less than two administrators involved in all of this. This is why I believe RFC is the best option here. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NOR in the Kai Doh Maru "Telling the tale" article
I am new to WP editing

Can I get someone's view of this? Kai Doh Maru and see the secion on "Telling the tale". Is this considered original research? It just seems to be someone's opinion put there, no citiation listed, but its been there for like 5 years, with people changing it. I just can't see that it has a valid place in this article. If its not considered original reasearch, than what? 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have responded on the article talk page... but to repeat... the article falls into two sections, a plot summary and the "telling the tale" section under question. for the plot summary, the work itself is a reliable source.  I don't find it OR.  The "telling the tale" section is trickier.  It is essentially an analysis of the work.  For that we do need independant sources, and without them it certainly comes across as OR.  Since the information is not really controvercial, I would recommend that we not rush to delete right away... give people a few months to find some sources.  If they are not provided by that time, we can revisit the issue of whether to delete or not. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the prompt reply. I felt the same way, that the main plot seemed valid, but the telling the tale without sources, seems to be personal opinion more than anything else.  I will give it a few months without doing anything.  I did place the citation needed on the section already. Corvato (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Corvato

OR claimed (and reverted) in Jewish lobby; IS IT OR ISNT IT?
This reference and quote has been deleted by User:Jayjg on the grounds of OR, as stated in the edit summary. Tivnan is a primary source and it is a direct quote (though not continuous);the full paragraph was already on the talk page as I ref'd it with a concurrent post to the talk page here, where I asked for comments. The viability of Tivnan as a primary source is supported by the fact that M&W quote him as a reference.

Please help to settle this question. Problems of this type are all over the pages included in the I-P ArbCom. Your assistance is appreciated. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The cited material from Tivnan is still used, though moved. Also, commentary characterizing the passage as disputing the validity of the term was removed. The removal of the commentary is correct as a removal of original research. Providing unreferenced characterization and commentary is original research. Vassyana (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The diff shows the material was just moved, CO, not removed. I'm guessing it was moved because the first position seemed a little incongruous given the previous sentence. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 07:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(sheepishly) Thank you. May I ask an additional related question? Would the following use of the quote be considered OR?- Tivnan (1988), states, in the preface to his book, ‘The Lobby,’ ’The answers were not as obvious as either the critics or fans of the Jewish lobby would have it… Indeed, how the Jewish lobby had become primarily a pro-Israel lobby, one so aggressive, omnipresent and influential on matters relating to the Middle East that the denizens of Capital Hill refer to it simply as “the lobby,”… If it is OR, could you explain why. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In itself, it doesn't appear to be OR if the source is a good one. But OR often depends on how the material is placed, so we would really need to see the context before we could judge. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ask Jay. He probably just made a mistake with his summary. (After all, he has almost two dozen to do in thirty seconds or so.:) ) Relata refero (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
This article is currently an FA candidate. I have been accused of violating WP:OR because I have cited bible references in the belief section of this article. I feel that I am being unfairly treated by the editor who has tagged the article for Original Research violations. I have addressed this editors concerns significantly providing third party references to support all statements of Catholic belief. Some references to the Bible are included to show where these beleifs originate from. I have the Bible reference, a reference to the Catechism to show the connection to the Catholic Church source and then I have included a third party, non-Catholic Church published book that is actually a textbook summary of Catholic Belief published by Sadlier. Even after all of this, the editor who tagged the article will not remove the tag and continues to say I am violateing WP:OR. I would appreciate some guidance on this issue as I feel that this editor is not acting in good faith but is just being obstructionist. Maybe I am wrong. I would like to know what some other editors think. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Using Bible verses to declare the policy of a church looks ultimately like it needs interpretation. Why not use the catechism instead? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd agree. I think that pointing to the bible and saying "The bible says X, so the Catholics believe Y" would indeed be original research, even if corroborated by the Catechism. You could note that "The church also believes X", cite the catechism, and then - in the citation - show the bible verses that the catechism itself cites as a basis for that belief by including a direct quotation from the text. In other words, the ref would be something like this (using the cite book template):




 * In short, if it's the author (or the church) (!) doing the interpretation, it's ok - but by adding the reference directly to the bible, it seems as if you're drawing the connection. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. This is a perennial problem on articles related to Christianity.  Guy (Help!) 23:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For general articles, it wouldn't necessarily always be a taggable policy violation for longstanding generally-accepted matters that would be considered beyond dispute in the field. But featured articles involve the higher standard of exemplary verification, not just the minimal amount of verification to avoid deletion of content. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Bible's a primary source. We use secondary sources wherever possible, and particularly in FAs. Relata refero (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles by User talk:Badenoch
A good chunk of these articles feel like original research. I must say that they are well-researched OR, but they are original nonetheless.

From New Zealand dream:

"In figure 2 housing has been plotted against fertility rates for advanced countries. Countries that have an indicator value of zero have a dwelling stock made up almost entirely of small apartments (smart growth). Dwellings in New Zealand, Australia and the United States are dominated by large family houses.

Using a scatterplot (Figure 2) has the advantage that cultural effects are average out, revealing the underlying effect of housing on fertility rates. The correlation value (R 0.81) indicates that there is a strong positive correlation between family housing and fertility rates. Advanced countries that have mostly apartments are typically producing only 2/3rds of the children of countries that have mostly family housing."

Statistical analyses are the work of the author, which should qualify as OR.


 * Figure 2 is not absolutely essential, though graphs can help people to understand more clearly than words. For example, the New York times recently did an article "from the housing market to the maternity ward", where they claim that “One reason there are so few children in Italy is that housing is so hard to come by,” Mr. Engelman said. “Houses are bigger in the U.S. and generally more available. That may help explain why Americans have more babies.” The Times article creates the impression that just Italy has a problem without putting it into perspective. Figure 2 shows that in reality family housing shortages are widespread throughout advanced countries. I believe that graphs can help readers understand, but of course it can be deleted if deemed necessary.Badenoch (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)



From Median household income in Australia and New Zealand:

"Household incomes are very sensitive to economic conditions and real incomes will normally decrease by up to 10% during a recession. The 10% loss isn't applied evenly to all households. Some households are not harmed. For most households, their cost of living rises faster than their incomes. The worst affected households may lose their income (unemployment) and drop below the poverty line.

Figure 1 shows how US incomes have changed since 1970. The periodic decreases were all caused by economic recession. The last recession was the early 2000s recession and was started with the bursting of the dot-com bubble. This recession affected most advanced economies. Fortunately Australia and New Zealand were unaffected.

Most governments normally try to minimize the damage caused by a recession, otherwise a recession could turn into a full blown depression. Governments minimize recessions by increasing money supply though:


 * Deficit spending (tax breaks and increased public spending)
 * Lowering interest rates

During the last recession many European governments ran deficits that were so large that they violated the deficit rules for Monetary Union (e.g. Italy, France, Germany). The US also protected its citizens with deficit spending and low interest rates. After the recession is over it is important to reduce the public debt [4] and normalize interest rates again.

Eventually trouble in the global economy will cause a recession in Australia and New Zealand. Fortunately the government is well positioned to deal with it. Australia and New Zealand have been reducing public debt levels for many years and now have minimal debt. This means that they can easily increase money supply through deficit spending. There is also a lot of scope to increase money supply by lowering interest rates."

Where does the 10% loss figure come from? Why will global factors inevitably cause recession in Australia and NZ? How does reducing public debt help position the governments on this problem? Who is saying this? If just the author, then OR.


 * Where does the 10% loss figure come from? From the US Census Bureau figure 1
 * Why will global factors inevitably cause recession in Australia and NZ? Australia is enjoying its 17th year of expansion but this will not last forever. The global is all linked together, we share the good times and the bad.
 * How does reducing public debt help position the governments on this problem? Countries engage in deficit spending during a recession. However if a country already has large debts it can be hazardous to increase them more. For example at the last G8 meeting the USA wanted Japan and Europe to deficit spend, but they refused because they already have high debts.Badenoch (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

From the European overview section of the Brain drain article:

"European Governments have been trying to correct the brain-dearth by importing talent from developing countries, but this has not been very successful. Figures recently released by the European Commission show that 85% of unskilled migrants from developing countries went to the European Union and only 5 percent to the United States, whereas 55 percent of skilled workers went to the United States and only 5 percent to Europe.

Those opposing immigration claim that Europe's immigrants tend to be more welfare dependent than the natives. “Thus increasing immigration may not be the solution to the problem of population ageing, but instead might impose a higher fiscal burden for the receiving countries” [11]. Concerns about immigrant crime rates[12] are also fueling public support for anti-immigration political parties (Figure 1)[13].

The Commission has responded to these concerns by emphasizing the economic benefits of highly skilled immigrants. However the European commission claim that high-skilled foreign workers accounted for 0.9 percent of all workers in the European Union, compared with 9.9 percent in Australia, 7.3 percent in Canada and 3.5 percent in the United States.

“To maintain and improve economic growth in the EU., it is essential for Europe to become a magnet for the highly skilled,”. “Qualified and highly qualified migrants prefer the U.S.A., Canada and Australia”(Franco Frattini, the EU’s justice and home affairs commissioner).[15]

The overall picture is bleak. In the coming decades Europe expects to have "major economic, budgetary and social challenges" because of the ageing population [16]. They have brain drain to the immigration countries without the benefit of brain gain from the developing countries. To make matters even worse many of the unskilled immigrants that do come are a net fiscal burden [17]."

I should note that this section is well-cited, but the synthesis of all these sources into a single overview of the European brain drain appears OR.


 * This single overview is provided almost entirely from the European Commission and they are qualified to give an overview. However it is noted that many Europeans do not support the European Commissions view because they against immigration.

Since I have been caught for being something of a cultural absolutist, I don't want to start up any personal disagreement with one-on-one discussion so I'm putting the issue out to a larger audience. Kelvinc (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Kelvinc. As you know from our previous encounters, I am concerned that you are too focussed on racial or cultural issues. All three of your objections seem to relate to sections showing comparisons between countries. Median household income in Australia and New Zealand was recently used by the New Zealand minister of Finance to reassure New Zealanders that New Zealand can survive a global downturn . Clearly the Ministry of finance was impressed with the article even if you hated it. User:Badenoch|Badenoch]] (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me give an example of what I mean. See Median household income:

Equatorial Guinea is corrupt country, which helps explain why the normal people are not benefiting from the oil wealth. However this issue isn't just about corruption. A comparison between median household income and GDP per capita for advanced countries is shown in Figure 2. These countries do not have serious corruption problems and yet there is only a weak correlation (R 0.16) between the two indicators. Showing that even when comparing advanced countries, differences in economic activity do not have a predictable effect on household income.

Figure 2



''Source: IMF GDP per capita [URL removed as it interferes with the cquote: see article for URL] ''


 * You aggregated some data from the IMF and performed some simple statistical analysis. But these statistical analysis constitute original research: nobody published these finding before you placed them on Wikipedia.  The IMF data is a primary source upon which you performed an analysis.  But Wikipedia policy states that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."  I am not disputing whether your findings are true, or whether they fit with my world view.  I am disputing that you have any "findings" in the first place.  Wikipedia is not a place for us editors to publish our findings: it is a place for us to report on others' findings.  That the NZ Treasurer came to a similar conclusion as you proves my point: he has the perogative to take conclusions based on primary data, but we don't.  Kelvinc (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The original version of the above graph was actually created by someone else. I thought the comparison, was useful so I updated it.

Kelvinc, you originally started your process of objections because the Brain Drain article didn't fit your World view. You thought that it might delight Europhobes. Since then you have widened your attack to three other articles and changed your objections to data comparisons. In the interests of resolving this dispute may I suggest that if you have a problem with the brain drain article, then why not put it to the vote with the other authors of the article? Badenoch (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, according to WP:Dispute resolution, something like WP:Third opinion or WP:Requests for comment would probably be appropriate. You can start the process if you wish.  Kelvinc (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Islamic psychology and History of psychology
An interesting clash of historiographic sensibilities has emerged in describing the disciplinary lineage of contemporary Psychology, evident most clearly at Islamic psychology and History of psychology. The problem is described in detail at the Talk:Islamic psychology page, but can be summarized here briefly.

Professional historians have weighed in and criticized a number of edits for their presentist bias: describing historical events using contemporary language, thereby misrepresenting them as having the same meaning. The result, over the past year, has been reversion war and general frustration. And since the issue was raised by Chris Green at his blog, this has escalated. Recently, a series of tags have been placed on the two most obviously affected articles. If these could be checked, and the appropriate actions taken to ensure that such battles are reduced in the future, the community of historian-editors would appreciate it. Cheers, JTBurman (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Catholicism and Freemasonry
I think there is a huge about of WP:SYNT in this article, especially in the "by country" section. The individual claims are backed by fairly reliable sources (although a lot is based upon the old 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is somewhat outdated) but they lack a uniting source that ties them all together. In addition, some of the statements are only tangentially tied to the issue of the relationship between the Catholic Church and Freemasonry. I could use some help in explaining what the problems are to the primary editor of the article, so he/she can fix it. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Baghdad (1258)
For nearly a month, a single editor Geir Smith has been grafting a large amount of original research and probably fringe theory into the article Battle of Baghdad (1258). The editor has inserted a considerable volume of material connecting the the Mongol sack of the city to some barely comprehensible concept from Tibetan Buddhist cosmology. At least I think that is what he is writing about: his prose is rambling, discursive, and misspelled. This editor has produced similar work in the past which has been deleted (examples: Articles for deletion/Gyalpo, Articles for deletion/Jalpo, Articles for deletion/New Kalachakra, Articles for deletion/Kalachakra King, Articles for deletion/American Buddha Online Library). The task of removing this material would be fairly easy if not for some recent post to the talkpage (here). These comments by editor Dominique Boubouleix or Dr Boubouleix, particularly the personal attacks on Elonka, squarely connect the tendentious editing in Battle of Baghdad (1258) to an open Arbcom case in which I have submitted evidence. In short, I would appreciate help removing the nonsense to avoid accusations of partisan behavior. Thank you. Aramgar (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OR material without a doubt. I note that it has been removed (and not re-added as of this writing).  We will keep an eye on it. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting that Boubouleix shows up shortly after Geir Smith writes Boubouleix's article on the French Wikipedia... Someguy1221 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Location hypotheses of Atlantis
A user, new today and at first just using an IP address (then a copy of my name, then Italianboy101) has been adding a section on someone name Alberto or Albert Nikas which was plainly hype. I searched for the name and could only find a reference to it in a critical comment by another fairly well known Atlantis researcher, so I added the reference. The user then tacked on to that Reference added by Doug Weller, then deleted it and added a longer section with a pdf file uploaded to Wikipedia. Now this looks still like original research and I have told the user this on the Talk Page and also pointed out that the author seems relatively unknown. Am I right in thinking it is original research? Note that the www.superatlantis.com mentioned on the title page of the pdf doesn't actually exist. Right now the user is up in arms, says he's reported me to the moderators and that I have no right to tamper with his work. I've pointed him to Wikipedia policy statements, but I really would like to know if I'm right about the pdf. I want to be fair to him. Thanks.--Dougweller (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The person apparently used the monicker Dougwellera. Too creepy. But I don't know who is responsible for monitoring uploads to the image file, or what the policies are in deleting an image. Can one really post an image of a document, for example? You might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. At any rate, I went to Location hypotheses of Atlantis and removed the addition since it obviously is an unpublished paper referenced only by being posted on WP. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the section 'Between Malta and Sicily' is still there. I will ask about the uploads policy.--Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Correcting a Fact (with a Quotation from a Reliable Source) Original Research?
I have a hypothetical case, for which I want to determine whether an action constitutes "original research":

Imagine a Wikipedia article on a book by Dr. X about Russian History. The article, after summarizing the book, reports on the dustjacket endorsement for the book, naming the writer of the endorsement, one Boris Rushkov, and reporting what he says. Then the Wikipedia article adds something else: the opinion of a third party (let's call him Ivan the Terrible) that Boris Rushkov is not competent to praise the book because his field is Ukrainian History, not Russian History. (The motive for this addition is not stated, and therefore it is impossible to tell whether the author of that section of the Wikipedia article is including the "warning" about Borish Rushkov innocently, as a potentially useful opinion that might help Wikipedia readers, or whether the Wikipedia editor hates Dr. X's book and wants to cast whatever doubts upon it he can, and so seized on Ivan the Terrible's remark with great glee.)

Now suppose that another Wikipedia editor discovers that Boris Rushkov's field was in fact Russian History, and therefore that he was competent to review the book. Suppose he finds an even more eminent Russian Historian (more eminent than either the endorser Rushkov or the hostile third party) declaring (in a RS) that Boris Rushkov was a qualified Russian historian. However, suppose also that the eminent Russian historian was not addressing the disgruntled third party when he made his pronouncement; his statement that Boris Rushkov was a qualified Russian Historian was made in another context (though it still represented his considered view).

In this context, if the second Wikipedia editor inserts a correction or footnote or any other kind of caveat, indicating that the third party's dismissal of Rushkov's competence is without warrant, or wrong, or should be taken with caution since its truth is uncertain, is that Wikipedia editor guilty of the sin of "original research"? And if so, why? Why does checking up on a potential error, or even accidentally stumbling upon the error, and then providing a quotation from someone who can disprove the error, constitute original research?

Further, if this action would constitute "original research" and is therefore forbidden, the consequence is that the second editor is forbidden from informing Wikipedia readers about a piece of misinformation which stands uncorrected in the article. The average reader, who is not up on Wikipedia OR rules, will simply take it that the third party critic is correct, and that Boris Rushkov is not qualified, and that his praise of Dr. X's book is unreliable, and will probably in addition wonder why Dr. X could not get a proper Russian Historian to praise the book. So the reader will in fact be prejudiced against the book for no good reason. Is the second Wikipedia editor bound by a code of silence not to inform the reader about the erroneous character of the statement quoted in the article? And if so, is that a sensible way to run an encyclopedia?Inspectre (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the best thing to do is present the disgruntled third-party individual's opinions as just that, opinions. When introducing the individual whose historian-ness is in dispute, you can use the respected historian's opinion of him, presuming this respected historian to be a generally reliable source, to source that he is considered a reputable historian, or whatever wording is more true to the source. This way, readers see when he is introduced that he is condiered a reputable historian, and then further down in criticism they see that someone else claims he's not. This is not really "fact correcting" since we're essentially dealing with people's opinions (unless the claims amounted to one person asserting the guy didn't have a college degree when, in fact, he did). There is another way to deal with this, however: If there is a consensus that one author's opinion/claim is objectively incorrect, irrelevant, and/or utterly insignificant, you could simply never mention him at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have to wonder if a dust jacket endorsement is RS in the first place (no matter what the qualifications of the reviewer). At best they are simply a reflection of the opinion of the reviewer. At worst they are misleading puffery (publishers often take comments out of context to use as dust jacket endorsements... in a worst case situation a review could be all but entirely negative, but include one positive comment.  The publisher could ignore all the negative comments in the review, take that one positive comment out of context and put it on the dust jacket - making the potential reader think that the reviewer liked the book.)  So, in this hypotentical, I would omit both "Boris Rushkov's" dust jacket endorosement and "Ivan's" comments on Rushkov. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a good point about dust jacket endorsements. The real case which I am concerned with is not about a Russian History book but a particular science book, which advanced a thesis violently disliked by all the Wikipedia editors working on it (as is apparent from their biting and nasty comments on the book, coupled with many ad hominem remarks against the author, which can be found on the discussion page and other pages).  A section to the article covers the dustcover endorsements.  If the dustcover endorsements were merely recited, so that the purpose was merely informational, there would be no problem.  However, the section has been cast in such a way that it becomes a section aimed at casting doubt upon the credibility of the dustcover endorsers (and thus indirectly on the credibility of the book itself).  This is evident in that third-party comments attacking the dust-cover endorsers are added to the actual dustcover endorsements themselves.  Yet these third-party comments are not entirely accurate, and in some cases outright deceptive, and animated in at least one case by violent spite.  In trying to point out the bias of the third-party comments, and add correcting external information from reliable sources, I was told that I was engaging in "original research", and therefore that my corrections could not be allowed.  This means that the false charges against the dustcover endorsers stand unchallenged, and a typical Wikipedia reader, who knows nothing about OR rules, will think that the third-party comments, which stand unchallenged, are probably true.  I maintain that the article should be about the book, not the dustjacket endorsements of the book, and that the dustjacket section should be scrapped if it is going to include unchallengeable distortions.  But the other editors unanimously want to keep the dustjacket section, with the distortions, and will not allow me to insert correcting information, saying that this would be original research.  The only condition under which they would allow me to insert corrective material would be this:  some qualified scientist comments publically, in a reliable source, on the false third-party statements about the dustjacket.  But since very few qualified scientists are likely to read either the Wikipedia article or the original sources of the third-party comments (in one case a privately-published blog), it is likely that I will never be able find a reliable source.  To give you a comparison: if someone said "The sky is green", I would not be allowed to cite a reliable source (even another Wikipedia article) that says the sky is blue, because that would be "original research".  Only if an authority happened to read the statement that "sky is green", and disagree with that in a reliable source, could I then contest the statement by citing that authority.  So as an editor, I'm powerless to correct charges I know to be false or misleading, and that will confuse of misinform Wikipedia readers, simply because of a narrow and technical understanding of OR.  I think this is silly.  I think the purpose of the prohibition on OR was to prevent editors from making their own arguments about the subject of the article -- which I was never trying to do.  It was not to prevent editors from excluding false or misleading accusations generated by spite, or to prevent them from alerting Wikipedia readers to countervailing facts easily available from reliable sources.  I think the editors of the article in question are being sticky about the rules to protect the nasty, third-party comments against the dust-jacket endorsers, because they hate the book and want to undermine the dustjacket endorsement by any means, fair or foul.  At a time like this, it seems that IAR would be appropriate -- removal of materially misleading statements, or qualifying them, would make Wikipedia better, and so OR wouldn't count.  But to employ IAR I would have to have consensus of the other editors, who hate the book and will insist on their narrow reading of OR.  Any suggestions?Inspectre (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We actually had this issue before at Eric Lerner. The resolution was as Blueboar outlines. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

General Question: OR in External Links
This came up in a discussion on the Prem Rawat talk page of whether a certain external link was acceptable. A couple of editors argued that we should not link to this website because it contained original research (regardless of other measures of reliability and verifiability).

I thought that the ban on original research referred to Wikipedia itself, not the sources we cite. In fact, it seems to me that we cite sources precisely because of the original research they provide, both scientific study and analysis. They do OR so we don't have to. No consensus was reached. Thoughts?

Also, does it make a difference whether the OR is in a reference used in the article itself, or in an external link? Or that the article is a BLP? Thank you. Msalt (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The obvious part is that one should never link to content that would violate the BLP policy. For the rest, I think the general rules on external links to avoid cover it pretty well; original research is not explicitly prohibited. But if both the website and the author are nowhere near being reliable sources, then I think common sense dictates it should probably be avoided (the list I linked to touches on that). External links to original research are fine for pointing readers to relevant information that hasn't been officially published yet; not for sidestepping policy and pointing readers to what you couldn't get published. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, very helpful. Just to clarify: when I say OR, I don't mean actual scientific research so much as the type of analysis and assembly of facts (from hopefully impeccable studies) that is not allowed on Wikipedia as, for example, WP:SYN.  It makes excellent sense that whatever OR is on any source is justified only by the credentials of the author, ie the more they add, the better their credentials should be.  Great point. Msalt (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR claimed in Israel lobby in the United Kingdom
Someone claims that both the intro sentences and the lead off paragraph of the first section are WP:OR Even though both are good faith attempts to summarize a lengthy article, one of many on various aspects of the topic of the existence of such a lobby in the UK. suggestion on non-WP:OR way to state intro.

"The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is described as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain” engaged in pro-Israel lobbying.[REF:Dennis Sewell A kosher conspiracy?, The New Statesman, January 14, 2002.]"

"In 2002 Dennis Sewell, in an article called 'A kosher conspiracy?', alleged the existence of a 'Zionist lobby' that included 'pro-Israel organizations' and 'pro-Israel lobbying.' The article detailed pro-Israel efforts of arms trader Shlomo Zabludowicz, allegedly a funder of the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) and of Conrad Black, the owner of the conservative British publications Daily Telegraph and Spectator, as well as the Jerusalem Post and his wife Barbara Amiel who they describe as 'the enthusiastic Zionist columnist.' They wrote 'That there is a Zionist lobby and that it is rich, potent, and effective goes largely unquestioned on the left.' However, they concluded 'The truth is that the 'Zionist lobby' does exist, but is a clueless bunch.'[ref name=Sewell]" Carol Moore 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * The problem is that the source that is citated for the lead (The line: The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is described as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain” engaged in pro-Israel lobbying) does not actually use the term "Israel Lobby" - it uses "Zionist Lobby", which is a slightly different thing. Admittedly, the differences are subtle, but Pro-Israeli is not quite the same as Zionist (and Anti-Israeli is not quite the same thing as Anti-Zionist). Thus, it seems appropriate to tag that sentence as OR.
 * The second tag (the one that is at the end of the longer paragraph you block quote), however, is not appropriate... the paragraph accurately reflects things stated in the source. It is not OR. It may be POV to have it in the article (since it talks about the Zionist Lobby and not the Israel Lobby) but that is a different question.
 * So... I have left the first tag and removed the second. However, I have also removed the citation for the lead and added a citation request. You need a source that uses the term "Israel Lobby" to establish that this term is actually used by some reliable source, one which describes it as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain engaged in pro-Israel lobbying". Without such a source it is OR. Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will repeat what i said on the article talkpage two weeks ago: unless several articles are produced from reliable sources attesting to the presence of an organised, unified lobbying effort on behalf of Israel in the United Kingdom, I will take this article to AFD as OR. Relata refero (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I broke my arm which is slowing down my research and writing on Israel lobby in the United Kingdom. Lost temper with Jayjg today for his deleting subject sentence and paragraph with less than a month notice on WP:OR -- and despite others opinions the second paragraph is not WP:OR -- and while i'm still working on them - and refusing to cooperate to answer question to try to make it a better article.  The problem remains despite copious articles referring to an Israel lobby in UK, finding an exact sentence defining it for first sentence is difficult at this point. Summarizing several articles descriptions probably could be done be an expert.  It's a matter of time before some one in some RS does so - which means we'd just have to recreate the article all over again.  Any help appreciated. Carol Moore 17:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Looking at my summary again realized that it needed to clarify that the pro-Isral lobby description was the one to be emphasized in an article on that topic. I believe the summarizing is well within WP:OR.
 * In 2002 Dennis Sewell wrote in The New Statesman about "pro-Israel lobbying" in the United Kingdom by "pro-Israel organizations." (Called "A kosher conspiracy?", the article frequently used the phrase "Zionist lobby" in reference to pro-Israel lobbying.) The article detailed pro-Israel efforts of arms trader Shlomo Zabludowicz, allegedly a funder of the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM); of Conrad Black, the owner of the conservative British publications Daily Telegraph and Spectator, as well as the Jerusalem Post, and his wife Barbara Amiel who they describe as "the enthusiastic Zionist columnist"; and various efforts to influence media descriptions of Israel-Palestine related issues. Sewell wrote "That there is a Zionist lobby and that it is rich, potent, and effective goes largely unquestioned on the left." However, he concluded "The truth is that the 'Zionist lobby' does exist, but is a clueless bunch." REF:Dennis Sewell, A kosher conspiracy?, The New Statesman, January 14, 2002.'' Carol Moore 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Citing topographical maps for Ski area vertical
Particularly in the article Berkshire East Ski Resort a contentious debate has erupted over the citation of topographical maps for ski area vertical drop. One user accuses myself of partaking in NOR claiming that topographical maps cannot be cited. Their claim is that advertised ski area vertical drops are more are more accurate (earlier in the discussion they claimed they were not.)

I put it to the board, can topographical maps (or google earth for that matter) be cited? My methodology of computing vertical is to subtract the lowest point from the highest point.

I am interested in hearing what others who are not involved in this dispute have to say.

The topographical maps I have been using are government issued and I have never seen any dispute over their accuracy except in this situation.

Regards, Bill Dakunta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdakunta (talk • contribs)
 * Note--this user appears to be a sockpuppet; see Suspected sock puppets/Willdakunta. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that something like a USGS topo map is a reliable source... and the calculation is a simple and obvious one that fits the exceptions stated in the policy. Perhaps the solution is to mention both what the map shows, and what the advertized drop is stated to be, without making a judgement as to which is correct.  Something like: "According to the Berkshire East Ski Resort, the vertical drop of the Bunny Slope run is 200 feet (cite), while according to the USGS maps the run has a vertical drop of 150 feet (cite)." Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We have this matter before the WikiProject Ski group, more specifically at the talk page of the template in question - Template_talk:Infobox_ski_area. Ski area vertical drops are published in numerous books, magazines, newspapers, and other citable outlets.  While ski areas may be guilty of rounding upward, some more generously than others, picking numbers off 7.5 minute topographic maps where users estimate lifts start and terminate is not an exact measurement by any means.  I have suggested that the stat instead be named something along the lines of "Advertised Vertical" or "Published Vertical" and be cited by the top source of North American ski area stats, SnoCountry.  Jrclark (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blueboar for giving some insight on this exception. I will bring forth this information to the skiwiki folks. I am not interested in what JRclark has to say as he is obviously one of the disputers. Are there any other opinions out there from folks not involved in this dispute?? User:Willdakunta (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop disguising your posts with pipes as you have been doing; I have removed the piped forgery . Thank you.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes... we understand that he was using a sock puppet... that has been taken into accout. There is no need to mention it repeatedly. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: the account that created this post has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet Suspected sock puppets/Willdakunta. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Describing OSs and/or their reference manuals
There is a rather contentious dispute going on in [Binary Prefix] regarding information coming from the screen or the command line of an operating system. I contend that an OS is a primary source whose output may be described by an editor and all the editor has to do is specify the version of the OS that was observed. Others contend this an impermissible violation of WP:OR.

For one example, see. I contend that I as an editor can say:
 * "PC DOS version 3.10 states disk space and file usage in bytes using decimal digits without any prefixes, or for that matter even commas.

without having to post this screen shot, because this sentence is descriptive and anyone having a copy of PC DOS version 3.10 can readily verify this. The fact that there is a screen shot is nice but not necessary.

Disputed statements have been made by an editor, RFST, regarding Solaris, GNU/Linux, Windows and Apple OS X where there are no screen shots. In order to help, I took the time to find manual citations from Solaris and GNU/Linux that confirm the editors description. None the less, this was still opposed as OR - as the opponent said
 * "This still looks like primary source - it's a man page. Can't you find a reference to someone interpreting this or commenting on it?"

The dispute is well summarized in the following dialog:
 * "What would satisfy WP:OR is something like "Joe Bloggs, writing in Windows World, notes that Windows Explorer shows file sizes in 2^8 multiples". This flag once was red
 * Either Windows does or does not display file sizes in 28 multiples. If it does so, then to say so is descriptive and what Joe Bloggs has to say may or may not be correct. ..."Tom94022

One contention made is that reading a screen or a console requires specialized skill and therefore is not usable. While it is true that not everyone can operate every OSs, I contend that operating an OS is in the skill set of an educated person of this century and certainly reading the console or screen output, regardless of whether u can operate it, is within the skill set of an educated person and requires no specialize knowledge.

Any comment? Tom94022 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no rule against using primary sources. We certainly can cite a manual to confirm that an OS displays memory/disk values in a certain way if that is stated in the manual. *** Crotalus *** 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Crotalus is correct... caution should be used in discussing primary sources... but there is no rule against using them. In fact the policy specifically states that you can use them: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia..." Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One problem I found was that some of the references took the form "I did this and ran this command; here's the output". This seems to me to be original research. On the other hand, I think reference a manual (i.e. man page) and indicating something like "ls outputs files using 1024 blocks when such and such a switch is used" is fine, since the manual says as much. The problem with screenshots is that they would be displaying output for a particular file; you would need to use inductive reasoning to argue the general case (i.e. that the file properties of a particular file is representative of all files). As such, I'm not convinced this could be considered a legitimate source. Andareed (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This flag once was red  08:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was me who objected to the man page; I still have some reservations (the page referenced appears to contradict the claim that Linux uses 1024 instead of 1000: "SIZE may  be (or may be an integer optionally followed by) one of following: kB 1000, K 1024...", it's less than clear to a layperson, and is less than authorative - though this last argument could be dispensed with by changing the source to, say, GNU) but I'm prepared to accept any consensus.  I agree with Andareed that the main concern was that the "references" consisted of screenshots and "speak to your friendly neighbourhood computer whizz, he'll totally agree with what I'm saying, man."  I'm also slightly concerned that the arguments of 5 editors are being misrepresented as an opposition to primary sources; my opposition was to the interpretation of those primary sources and the refusal to provide secondary sources supporting those interpretations.  Finally, it's worth noting the comment beside the Apple listing: "informed guess because of its Unix ancestry and comments elsewhere, explicit version and similar verification required because unavailable to the author at this time".

Scary Movie 2 and Original Research in the form of parody lists
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Scary Movie 3 about whether or not the list of parodies on that article should be included. One side says it should be as it is useful to the article and the rules should be ignored under WP:IAR and the other says it is a) not useful and b) original research (I have split it into 2 points, as there are 2 areas to discuss really). Please can someone come and have a look and see whether the original research part is justified, ie. does allowing the parody lists improve the quality of the page even though they are original research? Thanks -Localzuk(talk) 18:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the discussion is going on at Talk:Scary Movie 2... I have replied there... To summarize: whether it is OR or not is a bit of a grey zone... the solution is to find sources that mention what is being parodied. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake.-Localzuk(talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Providing examples of use of a term
A number of editors on an article are searching the internet for specific uses of a term, and then using them as primary sources to advance arguments about the term. I have cited the rather clearly stated argument from WP:NEO: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)." I have pointed out that the original research argument is true whether or not the term in question is a neologism. They, however, insist that if a term is used by reliable sources, and is not (in their view) a neologism, then this point no longer applies, and they can search for any number of uses of the term they wish in order to support their thesis. Comments, thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My first thought is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary; unless a term (neologism or otherwise) has an established meaning, we're not free to speculate about what it might mean to some people, or how its meaning might be extended.--Leifern (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on context and on the quality of the sources in question. Obviously if the source is itself discussing the use of the term, then that's generally acceptable.  But if the situation is one where the editor is pointing to a reliable source's use of the term to then further an original argument, then I'd say that that sounds like synthesis.  Can we get a more concrete example of what you're talking about?   That might make discussing this easier.   Nandesuka (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a nice surprise to see that Jayjg has already started this discussion, since I was on my way here to ask this question from the other point of view. To fill in the facts a bit better, Jayjg has been deleting text from the Jewish lobby page for more than a year with the claim that the term "Jewish lobby" is a "neologism" intended solely as an antisemitic slur (e.g. HERE). He makes this claim even though other editors have found more than a hundred sources from around the world that use it to mean simply what it sounds like: "a political lobby working for the goals of its Jewish members" (in this usage akin to the "gun lobby" or the "health-care lobby").

His claim is that because it is a "neologism" (even though he has produced no source that makes the neologism claim - so this claim is a bit of OR on his part), then there are severe restrictions on the sources that can be allowed in the article - namely that it can only be described in the article as an antisemitic slur. I am one of the editors who has been trying to insert secondary sources (which he claims are primary sources). So I guess I must be one of the editors who he claims is "searching the internet" (when in fact I was most recently checking my local library).

You've asked for an example of the sources Jayjg is deleting. One of my favorites is in fact the Oxford English Dictionary (OED2). This is the paragraph he deleted:


 * The term "Jewish lobby" has been used to refer to the groups organized in the US and other countries to promote the special interests of their Jewish members. The Oxford English Dictionary uses it in this way to serve as an example of a special interest lobby, quoting from a 1958 article in the Listener: "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby .. backed the Jews".

Not content to remove the OED2, Jayjg moves on to the London Review of Books (maybe he really really doesn't like English scholarly sources???). A more involved example is this paragraph, with a quote cited from the London Review of Books which he claims is a primary source - and he claims is "not discussing the Jewish lobby":


 * Stephen Walt and co-author John Mearsheimer go further, claiming that a false cry of "antisemitism" is sometimes used as a tactic to stifle criticism of Israel. They write: "No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."

There are of course more, but I think this should give you a good idea of what we have been dealing with for the past year. We look forward to an opinion to help resolve this long-standing conflict. Thank you! Jgui (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I must admit that I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, but as a general rule it's usually quite difficult to source a claim that a term is a neologism. Unfortunately, this is due to the nature of neologisms: typically very little scholarly discussion exists about the term itself, and they often lack a formal definition, let alone discussion of whether they may be neologisms. I have no opinion regarding whether this specific term is or isn't a neologism, but I thought it important to mention that we may have to rely upon our judgement in this respect.


 * The usage of the OED source seems dubious at best. To paraphrase heavily, it seems to be saying, "the OED happens to include a quote that refers to the 'Jewish lobby' in a way in which we, the Wikipedia editors, believe serves as an example of a special interest lobby." To my eye, that looks suspiciously like original research. In general, we should avoid discussing usage of a term in sources, and should instead rely upon sources that actually discuss the term.


 * In the case of usage, we're not really using a source as a source, but as raw data for our own analysis. Suppose that we were to write an article entitled "use of language in the Journal of English Literature", in which we analysed word length, mean words per sentence, etc. Even though we're citing perfectly reliable sources, this is quite evidently original research. What's the difference here? To my mind, only the degree to which we're performing the analysis.


 * Perhaps the most important question is: what does the source actually say about the term?


 * The second example seems somewhat problematic to me, but could perhaps be used in a different way. As used, the quote seems to be too long and is largely an "example" rather than a "discussion". It could possibly be used in a shorter form to support a statement like "Walt and Mearsheimer state that the term is used by the Israeli media", though I'm not in a position to judge whether that assertion is non-trivial. Jakew (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was all set to believe that it would be impossible to find an OED definition that wasn't an appropriate use, and then you went and proved me wrong. This is a clear misuse of the OED, coupled with an appeal to its authority.  The OED in this case doesn't define "Jewish lobby", but rather quotes a third party using it in the context of another definition.   So saying "The OED says it, it must be true" is, in this case, disingenuous.
 * Stepping back for a minute, I think the presence of the term in the OED and the London Review of Books is proof of something, but not necessarily proof of what the term "Jewish lobby" means.  I think that if you want to make an argument about what the terms "Jewish lobby" mean, you need to find a reliable source that explicitly defines the term, not infer the meaning from context -- which is original research.  That's my personal opinon, anyway.  Nandesuka (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In most reliable sources, the term that is used is "Zionist Lobby", not "Jewish Lobby". I think the distinction is both intentional and important.  One term implies a political stance, the other a religious one.  Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews.  On the other side of the political specrum, not all Anti-Zionists are anti-semetic.  The term "Zionist lobby" is definitely not a neologism... the term "Jewish lobby" may be. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

I must say I am very surprised by the reaction here. Perhaps this is because the context of the quote from the OED is not clear. In fact, the OED is defining "lobby", and is defining "special interest lobby", and by extension is defining "Jewish lobby" as a sectional special-interest lobby by using it as an example of a sectional special-interest lobby. This is the context (which I discussed in the Talk page; perhaps more of it is needed in the article):


 * OED2 p. 1074 definition of "lobby" as a noun; number 3. "In the House of Commons ... chiefly serving for interviews between members and persons not belonging to the House"; c. "In extended use: a sectional interest (see INTEREST sb. 4), a business, cause, or principle supported by a group of people; the group of persons supporting such an interest." Followed by examples of its use in this way as a sectional interest; 1952 from Economist "American interests have maintained their effective lobby against the project"; 1954 ibid. "France has to face powerful colonial lobbies in parlaiment"; 1958 from The Listener "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby backed the Jews"; 1959 ibid. "They even tackled the vested privileges and subsidies of the powerful alcohol lobby"; 1971 Daily Telegraph "The anti-pollution lobby might claim that a spot of exaggeration is justified in such a cause".

You say "as a general rule it's usually quite difficult to source a claim that a term is a neologism", which I think is a fair statement. But doesn't the same argument also apply even more strongly to an adjective phrase which has its meaning exactly as stated, and which has been used in that manner for decades? The phrase consists of the adjective "Jewish" qualifying the noun "lobby", giving us "a lobby for the Jewish", which is exactly how the "Jewish lobby" is being defined in the OED, namely as a lobby for the special-interests of its Jewish members. You are asking us to find a dictionary "which explicitely defines the term", but that seems to me as silly as asking me to find a dictionary "which explicitely defines the term" "fast car". Clearly no dictionary will "explicitely" define the phrase "fast car" as "a car that is fast" since its meaning is patently obvious. But does that mean that we should be blocked from using the phrase "fast car" to mean "a car that is fast" in a WP article about "fast cars"?

Your statement that I am "inferring the meaning from context" is very strange to me. In fact I am not "inferring the meaning from context", I am citing its use from the OED to explicitely illustrate a definition of a "special interest lobby". Am I misunderstanding you somehow?

You also paraphrase me as saying "the OED happens to include a quote that refers to the 'Jewish lobby' in a way in which we, the Wikipedia editors, believe serves as an example of a special interest lobby." I hope I have shown by giving the full citation from the OED that your paraphrase is clearly inaccurate: that in fact the OED doesn't just "happen" to include the quote: they are using it for the purpose of illustrating what a special interest lobby is, and they are undeniably using it in this way and that the judgement of Wikipedia editors is in no way involved.

None of you really discusses the second quote that Jayjg has repeatedly removed with claims of WP:NOR due to WP:NEO except to say "As used, the quote seems to be too long and is largely an 'example' rather than a 'discussion'." I think you will have to agree that the length of the quote is not relevant to whether its use is original research. I would paraphrase that quote as: "There is a lobby, called the "Israel lobby" by us and the "Jewish lobby" by Israeli media, which uses as a tactic a false claim of "antisemitism" to attack anyone who criticises Israel or even mentions that there IS such a lobby". Do you disagree with my paraphrase? And can you explain how you can argue that the quote is an 'example' rather than a 'discussion' when the authors are clearly discussing the use of the term by themselves and by the Israeli media and by the Lobby they are describing? And are you arguing that this paragraph, or at least all but a short portion of it, should be blocked from WP due to a concern about WP:NOR? If so, could you explain where the original research is? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that what you are discussing is a WP:SYNT situation... linking different sources that discuss various terms for lobbying activity all under the heading of "Jewish lobby". Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, it's not a synthesis problem. There's very little synthesis or conclusion left in the article, due to previous objections dealt with long ago.  The article is now built almost entirely from quotes assembled by multiple editors.    has gone well beyond objecting to synthesis, to removing multiple citations to reliable sources.  Here's an example:


 * J.J. Goldberg, Editorial Director of the Jewish-American newspaper The Forward, writes that in the United States the "Jewish lobby" was thrust into prominence following the Nixon Administration's sharp shift of American policy towards significant military and foreign aid support for Israel following the 1973 war. Goldberg notes that the "Jewish lobby" predated the Nixon years by decades, playing a leadership role in formulating American policy on issues such as civil rights, separation of church and state, and immigration, guided by a liberalism that was a complex mixture of Jewish tradition, the experience of persecution, and self interest.[13][cite this quote][page # needed] In a speech in 2004, Goldberg stated: "The Jewish lobby ... is actually more than just a dozen organizations. The Anti-Defamation League, The American Jewish Committee, Hadassah, of course, AIPAC."[14] The late Jewish scholar Arthur Hertzberg writes that following the Six-Day War, "[T]he "Jewish lobby" was no longer spoken of in whispers, and its official leaders no longer pretended that they advanced their cause only by gentle persuasion."[15][page # needed].
 * This was deleted by in this edit, with the comment "(remove original research and unsourced material, in particular material that is not actually about the term "Jewish lobby", per multiple lengthy Talk: page comments. Also, clean up writing)".
 * That's not "original research". It's cited to death.  Three footnotes per paragraph. Removing citations with a claim of "original research" is against policy.  Jayjg also deleted other material, to generate an article which matches his point of view. Compare the consensus version  with Jayjg's version.


 * What we're really seeing here is a spillover from an internal dispute within the American Jewish community. On one side there's the traditional, and somewhat liberal, Jewish community, which mostly votes Democratic and has historically focused on domestic US issues, and on the other side there's AIPAC and the neocons, which is tied up with the Republicans and focuses on Israel and Middle East issues. (See Goldberg's "Jewish Power", chapter 3, "The Struggle for the Jewish Soul", for a 1990s summary of the players.) This dispute has spilled over into Wikipedia, with  as the main proponent of the AIPAC position. That's why we're in this mess.
 * So it's not an "original research" issue at all. We're drowning in cited quotes. It's a political problem. --John Nagle (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. I am not a "proponent of the AIPAC position", whatever that is (I have no idea, nor does John Nagle). Please use this page to discuss policy, rather than soapboxing about other editors. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear. Hear. And politics can sabotage cooperative editing and the ability to produce a credible, NPOV encyclopedia. Plus turn people off from editing on other topics. A lot of editors can make money publishing UNsourced opinion elsewhere that would come up higher on internet searches but like the idea of an NPOV forum where we learn good skills and meet editors with similar interests. However abuse of process has and will drive people away. Esp. when it is used to smear people and destroy their lives, as the Jewish Lobby article easily can be -- and probably has been - used to do. I asked a phrase encyclopedia to include "Jewish lobby" - they demurred and wrote back "see wikipedia." Carol Moore 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Indeed, your politics have so far "sabotage[d] cooperative editing and the ability to produce a credible, NPOV encyclopedia." You openly admit you are here to promote some sort of off-Wikipedia cause, rather than attempting to build the encyclopedia. Please take your outside causes elsewhere. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jgui, I apologise: when I said "too long" I expressed myself poorly. I meant to say that it was too long compared with the portion of the quote that actually mentioned the subject of the article (which reads: "the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’"), and as a result included a lot of material that was not clearly and explicitly relevant to the subject. Jakew (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it might be a good idea to make it clear that controversial issues, in particular, should not be defined by quotes that merely employ the term. Jgui, I think your Walt and Mearsheimer quote is a good example of what not to use. W & M only use the term "Jewish Lobby" in a passing discussion of a group of individuals/groups who lobby for a range of policies. They use variously "the Lobby", "pro-Israel groups", "AIPAC", "Israel Lobby", and finally "America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’." They're casting a much wider net than a discussion of the specific tem "Jewish lobby."  IronDuke  00:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue has come up many times in many different contexts. I would say that building up a definition of a term based on its casual use by sources is an example of original research. When I say "casual use," I mean in articles that are not about the term or the subject matter, but where the term is simply used in passing. However, if the use is more dedicated i.e. if the articles to be used as sources are about the topic (in this case the Jewish lobby), and if they are high-quality mainstream sources (not sources out to make a political point), then I would say it's not OR, even if the articles are not about the use of the term per se.


 * As always, where there is doubt about how to use primary sources, and if secondary sources are available, the latter are preferred. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed to return here and discover how badly I have been straw manned. Of course, contrary to Jgui's claim, I have not "been deleting text from the Jewish lobby page for more than a year with the claim that the term "Jewish lobby" is a "neologism" intended solely as an antisemitic slur (e.g. HERE)." Rather, as is obvious even from his link, I am objecting to text that is original research and don't even mention "antisemitic slurs". Quite obvious examples can be found in Jgui's latest edit, in which, for example, he inserts arguments such as "Prominent Jewish groups in other countries have also used the term "Jewish lobby" descriptively" based solely on his own reading of primary sources. He also keeps claiming that as long as he uses citations from reliable sources, he can't be doing original research: For example, he claims That's not "original research". It's cited to death. Three footnotes per paragraph. Removing citations with a claim of "original research" is against policy. However, as WP:SYN clearly points out: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." I'm not sure whether jgui, Carol, and John Nagle are deliberately ignoring the WP:NOR policy, but I do know is that they are violating it, and they need to stop. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, it looks like someone has been taking fantasy pills. Lets see what really happened, OK?
 * Jayjg, you state that I am "straw manning" you (who knew it was a verb?) by referring to your attempts to restrict this article to the use of JL as an antisemitic slur. That wasn't meant to be inflammatory - it was just a statement of fact and is clearly accurate, which is made obvious by comparing your version HERE of the article to mine HERE: your change was to remove a section describing another use of the term (the Descriptive use), and to remove a section with writers who oppose the view that the term is used exclusively as an antisemitic slur (the Antisemitic criticism section). Furthermore, you have made statements in the Talk pages referring to "the sourced claim that the term's use is antisemitic", "use of the term "Jewish lobby" is antisemitic", "Are you going to now claim that ... you can make up your own argument that the term is not antisemitic", etc. Your actions and goals are plainly evident, and its really rather silly that you think you have something to gain by denying it.
 * Jayjg, you then go on to claim that I am inserting an argument about jewish groups in other countries using the term "Jewish lobby" descriptively "based solely on his own reading of primary sources", when in fact this is clearly supported by M&W and when I immediately cite a Prominent Jewish group (B'nai B'rith) in another country (Australia) using the term descriprively, as Nagle pointed out to you below - unfortunately your quote-mining clipped that out.
 * Jayjg, you THEN attribute a quote to me THAT I NEVER SAID, certainly not on the JL Talk page (where did that quote come from?). This, I think, says oceans about your ability to carefully and honestly research and represent the views of yourself and other editors.
 * You close by accusing me of "ignoring the WP:NOR policy" and "violating it" when in fact I am here on this page trying to elucidate and discuss that very policy. And please save your imperious demands to "stop" for someone who is actually violating policy here at WP - perhaps you should look a bit closer to home?
 * Jayjg, please take those fantasy pills and flush them down the toilet - as Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO. And please refrain from attacking other editors for things they haven't done and instead try to focus on the issues being discussed. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jgui, I've explained before, there's no need to start each of your sentences with my userid. Also, what quote did I attribute to you THAT YOU NEVER SAID? In any event, the version I contributed to used only sources that described the term, rather than simply used it. Your "descriptive use" materials were pure original research as many, including G-Dett, have pointed out. You then say that your arguments are supported by your citations; but you consistently ignore the fact that you are bringing examples of uses, and then synthesizing arguments based on those examples, ignoring clear policy, WP:SYN:
 * "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."
 * Please re-read that paragraph as many times as it takes to assimilate its meaning. Then, whenever you are tempted to find a primary source that uses of the term, and use it to draw your own conclusions, read it again. Keep reading it every time the impulse to do original research with primary sources strikes you. Jayjg (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Continuing the quote from WP:SYN above truncated by : "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly." --John Nagle (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Continuing the quote from above truncated by : "Prominent Jewish groups in other countries have also used the term "Jewish lobby" descriptively. For example the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia defines the "Jewish lobby" as "an unwieldy group of individuals and organisations devoted to supporting the needs and interests of the Jewish community.""The Media, Stereotypes and the Jewish Lobby""  The exact words of B'nai B'rith are "As such, just as other communities and interest groups have lobbies, there is a ‘Jewish lobby’ – an unwieldy group of individuals and organisations devoted to supporting the needs and interests of the Jewish community. This Jewish lobby is a player in representative government, and its very existence confirms the ordinary place Jews have within Australian politics. The assumption, however, that Jews have a disproportionate power and influence over decision making is what transforms a descriptive reality about politics to an antisemitic argument about Jewish power." The shortened version is a reasonable summary of that full quote, properly cited and linked in the article until  deleted it.  This should dispose of the "original research" issue with respect to that quote. --John Nagle (talk) 03:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense; the Australian B'nai Brith article nowhere claims that "Prominent Jewish groups in other countries have also used the term "Jewish lobby" descriptively," even though it is used as a citation for that claim; that is Jgui's (and your) thesis, and one not found anywhere in the source. This indeed should "dispose of" the claim that Jgui was not doing original research with respect to that source. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in this dispute for the past couple months and have a different perspective from those expressed above. I broadly agree with the general principle Jay is purporting to apply here, though for slightly different reasons. "Jewish lobby" is obviously not a "neologism," and lacking any sources classifying it as such Jay has naturally failed to convince anyone on the page that it is one. And the criterion he's invoked to make this claim – that the term "Jewish lobby" is not in any "standard dictionaries," so it must be a neologism – obviously doesn't make any sense, because every major unabridged dictionary from the OED on down regularly includes neologisms. My reason for concurring with Jay that the article has to be limited to covering the term itself as it's discussed by secondary sources, is simply this: the phrase is controversial, and considered by many to be tendentious, so a neutral article cannot cover the activities of AIPAC, the AJC, and related groups under the rubric of the "Jewish lobby" since that rubric is contested. And if one accepts that the article has to be about the term rather than the alleged phenomenon, then Jay is obviously right that you cannot – per WP:NOR – simply cull primary-source instances of the term's use; you need secondary sources discussing that use.

Ironically, I had tried and failed elsewhere to convince Jay of the validity of the very principle he's espousing here; Jay had insisted for example that Pallywood – a term arguably more controversial than "Jewish lobby" and certainly more neologistic – could include not only any source that used the term, whether primary or secondary, but also any source that dealt with the alleged phenomenon (Palestinian media manipulation) even if it didn't use the word. And then of course there was the whole "Allegations of apartheid in X" boondoggle – a sprawling mess of OR-articles Jay was cultivating, each of which gathered together primary-source instances of this or that country's practices being likened to apartheid, in order to create a template of "sister" articles appended to the secondary-source-rich Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which Jay had tried and failed to delete. So when I first saw Jay arguing the very OR-principle (secondary sources vs. primary sources) he'd rejected or pretended not to understand elsewhere, I was at first taken aback, then mildly amused; but I soon saw what I thought was an opportunity for precedent-setting collaboration. It was in that spirit that I offered an "outside comment" to the article, expressing support for Jay's position. After all, the same principle I believe applies to articles on blog-slang terms like "Pallywood" or politically controversial analogies like "Israeli apartheid" should also apply to the contested term "Jewish lobby."

Unfortunately, precedent-setting collaboration did not occur. I made my case for a narrow circumscription of the article's mandate, and because I was making the case on solid grounds of neutrality, rather than trying to push a dubious and unsourced claim that the term is a "neologism," I very quickly and successfully enlisted the support of the very editors Jay is now clashing with. All of these editors seemed prepared to limit the article's scope to "meta"-sources – sources discussing the phrase or concept itself – its scope, legitimacy, usefulness, or lack thereof. What stymied consensus and collaboration was not this principle but rather Jay's curious application of it. Any source presenting the term in a negative light was OK with Jay; but with sources like this one that made the case for the term's usefulness and legitimacy – “No one would read [my book]. They used to hide it behind Playboy in the subway,” said Goldberg, now the editor of the Forward, the national Jewish weekly. “We don’t talk about the Jewish lobby. We pretend it doesn’t exist. We pretend we are powerless.”

Goldberg thinks Jews should be honest about the political clout they have acquired since World War II, and in a talk Sunday night at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, he called for an open and frank discussion of the “Jewish lobby” as a positive force in the United States. – Jay would maintain, to the general bafflement of myself and other editors, that the source was merely using the phrase, not discussing it, and that therefore in this respect Goldberg as a source was no better than Osama bin Laden. In a familiar turn of events, constructive dialogue ground to a halt, and editors have since drifted back to their original camps.

I thus find myself in a peculiar position. I still think Jay is right on the matter of principle; I just wish he'd apply this principle – here and elsewhere – in a meaningful as opposed to tactical and pettifogging way. As for CarolMoore, jgui, John Nagle, et al, I'm not positive we're on the same page in terms of principle (the OED quote for example surely doesn't belong) but I'm positive they're working to improve the article, and I'm inclined to stand back and let them do so.--G-Dett (talk) 04:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. I want to emphasize that the reference to "principle" in the last sentence of my post above was intended in its narrow and technical sense – how a particular rule or guideline should be applied with regards to the article in question. I do not mean "principle" in its grand or ethically charged sense.  Carol, John, and Jgui are doing excellent work in impeccably good faith, and are showing remarkable patience in the face of obstructionism verging on trolling.--G-Dett (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * G-Dett, I'm not sure why you follow me from page to page, posting long diatribes about me. I haven't edited the Pallywood article in over 7 months, ditto for Allegations of Israeli apartheid. You yourself spoke highly approvingly of my attempts to clean up the "Jewish lobby" article, stating User:Jayjg is doing important work right now on the parallel article Jewish lobby; his overdue improvements there should be a model for us here. Specifically, he's emphasized the important distinction between primary-source material that uses the term and secondary source-material that discusses the term itself. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the "me too!" comment, but, well, me too! The article Jewish lobby should only use sources that discuss, in some detail, the influence of various Jewish lobbies around the world. And of course, statements that are not supported by sources at all should be excised. I notice that the "Usage" section of that article begins,

See also: Protocols of the Elders of Zion

For centuries, a key element of antisemitic thought were conspiracy theories that the Jews, as a group, were plotting to control or otherwise influence the world.


 * This strikes me as a prime example of original research. Is there any indication that the Protocols are generally considered relevant to discussion of Jewish lobbying, or the term "Jewish lobby?" Where are the sources to justify discussion of "a key element of antisemitic thought" in this article? Or are we to apply the most stringent, exacting standards to edits which don't support the "Jewish lobby = antisemitic evil awful slur!" POV, while letting anything through on the other side? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 06:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean aside from the fact that two of the sources specifically mentioned the Protocols in relation to the term "Jewish lobby"? Only one now, of course, now that Carol has conveniently deleted the part of the quote that mentioned it from the other. That's a neat trick, isn't it? Jayjg (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some questions. I’ve been watching this page, but am new to this type of discussion and have been hesitant to engage. So therefore, I will provide a new source and asked some questions. The source is the Israel Handbook, by Dave Winter, (1999), ISBN 0658003682. The section ‘About this book’ on Google book search says, “This guidebook to Israel contains wide-ranging practical information for all visitors from backpackers to pilgrims, backed up with historical details, culture and background information. It includes coverage of all Pilgrim sites.” That is all I know about it, except it is also referenced a few times in Wikipedia.

Page 819 of the Israel Handbook, has an apparent ‘background’ section called The ‘Jewish lobby’ in the USA. Please read it for yourselves . I believe it is presented in a reasonably NPOV manner and may have sufficient information to decide on some of the previous questions. I do understand that since only this data, and nothing specific is in the article or talk page already, it may be hard for you to comment specifically, so my questions are of a general nature. Since this reference is not used yet as a source, and believe is appropriate for future inclusion, I present it here to see what happens; I am also interested to better learn how Wikipedia works in the real world.
 * Does this article discuss the Jewish lobby, or does it just ‘use’ it in passing?
 * Does this article ‘describe’ the term Jewish lobby, or say, acknowledge parts of it?
 * Is information contained in this blue-linked article of sufficient quality for use as a general (handbook-level) reference in Wiki, for inclusion in the Jewish lobby?
 * Are the included references, if used, considered OR regarding the ‘Jewish lobby?
 * In the case of Paul Findley, as used in this article, can Findlay be considered as a Primary Source regarding the Jewish lobby?
 * Following Findley’s highly documented ‘de-selection’ are his books considered to be from a reliable source, or does he become an author of OR?
 * In the case of John Snetsinger’s book, can historical or political science books on a specific historical subject related to the Jewish lobby in historical context be used within the article on the history of the Jewish lobby?
 * In the case of Edward Tivnan’s, The Lobby - Jewish political power and American foreign policy, based solely on its reference in this article and the title of his book, would it seem likely to be OR, or a RS?

I understand that some of these questions may seem very basic, but from my personal bias, I tend to find myself within the consensus on the talk page but am having difficulty understanding some editors’ denial or inferred anti-Semitic bias of an important factual topic. I respectfully submit some of these questions, in an effort to head off some future questions at the pass, so they can not be dismissed so easily. I do assume good faith, but on some topics, it becomes more difficult. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Neologism?
Oddly enough, while Carolmooredc, John Nagle, and Jgui have been insisting that "Jewish lobby" is not a neologism, because it was used 30 years ago, elsewhere Carol has described "New antisemitism" as a "neologism": (and others have edit-warred to maintain that description) even though the article itself documents use of the term over 40 years ago, and the Talk: page documents its use as far back as 1860:Talk:New_antisemitism Very strange. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, you have once again misrepresented the truth. Can you find an example where I (Jgui) have "been insisting JL is not a neologism because it was used 30 years ago"? Please try to be accurate when describing the actions of other editors - it is unfair and unproductive to falsely accuse other editors of things they have not done. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why exactly did you argue it was not a neologism? Jayjg (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so 40 years is the cut off point? I was wondering. ;-) But seriously the bigger issue is double standards on WP:or. Carol Moore 04:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * No, the bigger issue is the constant insertion of WP:OR into the article, along with the double-standards about what qualifies as a "neologism". Jayjg (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to dance the Jayjg dance here, Carol, here are some jigs, steps, and moves to choose from: 1) Type "Please read WP:CIVIL, and focus on edits, not editors." In boldface if you're feeling frisky, like this: Please read WP:CIVIL, and focus on edits, not editors. 2) Type "Yes, double-standards about what qualifies as a 'neologism' are indeed a bigger issue; please stop," or some other variation on I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I.  3) Point out that "new antisemitism" is defined as a "new form of antisemitism on the rise in the 21 century emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel," so it's a little odd to trace its coinage to the 1960s, when two obscures articles using the phrase appeared in the French press. 4) Find some creative way of questioning the credentials of Pierre-André Taguieff, the contemporary writer who cites the two obscure French articles from the 1960s.  5) Type "It's not a neologism?  Funny, I don't find it in any standard dictionaries."  6) Beg the question entirely by typing "Please see WP:NEO" or similar.


 * Or you could opt not to dance the Jayjg dance at all, and just point out that you added the article to a WP:Category for navigation purposes, which is very different from tactically exploiting WP:NEO as a means of limiting content for ideological reasons.--G-Dett (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * G-Dett, as has been explained to you many times, these boards are for specific purposes - in this case, discussing original research. They are not here for the purpose of continually slagging those you dislike. Stop. And adding inappropriate categories to articles doesn't help navigation; moreover, repeating entirely valid and applicable statements about original research from the WP:NEO article, statements which you yourself have agreed with, is not "tactically expoiting" WP:NEO. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. There might be a category issue. I took a look at Category:Political neologisms.  We could probably drop, as neologisms, ManBearPig (South Park fancruft), Narcokleptocracy (used a few times politically for a brief period around 1980), Robocracy (fancruft), Nanosocialism (explicitly coined in 1996 and didn't get much traction), and Purple America (coined in 2000, and lacks sufficient cites.) But none of those rose to the point of being used much, let alone being politically controversial.  They're all far less notable than New antisemitism, which, although coined recently, has a sizable literature. Maybe we should rename that category to "Political terms", with subcategories for the decade of creation. This isn't an "original research" issue, it's a category maintenance issue. --John Nagle (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Publisher & Book
On the article Race Differences in Intelligence users are attempting to add an accusation made against the publisher of the book, in what they themselves describe as "exposing potential bias." This potential bias has not been mentioned by any source, they are simply adding material critical of the publisher in an attempt to muddy the book in what they believe is proof of bias or a "complex web of far right activists." The argument against this is, first information about the publisher should not be replicated in each book as its off topic to the book itself, and further that is WP:OR for Wikipedians to attempt to show possible bias in a book without a source stating such bias exists.

The discussion is taking place at Talk:Race_Differences_in_Intelligence. Additional comments on the page would be welcomed. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a WP:SYN issue to me... I think you would need a source that discusses the bias of the publisher in the context of criticising the book itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Simple arithmetic considered OR?
Please see discussion between myself and User:DAGwyn here. Basically it comes down to whether simple arithmetic calculations based on verifiable inputs is considered original research. In other words, if a and b are known and verified, then is stating c=a*b considered original research? --WayneMokane (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The multiplication itself is no problem. The first issue is that DAGwyn seems to ask for sources for a and b. The second issue is why the multiplication is being done. If it is being done to support a particular argument, then we need to assess the neutrality of the argument and possibly look for a source that already makes the point the argument is making. Once we have that source, we can probably use it directly instead of making our own argument. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by formation dates
The List of countries by formation dates article is one, big, unreferenced pile of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The information contained in the article bears almost no relation whatsoever with the information on formation dates contained in the actual country articles (which are all very heavily edited & watched; and nearly all well-referenced). Here are two of the more idiotic examples: apparently Denmark (among the oldest still extant states in Europe) acquired its sovereignty in 1945; and South Africa gained its "current form of government" in 1910. The article survived an AFD, but if it is not grabbed by the scruff of the neck then it will have to be nominated for deletion again. --Mais oui! (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While the list certainly needs serious referencing, this seems to be a content disagreement focused on whether the most recent (re)acquisition of sovereignty, the establishment of the current reigning constitutional government or some other form of indicator should be used for the establishment date. Vassyana (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree... not an OR situation. It is a debate over article structure and the definition of terms.  I happen to agree that the current definitions and criteria being used are silly... but that needs to be argued at the list's talk page, not here. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet Archive
Is this edit original research, in which an editor has gone to the Internet Archive for historical information about Warnborough College? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I like to use analogies to answer such questions... Would you ask this question if the editor had gone to a library, found an old print copy of a Warnborough College catalogue that listed exchange programs offered by the college, and cited that? Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the analogy is apt. TimidGuy (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, what about this use of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article on Warnborough as a source? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not... Wikipedia articles should not be used as a source within Wikipedia (see WP:SPS). The only exception to this would be an article about Wikipedia.  That does not apply in this case.  In this case, we have a statement is about what a previous version of the Wanborough College article stated.  That is not reliable.  I would have to go back through the archives of the article to see why this bit of information was removed since the original was posted... it could be that someone demonstrated that the information was inaccurate, or perhaps someone simply challeged and removed the information for not being cited.  But when we get down to brass tacks, it does not matter why the information was removed.  If we wish to return this bit of information we need to cite to a reliable external source, not slip it in through the back door by quoting a previous version of the Wikipedia article.  I have removed it. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Blueboar. Really appreciate your input. (By the way, I still have in mind to draft some material that was discussed for the article on Catholocism and Freemasonry.) TimidGuy (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Veracity of sources
The following quote and source was removed from the "Illegal immigration to the United States]]."Illegal immigrants trying to get to the United States via the Mexican border with southern Arizona are suspected of having caused eight major wildfires in 2004. The fires destroyed 68413 acre and cost taxpayers $5.1 million to fight." with the justification that "The citation was to a site quoting another site, which preferred evidence so weak as to be not worth noting." (by Pingpongabyss). This raises a question I've seen raised elsewhere and that I'd like to see a definitive answer to.  Given an otherwise reliable source (the Associated Press is a reliable source on issues of news) should editors be involved in judging the veracity of that source or is doing so original research?-75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The original resarch policy only restricts what information may be contained within an article and how it may be presented. Editors are completely permitted to engage in original research in determining what sources should be used or what content should be presented at all. Thus, it would not violated the original research policy to completely leave that allegation out of the article. But given that the associated press article linked to does not seem to explicate its source or evidence, it would violate original research to add a rebuttal to the claim, unless that rebuttal itself comes from a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither adding the source in question, nor removing it violates NOR. Blueboar (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A follow-up question: How should sources be treated when they, through general oversimplification or in a pithy summary statement, ultimately misrepresent their material? Part of an ongoing disagreement at Islamic psychological thought (explained at the talk page, but affecting several other articles as well) relates to how certain meaningful terms have been translated, such that they afford erroneous interpretations when read out of context by non-experts. Is the correct action just to leave the NPOV tag up indefinitely? Or is there something more productive that could be done that doesn't also count as OR? At the moment, the edit war is at a stalemate. Some advice about what to do would be welcome. -JTBurman (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If the claim is legitimate that some sources are oversimplifying, then must it not also be the case that some sources do not? Those sources, then, would not disturb you if they were the basis of information in the article. And as an absurdly straightforward example of this, no experienced editor in their right mind would use a kindergarteners' "how the world works" book over a college physics textbook in a physics article. It would be even better if you had reliable sources that criticised the simplistic sources as being overly simplistic, then you could present their claims and attribute the followup claim that they are oversimplifications, followed or preceded of course by the "correct" interpretation. This would be the ideal case, as many people might be reading those oversimplifications, and it's best to explain to them what's up. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tarot interpretive material
Many of the articles dealing with the Tarot trump cards, eg. The Magician, have much unsourced material which has not been attributed for almost two years. Is it about time to remove it? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend dropping a line to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Occult. There are tons of books with Tarot interpretations and I'm sure a few of the project members have books on hand. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am trying it now, but if experience taught me anything, is that is these areas it is tough to get cooperation on the respective WikiProject. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as if the content goes back to the times at wikipedia when inline references weren't considered that essential, which isn't the consensus view today, and the section looks like it was tagged more as a clean-up, To-Do type post-it rather than to resolve a content dispute. I think it's probably source-able but a laborious chore considering this is just one Tarot card article among many with tags to clean up.  I'll try to give it a go just to see if we can clean up the tag in this one. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! I'd love it. I've found some of this actually comes directly from Waite himself, duh :) --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some (older) sources are easily accesed here-- Birgitte SB  17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Office_Open_XML Licensing

 * Note: The user who posted this section is currently on Wikibreak. He was the only one arguing this point on the article's talk page, so I don't think anyone else needs to have this question answered.  Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While I am taking a break, that doesnt mean I am not interested in the answer to this question. Walter, it is not your place to say that this question, that I asked, doesnt need answering. This page is for people to get answers. So help me, post in another page that I posted on like this again and I will find some place to file a complaint about it. Kilz (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Office_Open_XML Licensing section of the OOXML article I have places a statement by The Software Freedom Law Center. In order to contradict this another editor has placed quotes that he says contradict The Software Freedom Law Center statement. But he does not have a reference that says they contradict The Software Freedom Law Center statement. Only quotes that he has gathered that in his opinion contradict The Software Freedom Law Center statement. I think this is original research as do others. Are we correct? Is this in fact original research? Kilz (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I edited the page such that it no longer says anything about contradiction. (Diff: )  Now it says "Others have a different perspective," before documenting their perspective.  WalterGR (talk | contributions) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That edit still does not remove the original research or place a reference that would remove the possibility of the orignal research. The dif is to a different section. I would rather have not copied the whole section, but I will copy the part that I believe is original research.


 *  Others have a different perspective. An article in Cover Pages quotes Lawrence Rosen as saying, "I'm pleased that this OSP is compatible with free and open source licenses." Mark Webbink; a lawyer and member of the board of the Software Freedom Law Center, and former employee of Linux vendor Red Hat; has said,


 * "Red Hat believes that the text of the OSP gives sufficient flexibility to implement the listed specifications in software licensed under free and open source licenses. We commend Microsoft’s efforts to reach out to representatives from the open source community and solicit their feedback on this text, and Microsoft's willingness to make modifications in response to our comments."


 * Standards laywer Andy UpdeGrove said the Open Specification Promise was


 * "what I consider to be a highly desirable tool for facilitating the implementation of open standards, in particular where those standards are of interest to the open source community."


 * The Software Freedom Law Center statement is directly above this section. The sections above are gathered from different sources. But none of the references in any way place the statements as being made against The Software Freedom Law Center statement. They were all made in 2006. The Software Freedom Law Center statement was made in 2008. There is no reference that says they contradict or have different opinions than The Software Freedom Law Center statement. As I understand WP:NOR they cant by themselves gather quotes and say they contradict or have different opinions compared to The Software Freedom Law Center statement. They need a reference that says it does. They are below The Software Freedom Law Center statement and were placed as clear statements to refute The Software Freedom Law Center statement. If they didnt then there would be no need to have them on the page following The Software Freedom Law Center statement. Kilz (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am hoping someone, any third party, will give me an answer. A shortened form of the question, with the latest version.
 * Several experts have stated a different perspective. An article in Cover Pages quotes Lawrence Rosen as saying, "I'm pleased that this OSP is compatible with free and open source licenses."
 * I placed the tag at the end of the problem sentence, but the quote is part of it. An editor clearly wants to use the Lawrence Rosen quote to refute the SFLC statement that is directly before it. Take a look here if you want to see it. Is the use of the quote original research? There is no reference that says the Lawrence Rosen quote is about or in opposition to the SFLC above it, in fact the Lawrence Rosen quote is 2 years older. Kilz (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Radar loop
2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak was nominated for GA. The reviewer suggested more references in the meteorological sypnosis section. I found that a radar loop provided a good reference for the convective mode description. Would this be considered OR? Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis = original research?
I wonder about this example, specifically at Asteroids in astrology:
 * [...] These myths, including the fact that Ceres is the roundest asteroid (it resembles the Moon) signify that in astrology [...]

Reading the policy, it appears this might be the case? --Nate (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Without inline citations, it is hard to say whether it is an original synthesis or is repeating a synthesis made by one of the sources that are listed at the bottom of the article. I would suggest tagging the section in some way.  Point out the problem on the talk page and give people time to fix it.  It may spark some work on proper citation and improve the article. Blueboar (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blueboar, I'll do that. --Nate (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops
Just wanted to share with everyone the most interesting bit of original research I've ever seen: .--Father Goose (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OR regarding a TV show
I'm having some trouble with an IP address adding original research to The Moment of Truth (US game show). The IP address, rather than discussing the issue, keeps adding a chart to show there is a probability that a contestant will get cheated on the show. The chart itself is original research since the IP address editor doesn't actually know what procedures are used by the show's experts. I also have other general concerns with the chart and the edits such as POV issues, undue weight, "fringe" attacks on the TV show, etc. It's just not necessary, but the editor is being quite uncooperative in agenda-pushing. (Edit: The IP address is 199.125.109.105, and on The Moment of Truth talk page, the user unwittingly reveals that this is original research/synthesis by demonstrating his/her own methods rather than citing the sources of those methods.) Chicken Wing (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does referencing a third-party dictionary definition constitute OR?
This is a question about whether linking to a dictionary definition (or a similar source of term definitions) constitutes OR when that dictionary contradicts another source's use of the word.

Specifically, this is about The Exorcist (film) and its use of images that briefly flash on screen. One set of sources call these subliminal images/subliminal edits. Another set of sources refer to them as "semi-subliminal" or "not truly subliminal". In addition to these sources, would further discussion of (and links to) the technical meaning of "subliminal", as presented in dictionaries and psychology texts, be considered OR? -Clueless (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Original synthesis prohibits making the sorts of inferences, "John says X implies A, Bob says X implies B, therefore, John is wrong." So what you're suggesting could be construed as original research. There's a very easy way around that, however, and that's to link to the most relevant Wikipedia article on the subject. That way, interested readers can follow the link and find out about all significant interpretations and meanings of the phrase, assuming we actually have a decent article on. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. Would it be appropriate, then, to merely point out that "John says X implies A, but Bob says X means B" (without the "therefore, John is wrong")? -Clueless (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that mere juxtaposition of such facts can be a violation of original research if one of the sources is not about the subject of the article. And the reasoning is pretty simple. If a source is being used that actually has nothing to do with the article's subject, than its viewpoint is either entirely irrelevant or it is being used to make an argument it doesn't actually support. And such arguments are precisely what WP:SYN exists to prevent, and it doesn't matter if the argument is explicit or implicit. So in your example above, Bob's opinion on X is either irrelevant or it's being used to suggest that the movie doesn't contain subliminal images, and if Bob never mentioned the movie, we can't use him to make that argument, even if we never go all the way and say it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Someguy1221. That clarifies things :) -Clueless (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Someguy gets it right... but I do want to clarify further... if Bob says "The Exorcist contains subliminal editing" and Joe says "No the Excorcist contains semi-subliminal edits" both opinions can be mentioned in the article on the Excorcist. That is not a synthesis, it is a juxtaposition of facts backed by reliable sources (at least I assume they are reliable).  The synthesis would occur by your adding "The Dictionary defines a subliminal edit as 'X'..." Since the dictionary is not specifically defining the term in the context of discussing The Exorcist. By including the dictionary definition you are implying that either Bob or Joe is wrong, even if you don't spell it out.  To include the dictionary definition, it would would have to specifically mention The Exorcist in the context of defining the term. The only exception to this would be if either Joe or Bob (the sources) mentioned a specific dictionary's definition in the context of discussing the Exorcist.  At which point, that specific dictionary's definition can be discussed further in the article. Blueboar (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Citing a dictionary definition is not "original research". Also there's no consensus that "original research by juxtaposition" exists, though there is an essay on the WP:RELEVANCE of what to bring to the article.  Though if it was me editing the article, I would simply put "subliminal" in quotes to convey that the images flashed may not technically be "subliminal" in the strict sense and either leave it at that or put an explanation in a footnote.  I would also avoid wording like "accused" because it makes it sound like some group made a fuss about the film clips, which I don't know if that is so or not.  There was a _lot_ of controversy over subliminal messages in music years ago and we don't want the reader making assumptions about whether that movie was part of that controversy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Squidfryerchef, thank you for your input. This seems to complicate matters some, however, since you seem to disagree with the above posters.  What would the proper procedure be, in this case, to see whose interpretation of the rules is more accurate?  Or should we try to arrive at a consensus of some sort...?  I'm new to NOR debates and I'm unsure how to continue at this point. -Clueless (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The WP:NOR policy has an example ( the "Smith/Jones" example ) about how it would be original research to cite an academic style guide and then say that someone was guilty or innocent of plagiarism. However, citing the style guide isn't O.R.  Using it to say someone is innocent or guilty is _definitely_ O.R.  However, since that example's been added to the policy it's often used to justify removing cited material that might be problematic, but problematic for reasons other than original research.  My take on the "subliminal" controversy is that it's just one of many things to say about the movie, and it should be deep in a subsection of the article, not up front in the second paragraph. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My short answer is: it's more productive to debate the facts and what's probably true and what isn't and what's important with the other editors than to debate the rules. We've probably gone as far as we can go productively with the rules. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing Synthesis problems
I have raised this issue before... but the problem continues. The article Catholicism and Freemasonry contains a HUGE amount of OR issues. At one point Jossi called it an "OR and POV nightmare"... and it has not improved. The most agregeous is the inclusion of a section on "The Relationship between Catholicism and Freemasonry by Country", which is a serious misnomer and essentially one big WP:SYNT violation. The section is really just a list of unconnected incidents in history where the Church and Freemasonry have been in conflict ... or, more correctly, where some critics of Freemasonry within the Church see a conflict (at times the "conflict" is very one sided.) By listing all these disperate historical events, the article attempts to "prove" that the fraternity is anti-catholic. It portrays these incidents and events as if they were connected in some way, when they are not. The article ignors a host of other motivations and historical trends that lye behind each event. More importantly, there is no source that links all of these events together... which is at the core of WP:SYNT. I have repeatedly tryed to get the primary editor of this article to understand what the problem is... to no avail. I need help. The article's topic is worth discussing... there is a solid basis for an article here... but the current version is in such bad shape that I have no idea where to begin. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The bad shape of the article is the reason why I'm trying to do something about it. The section Blueboar refers to was reading like a general hit list of problems.  To sort that out I've changed the focus slightly (from a "by country" section to talking about Continental Freemasonry), removed some of the subsections and put in a referenced introduction that tries to set the whole controversy in context. I've also tried to add some information on the French, although that's met with less success.   JASpencer (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The change in section title does not really change the SYNT problem. It simply redirects it's focus to a sub-section of Freemasonry instead of implying that it relates to the entire fraternity.  The section in question can be summed up in a simple sentence... "For different reasons, at different times and places, some Freemasons in Catholic countries have supported political ideologies and stances that have been viewed by the Church as being Anti-Clerical."  If this were all that was stated, there would be no problems... But by trying to list and discuss all of these disperate reasons, times and places, the article takes unconnected events and tries to link them in ways that form an improper Synthesis. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But it's not the issue, is it? The point is that there is a point of view that the Church's view of Freemasonry is due to bad experiences with some radical (Continental) lodges - particularly France and Italy. It can be summed up as:
 * Thus, in condemning all Freemasonry for the actions of a few Grand Lodges, the Church precipitated a needless conflict. Latin Masonry, in its refusal to attempt to lead rather than force change, thereby made itself, and thus all Masonry, a party to the conflict. http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masonry/Essays/miter-trowel.html
 * This is quite common among Anglo-American Freemasons. Christopher Hodapp seems to think this, for example. William J Whalen in the influential Letter to American bishops tries to debunk it. It's common. It should be addressed. JASpencer (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The material is useful, but not in its current state. I think it is more an issue of NPOV, than  WP:SYN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are also NPOV issues that need to be dealt with... but there are SYN problems as well... I suppose, my biggest issue is that there is no source that ties all of these individual events together to reach the conclusions in the article. Individually, each event or political stance has been cited as an example of a group within Freemasonry taking an anti-clerical political stance... but no source puts them together, the way they are in the article. To me that is where the SYN comes in to play.  It also skews the historical record. It leaves out important facts... such as the fact that the Grand Orient of France supported Napoleon III when he invaded Italy in support of the Papacy... at the same time that several Italian Grand Orients were supporting Unification, and thus opposing the Papacy.  The article takes a very complex series of historical events, deals with them only half way, and merges them improperly. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying Summarizing vs. Original Research
Let's discuss the general issue and how the WP:NOR article can resolve it. Problems in both Jewish lobby and Israel lobby in the United Kingdom‎ are caused because of differences of opinion over whether a summary is vaguely defined "original research" (or sometimes more specifically "synthesis"). And when it comes down to mere opinion the answer is cooperative editing. So what does one do about one or two partisans who subjectively call every summary they don't like WP:OR??


 * Contributing_to_Wikipedia ...What we are about is researching and summarizing ideas and information that have already been publicized elsewhere....


 * NOR - Using Sources: ...A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source....


 * NOR - Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position: ...Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly...''

Carol Moore 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * I would like to hear more about this as well. Over in Prem Rawat, summarizing a source was described as "conjectural interpretation", following the language in WP:BLP which quotes WP:OR.  However, in context the editor was really describing cherry picking of facts, which to my eye would be WP:SYN rather than conjectural interpretation.  I wasn't really able to find any guidance about what "conjectural interpretation" means, though. Msalt (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen phrase. But if you can get the source, best thing usually is to re-write material as an NPOV edit. Carol Moore 05:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Agreed. However, in this case, I think it WAS an NPOV summary.  The objecting editor didn't even claim otherwise; s/he seemed to be saying that the simple fact of reducing two articles to a two sentence summary was by definition "conjectural interpretation."  Needless to say, I think that is wildly wrong. Exactly what we do is summarize reliable sources.  Msalt (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen some situations recently where someone has edited an article about a US legal concept or a Supreme Court decision in what I felt was an inappropriate fashion — such as by allowing only an essentially literal quote of the holdings and rejecting (as original research or synthesis) attempts to put the holdings in any sort of context — or insisting on mentioning when a case was cited in another case, quoting something from that other case, and then refusing to allow any addition of context or any other description of the circumstances of the other case that might help the reader to understand what Case B was about or why it cited Case A (again, calling such efforts original research). Examples:  Plyler v. Doe (including a quote from U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez without explaining anything about the circumstances of the Verdugo case), and Anchor baby (removal of material explaining the background of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and leaving just an abstract statement of the holding).  I've thought in these situations that it was useful (nay, essential) to provide context, based on a common-sense reading and understanding of the case in question, in order for the material to make sense and reduce the risk of its being misunderstood in a POV manner, but I've had WP:OR and WP:SYNTH thrown in my face.  Are there any guidelines for what can and can't be done when discussing court cases in a Wikipedia article?  Richwales (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In point of fact, you were encouraged to find and provide reliable sources which, in your words, 'put the holdings in any sort of context'. Instead of providing such sources, you made an issue of being expected to do so.  The dispuates you are discussing were not over whether 'proper context' should be provided.  Rather, they were over whether Wikipedia editors should be empowered to take it upon themselves to define what 'proper context' is or whether 'proper context' should be judged by reliable sources (that is, by the same standards other content is judged - WP:NOR being one such standard).-198.97.67.58 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a diff from the Plyler v. Doe talk page, illustrating a discussion we had about explaining the context of U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez. I felt (and still feel) that my statements supplying background for the "substantial connections" quote from Verdugo-Urquidez were clear from reading the case and required no additional sources; the other editor disagreed.


 * And here's another diff, from the Anchor baby article; please note the difference in the way these two versions discuss the Wong Kim Ark case. Again, I feel that the first version was a legitimate summarization of Wong Kim Ark which explained why this case is relevant to US citizenship law and tied the case in to the continuing controversy over "birthright citizenship" in US law.


 * So, again, are there any guidelines for what one can do when summarizing a court case without the summary crossing the line into the realm of original research? Richwales (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Anchor Baby diff you referenced above illustrates what happens when you start using original research to summarize. In the original version, it states, but does not source, that the the Supreme Court found "that the "jurisdiction" language of the Citizenship Clause excluded from birthright citizenship only children of foreign diplomats, children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of U.S. territory, and members of Indian tribes".  The second version states (and provides a source) that "The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal alien parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Fourteenth Amendment".  Note that these two statements are mutually contradictory.   Either the Supreme Court never explicitly ruled on birthright citizenship (as per the second - sourced- version) or it did (as per the first - unsourced - version).  But more to the point, the issue Wikipedia is concerned about is not whether the Supreme Court did or did not do this, but whether an unsourced statement should be treated equally to a sourced one (that is, whether the unsourced statement should stay in the article - in this case because you feel, but cannot source, that it is properly summarizing the court case).  I think the answer to that is obvious.  There should be no original research in the article.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The majority opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark went to great lengths to expound the majority's view on how the U.S. had inherited (from English common law) a very narrow view on who might be excluded from being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To give one example, they said the following as a culmination of a long discourse:


 * "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes." (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693.)


 * So the source of my summarization was there — in the court's ruling on the case being discussed. Now, I suppose perhaps I could have explicitly added a note to the text of the article, citing page 693 (or other specific pages) of the court's opinion as my source — and given all the controversy that has arisen, in retrospect I probably should have done that, and maybe this whole argument discussion we're having now might have been avoided.  But I assumed that such a note wasn't necessary because the article had already said it was talking about the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case, and anyone who wanted to verify the statement could look up the case, read it, and see for themselves that the claim in the Wikipedia article was valid.


 * Similarly, the context of the "substantial connections with [the United States]" statement in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez — namely, that the man's only reason for being in the U.S. was that he had been arrested in his native Mexico and extradited to the U.S. to stand trial on drug-lord charges, and that the Supreme Court did not consider this connection to the U.S. to be sufficiently substantial to give him the right to claim the protections of the U.S. Constitution against search-and-seizure activities performed on his property in Mexico — is very clear from the court's opinion in the case. I could, I suppose, have specifically cited U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271, where the reader can find the following text:


 * "JUSTICE STEVENS' concurrence in the judgment takes the view that even though the search took place in Mexico, it is nonetheless governed by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment because respondent was 'lawfully present in the United States . . . even though he was brought and held here against his will.' . . . But this sort of presence - lawful but involuntary - is not of the sort to indicate any substantial connection with our country. . . .  When the search of his house in Mexico took place, he had been present in the United States for only a matter of days.  We do not think the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to the search of premises in Mexico should turn on the fortuitous circumstance of whether the custodian of its nonresident alien owner had or had not transported him to the United States at the time the search was made."


 * and similar discussions in various other parts of the ruling, which would make it clear to any reader with an understanding of how to do U.S. legal research that this was the context in which the court had made its "substantial connections" statement. But again, I assumed (and still assume) that such a citation of a specific portion of the court's opinion as a source for the summarization in the Wikipedia article was not necessary, since the case itself was already explicitly under discussion, and anyone who wanted to verify the claimed summary would already have the tools at hand to do so by looking up the case and studying it for themselves.


 * If the accepted policy of Wikipedia is, in fact, that summarizations of this sort are not sufficiently verifiable, and thus cannot be made, without explicitly noting specific portions of a source text that has already been cited in general as part of the discussion (or perhaps that is the very subject of the article), then OK, I'll try to do that from now on. However, I think that would be an overly burdensome load of bureaucracy to put on editors, for no significant net gain to the quality of the writing in Wikipedia, and I think it would establish a risky precedent for (e.g.) articles on topics (such as scientific subjects) where an understanding in both breadth and depth may be required in order to discuss the topic at all intelligibly, and where requiring editors to quote "chapter and verse" for each and every sentence of an article is simply not a reasonable expectation and will drive would-be contributors away to no good end.  Richwales (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If the court really did make it as clear as you claim they did, then you should have no trouble at all finding a reliable source which agrees with you that the court made it so clear. The only reliable source which has been provided on the issue states the opposite.  Why do you think you are unable to find a source which agrees with you that the court made this so clear and I was able to find a source which states the opposite?-75.179.157.247 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I assume this is the same person making all these different contributions from various IP addresses, right? — but do you think you could please confirm that fact for the other people reading this thread, so everyone will understand that all these different addresses do not represent either (1) several separate editors who all happen to agree, or (2) a single editor engaging in sockpuppetry?  This would be another reason, actually, why creating your own Wikipedia account (which would, BTW, hide your IP address or addresses from public view) would probably be a good thing if you're going to be doing a lot of editing — though that, to be sure, is probably a discussion belonging somewhere else, and I don't want to distract people unduly and would again be very grateful if some other people who have not yet become involved in this particular OR/sources argument could step in and offer us some outside input.  Richwales (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several personal reasons why I don't use an account. Yes, I understand the advantages of using one.  However, there are disadvantages to using one as well.  Regardless, this is off topic.  As for sock puppetry, sock puppetry only becomes a violation when used in a number of prohibited ways (for example, used to vote more than once in a poll, used to engage in disruptive edits, used to artificially stir up controversy, etc.).  I don't use IP anon edits in any prohibited manner.  I'm very careful to vote only once in polls, I don't use IP anon edits as a cover for disruptive edits, etc.  However, this is a side issue.  Let's refocus on what this discussion is really about - whether unsourced disputed material belongs in Wikipedia articles.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And in addition to "whether unsourced disputed material belongs in Wikipedia articles", I want to focus on whether the kinds of material which I've been trying to include, and which you've been disputing, really is sourced or not. I claim it is sourced, because if a court ruling is the topic under discussion, the written record of the ruling itself is the best possible source of what the ruling was about.  And I claim that the sort of common sense required to read and understand a court ruling, and to summarize the salient points thereof, is a totally legitimate activity, not "unsourced" and not "original research".


 * Since we still don't seem to be getting any outside input on this question, and since the basis for the question could involve the question of what sources are reliable (as well as whether sources are present at all), I would propose to stick a note on the "reliable sources" noteboard (WP:RSN) — not necessarily with a view toward moving the discussion off here and over there, but just to alert people there and see if any of them are willing to join the discussion here (or if they really want to take over and pull the discussion onto that other noteboard). I can't take the time to do this right now, but hopefully later tonight.  Richwales (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The opinions themselves are primary sources, and the relevant policy reads: To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
 * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
 * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. Do I understand correctly that your anon opponent in this debate has a secondary source which contradicts (at least as regards the status of offspring) what you see as the plain meaning of the primary source? Andyvphil (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize your question was directed to Richwales, but I can answer it.

Yes, a secondary source has been provided which contradicts Richwales' interpretation of what the court case stated. As was mentioned earlier in this thread (12:46, 29 March 2008), "In the original version, it states, but does not source, that the the Supreme Court found "that the "jurisdiction" language of the Citizenship Clause excluded from birthright citizenship only children of foreign diplomats, children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of U.S. territory, and members of Indian tribes". The second version states (and provides a source) that "The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal alien parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Fourteenth Amendment". Note that these two statements are mutually contradictory. Either the Supreme Court never explicitly ruled on birthright citizenship (as per the second - sourced- version) or it did (as per the first - unsourced - version)." The source in the second version is a secondary source (The Heritage Guide to the Constitution  ISBN 159698001X.).-75.179.153.110 (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me first repeat the quote from the majority opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which I mentioned earlier:


 * The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693.) My slip-up for not having mentioned the part about "born on foreign public ships" previously; sorry about that.


 * I really don't see a fatal contradiction between the above quote (or my summarization thereof) and the commentary about birthright citizenship in the Heritage Foundation's book. Wong Kim Ark did not explicitly address the question of US-born children of illegal immigrants because that wasn't a point at issue in this case:  Wong's parents were, at the time of his birth in San Francisco, in the US legally, albeit not US citizens (and in fact ineligible for US naturalization under the laws in effect at the time).  So the Heritage book's statement is perfectly OK as far as I can tell.  To be sure, I've read some suggestions (albeit mostly in anti-immigration blogs) that any future case involving a US-born child of illegal alien parents would easily and obviously be distinguished from Wong Kim Ark on this point — though, of course, we'll never know about this for certain until/unless such a case actually materializes and is heard and ruled upon by the Supreme Court.


 * I think a blending of what both of us have been saying would be reasonable and ought to be acceptable, as long as the following points are suitably covered (including sources such as those described below):


 * Senator Jacob Howard, in 1866, said in Congress that the newly proposed Fourteenth Amendment would not confer citizenship upon "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States". (This quote can be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 2980, May 30, 1866.)


 * Despite such assertions by Senator Howard and others (see various comments in the Wong Kim Ark opinion, especially in the dissent), the Supreme Court ruled in 1898 (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Fourteenth Amendment conferred citizenship to everyone born in the US, except for the groups mentioned in the above quote from the majority opinion (i.e., children of foreign sovereigns or diplomats, those born on foreign ships, those born in a context of enemy occupation of US territory, and members of Indian tribes). We should note, too, that Indians born in the US were eventually recognized as US citizens via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924; and as for children born on foreign-registered ships in US waters, someone should research that and mention (along with a suitable source) any current law on this point.


 * Wong's parents were in the US legally at the time of his birth (this point can, if necessary, be sourced from material in the Wong Kim Ark case), and the Supreme Court's ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case did not explicitly address the question of whether or not a US-born child of illegal immigrants has US citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment (the aforementioned quote from the Heritage Foundation book can be used as a source for this observation).


 * Some attempts have been made to have US-born children of illegal aliens declared not to be US citizens — either by bills proposing new federal legislation to define/redefine "jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause (such as H.R. 133 and H.R. 1940 in the current, 110th, Congress, and H.R. 698 and H.R. 3938 in the 109th Congress), or by proposals to amend the Constitution to deny birthright citizenship to such children (such as H.J.Res. 46 in the 110th Congress, and [coincidentally same number] H.J.Res. 46 in the 109th Congress). No such proposal, however, has ever been passed by Congress — or, for that matter, even been voted upon by either house of Congress.  It should also be mentioned that if a federal law of this sort were to be enacted by Congress, it is not clear how a future Supreme Court might rule on the constitutionality of such a law.


 * Comments on this outline proposal? Richwales (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As what I hope is a "reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" I see a problem with the "unsourced" version having to do with the appearance of the phrase "including all children here born of resident aliens" in the quoted opinion. Clearly if you simply parse the sentence it is merely an unnecessary appendage that doesn't change the meaning. And the "unsourced" version treats it that way. But that's not necessarily the way Constitutional law works. Witness the Second Amendment, where the appendage-like "militia" phrase is the subject of so much debate. There appears to be a reasonable argument that those born to aliens who are not "resident" have a different status, somehow. And the supposedly exhaustive list of those excluded from birthright citizenship doesn't appear to be an exhaustive list of those born to nonresident aliens. Can you justify excluding this complication from your exegesis without "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" argument? (Or with it, as a matter of interest, rather than OR policy.) Andyvphil (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Andyvphil, you're certainly bringing up a reasonable point. As I said, since Wong's parents were living in the US (not just passing through), and they were in the US legally, the Wong Kim Ark case simply doesn't deal directly with the legal-vs.-illegal immigrant parent question that has become such a big issue today.  And that makes it hard for us, today, to talk about what Wong Kim Ark means without (intentionally or not) taking a position on today's hot topic.  Indeed, I think it's safe to say that any source that talks about Wong Kim Ark is at risk of being perceived as POV, by one camp or the other, vis-à-vis the specific issue of US-born children of illegal aliens — just as any discussion of what the Second Amendment means is liable to be criticized by supporters of one or the other interpretation of "a well-regulated militia".


 * The matter is perhaps complicated by the way the term "resident alien" is customarily used nowadays in the US as a synonym for "lawful permanent resident".


 * The quickest reply I can think of to your point would be to note that the same paragraph that talks about "including all children here born of resident aliens" also mentions — as an exception to this category — children "of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory". If you're looking for an example of aliens on US soil (but not legally), members of an invading army would seem to be about as illegal as you can get — and yet the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark felt it perfectly natural to mention this as an explicit exception to the general "resident alien parents" concept which they were propounding.


 * Elsewhere in the Wong Kim Ark opinion (page 657), the majority wrote about how English common law — which the court argued must be considered when interpreting the US Constitution — deemed the English-born children of foreigners to be English subjects "whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country". Again, the specific question of children of illegal aliens just didn't come up in any of this, but this second quote should show that the Supreme Court majority did not see their argument as hinging on the single question of whether Wong's parents were "living" in the US (as opposed to just temporarily visiting or "passing through").


 * And, as I proposed earlier, I have no qualms at all about having a description of Wong Kim Ark point out that Wong's parents were in the US legally at the time of his birth, and that this case did not specifically address the question of legal vs. illegal alien parents, and that that question remains unresolved in the eyes of some people. Richwales (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As you said, "the specific question of children of illegal aliens just didn't come up in any of this". This means that not only is this an issue of whether or not original research belongs in the article, its a question of whether original research about Obiter dictum belongs in the article - in other words, its not only a question about original research, it also raises questions of relevancy.((unsigned, by ??))


 * Richwales, you write "the same paragraph that talks about 'including all children here born of resident aliens' also mentions — as an exception to this category...", but actually it's not at all clear the the "enemies within" etc. exceptions are exceptions to the "resident aliens" category. Rather, and I am here contradicting my suggestion that the "resident aliens" clause suggests that some different rule may apply to nonresident aliens, I think the most plausible reading of the quote is that the general rule is the sentence without the interpolated phrase "including all children here born of resident aliens" (and the general rule is, btw, not obiter dicta, but fundamental to the decision), but that that phrase is interpolated into the general rule simply to explicitly include the catagory to which Wong Kim Ark belonged. Then, assuming only that it is absolutely clear that in the phrase "birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country" it is absolutely clear that it is the territory, not the birth, that must be "in the allegiance" I am led to agree with the language: "the Supreme Court ruled in an 1898 case that the "jurisdiction" language of the Citizenship Clause excluded from birthright citizenship only children of foreign diplomats, children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of U.S. territory, children born on foreign public ships and members of Indian tribes". But I think you should find a RS for this conclusion rather than rely on such subtle, even if accurate, argument. Andyvphil (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, if a secondary source supporting an expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship per Wong Kim Ark is truly necessary or would really help, here's one:


 * Congressional Quarterly: "Toward a More Perfect Defintion of 'Citizen'"


 * Richwales (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so Balkin says “Wong Kim Art seems to suggest the statute would be unconstitutional. But you could distinguish that it does not specifically involve illegal aliens.” and Deal asserts "We haven’t had a square ruling on that yet". So your language "the Supreme Court ruled in an 1898 case that the "jurisdiction" language of the Citizenship Clause excluded from birthright citizenship only..." is not an uncontroversal reading of the primary source. So where we come out, I think, is that you can quote the primary source, quote (Eastman) the opinion that the ruling means what you said it means (but is a misreading of original intent), and quote Balkin that it's not so clear. And your original text was legitimately deemed not acceptable (even though I think it's right -- I think I'm with Eastman on both parts, given your quote of Howard.) Andyvphil (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The quotes of interest in this article (that I identify) are

Now, the debate we're having is whether these quotes support the claim that the Supreme Court found "that the "jurisdiction" language of the Citizenship Clause excluded from birthright citizenship only children of foreign diplomats, children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of U.S. territory, and members of Indian tribes". The best support I can find for that claim is in Balkin's statement, "Wong Kim Art seems to suggest the statute would be unconstitutional" - if you divorce that quote from what comes after it. Statements like "We haven’t had a square ruling on that yet", and "There are active legal disputes about the meaning of that provision at this time" are saying that the court reached no such finding (because if the court had reached such a finding, it wouldn't be up for debate). The statement by Eastman doesn't even address the issue one way or the other.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Balkin says, “Wong Kim Art seems to suggest the statute would be unconstitutional. But you could distinguish that it does not specifically involve illegal aliens.” He also sayd that what the court would do is difficult to predict.
 * Deal says, "We haven’t had a square ruling on that yet".
 * Alito says, "There are active legal disputes about the meaning of that provision at this time"
 * Eastman says that the court "misread" the citizenship clause 14 years later in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and that Congress understood a clear distinction between “basic territorial jurisdiction” such as traffic laws, and “complete jurisdiction”, which encompasses a person’s allegiance to a nation (However, Eastman does not say that the court ruled that citizenship was extended to everyone born in U.S. territory)
 * Un, no. Per the cite, Eastman is looking at the text of the 14th and reading "jurisdiction" as "complete jurisdiction" but asserting that the court misread it as "basic territorial jurisdiction”, and therefor did wrongly exclude only the enumerated categories (plus the public boats correction), not allowing for a broader "allegiance" exception. And there can indeed be active legal disputes about something the court has already ruled on since stare decisis is not absolute (see Brown, or the prospect of a retraction of Roe.). Andyvphil (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple more sources which address the Wong Kim Ark case.


 * "U.S. Citizenship of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents" — an analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a public policy research arm of Congress. Order code RL33079 (September 13, 2005).  I found a copy of this report here.


 * "Legislation Denying Citizenship at Birth to Certain Children Born in the United States" — testimony given before two subcommittees of the House Judiciary Committee on December 13, 1995, by an official of the Justice Department (an Assistant Attorney General), arguing that a bill proposing to limit birthright citizenship via a narrowed definition of 14th Amendment "jurisdiction" was unconstitutional on its face. I found this testimony here.

Sample quotes from the above:


 * From the CRS paper: [W]here birth in the United States was clear, a child of Chinese parents was, in the Court’s [ Wong  Kim  Ark majority] opinion, definitely a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, even though Chinese aliens were ineligible to naturalize under then-existing law. The Court rejected the argument that the child was born subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese emperor and outside the jurisdiction of the United States because his allegiance and citizenship derived from his parents’ remaining subjects to the Chinese emperor . . . .  The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment affirmed the traditional jus  soli rule, including the exceptions of children born to foreign diplomats, to hostile occupying forces or on foreign public ships, and added a new exception of children of Indians owing direct allegiance to their tribes. It further held that the "Fourteenth Amendment . . . has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship" . . . .


 * From the Justice Dept. official's testimony: The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to reflect the existing common law exception for discrete sets of persons who were deemed subject to a foreign sovereign and immune from U.S. laws, principally children born in the United States of foreign diplomats, with the single additional exception of children of members of Indian tribes. Apart from these extremely limited exceptions, there can be no question that children born in the United States of aliens are subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. And, as consistently recognized by courts and Attorneys General for over a century, most notably by the Supreme Court in United  States  v.  Wong  Kim  Ark, there is no question that they possess constitutional citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . The principles set forth in Wong  Kim  Ark cannot be dismissed as having been overtaken by contemporary judicial interpretation or current events. Both the courts and commentators have consistently cited and followed the principles of Wong  Kim  Ark .

The Congressional Research Service's mission is to be a nonpartisan body supplying objective analysis and research to all members and staff of Congress. I would propose that this is a valid source for a statement that Wong Kim Ark ruled in favor of citizenship for everyone born in the US (subject only to the short list of exceptions mentioned). Again, I would have no problem with juxtaposing another statement after this to the effect that Wong Kim Ark did not explicitly address the question of US-born children of illegal aliens, and that some people consider this question to remain unresolved.

The Justice Department testimony clearly takes one side of the question (and thus, standing alone, would be presenting this position in an unacceptably POV fashion). However, I think it's worth including in any discussion of Wong Kim Ark and birthright citizenship, since it is a position being articulated by someone who evidently had clearance to speak on behalf of an arm of the US federal government (though, admittedly, even that fact may not impress some who are wedded to an opposing view).

As I mentioned earlier, the subject of birthright citizenship in the US is inherently controversial, and it's probably impossible to find any analysis of Wong Kim Ark from any source that everyone is going to accept as being NPOV. Even the quote from the Heritage Guide to the Constitution is likely going to be suspect in the eyes of some, since this work was published under the auspices of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank which has publicly taken the position that 14th Amendment "jurisdiction" should be interpreted so as to deny birthright citizenship to US-born children of illegal aliens. Richwales (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, it looks like maybe we've managed to take this discussion about the Wong Kim Ark out of the realm of "no original research". Any further talk would probably fall under either the subject of NPOV and/or "reliable sources".


 * I had another issue I wanted feedback on (discussion of U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez in the context of Plyler v. Doe) — but this current section has become so long that I think it would probably be better to start a new section — which I'll do in the next day or two. Richwales (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PSTS and BLP
What is the policy on the use of quotations from a living person to support statements about them in their article? One user is repeatedly citing WP:PSTS as support for his view that Barack Obama has too many quotations from Obama himself. My view is that the quotations in that article are in keeping with the requirements of WP:PSTS, insofar as they:


 * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
 * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source

What's the usual interpretation of WP:PSTS in cases like this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone? Anyone?  Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are reading the policy correctly. Quoting Sen. Obama is perfectly OK according to PSTS.  However, I do have to ask if it is necessary to quote him so much.  Please see WP:SPS, which discourages relying too much on self published material.  It might be best to see if there are some secondary sources that could be used to summarize some of these quotes. Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Blueboar. The article is undergoing a FAR right now, so if there's too much self-published material being used as sources in the article I hope that'll come up there.  Again, thanks for the reply. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OR in Archaeoastronomy?
If I had realised this board existed sooner then I would have posted here earlier. As it is the debate has got a bit heated, so I'll try and summarise this neutrally.

There are two topics under debate in the Talk:Archaeoastronomy page. It's tied into an RFC which asks if two editors are being abusive and some 3rd party opinion may help.
 * Is the citation of an article on Metrology being used to support a novel synthesis in the History of Archaeoastronomy section?
 * Do the citations of an articles on Kennewick Man and the Solutrean hypothesis support the claims of Barry Fell or is this a novel synthesis? That's discussed in Talk:Archaeoastronomy

Thanks to everyone who takes the time to look it over. Alun Salt (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In opposition to Alun Salt, and as the one responsible for posting the RFC on possible abuse, my name is Scott Monahan and I edit under the user name below. Mr. Salt has a tendency to narrowly mischaracterize my citations in, what I believe to be, a systemic and self-serving manner.  For example, The battle of the standards: great pyramid metrology and British identity, 1859-1990 is not isolated to Metrology per se. Historian Reisenauer identifies profound academic reformation in British astronomy that put a new face on antiquarianism of the era. Antiquarianism fostered modern archaeoastronomy. This is no leap of faith. It happened. Mr. Salt also enjoys isolating TIME's Who Were The First Americans? article to the controversially-charged Kennewick Man straw man, instead of acknowledging what authors Lemonick and Dorfman say about many other examples of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact that invariably raise the hairs on the backs of mainstream archaeology with a dogma that has kept it in an intellectual straitjacket since Franklin Roosevelt was President.  For the record, I have unequivocally renounced in my RFC that the TIME article and (according to Mr. Salt's latest addition herewith, the BBC's Stone Age Columbus - transcript regarding the Solutrean hypothesis), supports the claims of Barry Fell.  Yet my protestations do nothing to dissuade my opponent from continuing to deviously twist matters to his own advantage. Can we tolerate such dishonesty and flagrant mischaracterization? I must conclude Mr. Salt either fails to read my Talk remarks, my citations and defenses, or he is too busy advancing his own POV, winning sympathy for  camouflaged autocracy and a Good Article attaboy if he can get away with it. He has a pattern of deleting my edits with tortured rationalizations that must somehow make sense to him. He is not the victim here, I assure all. What he and partner Steve McCluskey desire, IMO, is absolute, irrevocable power to lock content. This is fundamentally violative of the spirit of Wikipedia, its mission and goals, and must not be allowed to go on unchecked. Breadh2o (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As is all to often the case, in this dispute Original Research has slid over into the kind of Disruptive Editing in which the editor supports his original point of view by complaining about academic archaeologists, who dismiss the diffusionist ideas he shares with Barry Fell. Thus, despite the documented evidence that archaeologists, anthropolgists, and other social scientists play a major role in archaeoastronomy as it is currently practiced, Breadh2o tries to push the POV that his bête noir, the archaeologist, can have nothing to do with archaeoastronomy, which he sees as a struggle against the academic establishment.
 * Alun and I have struggled to explain to Breadh2o how he could move from original research by turning to relevant secondary sources, but thus far he has not responded in a positive fashion. In a sense it is a shame, since he is familiar with specific aspects of archaeoastronomy expressed in rock art, and I really would like to see him provide documented discussion of those sites and their reception.  SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Where have I said that archaeologists should have nothing to do with archaeoastronomy? Of course they have something to do with archaeoastromy.  I simply don't think they are qualified to be final arbiters of what counts as fringe and what counts as mainstream due to demonstrable limitations in their ability to evaluate non-indigenous epigraphy and an inability to exhibit impartial judgment regarding a whole host of new discoveries based on an institutional dogmatic rejection of much evidence tied to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. I agree archaeology has a say, just not the final say, as you would endorse. The delineation between mainstream and fringe is not a simplistic and distinctive line in the sand. It is a gray area, instead. There are a whole spectrum of opinions, and to address this I chose to introduce articles in some popular periodicals, the BBC and now CBS (in my latest balancing act) that discuss it openly, something I gather you consider to be disruptive. I do insist that astronomy is the root of archaeoastronomy and archaeo-, as a modifier or adjective, is entitled to limited influence in what archaeoastronomy is.  As you certainly must recall, Steve, you initiated the section of the article that introduced the attack on Barry Fell with your citation of W. Hunter Lesser's adolescent name-calling skreed. To offset your one-sided POV, I summoned a quote from archaeology professor emeritus David H. Kelley's conditional defense of Fell, "Proto-Tifinagh and Proto-Ogham in the Americas", from the Quarterly Review of Archaeology:"I have no personal doubts that some of the inscriptions which have been reported are genuine Celtic ogham. Despite my occasional harsh criticism of Fell's treatment of individual inscriptions, it should be recognized that without Fell's work there would be no ogham problem to perplex us. We need to ask not only what Fell has done wrong in his epigraphy, but also where we have gone wrong as archaeologists in not recognizing such an extensive European presence in the New World." But you instantly deleted my stuff, characteristic of the very head-in-the-sand attitude I say that archaeologists exhibit.. We had a bit of an edit skirmish and you quickly agreed to pull your unilateral Fell-bashing in exchange for your rub-out of my defense of Fell.  Barry Fell is no longer an issue in the archaeoastronomy article because of your choice to bury it and avoid any embarrassing consequences. You opened the door and you closed it, but I must wonder now, days later, when you and Alun continue to raise it as a red herring, if you want to restore the attack. Otherwise, there is no point in arguing Barry Fell any further. If you do, count on me to try to balance things again. That's how it goes on Wikipedia. It is not disruption. It is prevention of a unilateral POV. Why you insist on dragging this somewhat embarrassing faux pas of yours back into the mix now, when its relevancy has expired, betrays some desperation, don't you think? Breadh2o (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whew. Nice bit of name-calling there by you Scott. Glad to see you aren't being dogmatic :-). I've got a copy of AAI by the way, and Clive Ruggles on Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland and Christopher Walker's Astronomy Before the Telescope, so please don't think I am entering this discussion with no knowledge of the subject even though I won't claim to be an expert. I'm with Steve and Alun in this debate.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dougweller is a member of the Archaeology Wikiproject. No surprise about where his sympathy lies. Breadh2o (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia really doesn't allow us to discount the opinions of an entire academic field. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 22:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Update
I came across this situation after a bout of spam cleanup landed this article on my watchlist. Today Breadh2o inserted a long, problematic section into the Archaeoastronomy article, and is now engaging in reverting it when removed diff. He has not yet broken 3RR, but he refuses to engage on the talk page of the article or his user talk page, or address the problems of unencyclopedic tone and questionable sources others have repeatedly pointed out to him. I view this user's editing as disruptive, uncooperative, and POV-pushing. I can see from what he has deleted from his talk page that other editors have tried to educate him, but he seems uninterested in learning to work cooperatively. I haven't had a chance to check Breadh2o's full contribs, but if what I've seen on this article is indicative of what he's doing on the 'pedia, this is cause for concern, indeed. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 03:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Plyler v. Doe and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez
There's been a dispute happening in the article Plyler v. Doe (a 1982 US Supreme Court case in which the court held that states could not refuse to provide free public education to foreign-born children living in the US as illegal immigrants).

Another (anonymous) editor wants to add a piece to this article mentioning that Plyler v. Doe was cited in another US Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, in which the court said that "those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country."

I tried to add an explanation, derived from a reading of the Verdugo-Urquidez case, of the context in which the above quote was made. Verdugo-Urquidez was a Mexican citizen who was arrested in Mexico and extradited to the US on "drug lord" charges. Verdugo-Urquidez argued that his having been extradited to the US afforded him the same constitutional rights against (allegedly illegal) search and seizure of his Mexican property as US citizens enjoy, and he cited Plyler v. Doe and its broad interpretation of US "jurisdiction" as being essentially equivalent to physical presence within the US. The Supreme Court, in its majority opinion, dismissed Verdugo-Urquidez's claim by saying that the mere fact that he was in the US as an extradited prisoner was not a sufficiently substantial connection to the US to entitle him to claim the same level of constitutional protection for actions done outside the US as are acknowledged for aliens in general in the US, or for US citizens living abroad.

The other editor insisted that this attempted explanation of the context of Verdugo-Urquidez was original research and thus unacceptable, and that the "substantial connections" quote should stand alone without further comment. Here is a diff illustrating our disagreement.

A similar mention of U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez also appears in the article on illegal immigration to the United States, where the current text of the article states that the Verdugo-Urquidez court "clarified" Plyler v. Doe via the "substantial connections" statement.

The reason I'm particularly uneasy at the idea of citing Verdugo-Urquidez in this way is that the "substantial connections" statement, all by itself and without any context, could easily mislead the reader into thinking that the Verdugo-Urquidez court had weakened the holding in Plyler and was exhibiting second thoughts about its position in Plyler or other cases involving illegal aliens. I feel it is essential to point out exactly under what circumstances the "substantial connections" had come up in the court's analysis of the Verdugo-Urquidez case. The other editor disagreed.

I could, I suppose, have specifically cited U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, where the reader can find the following text on page 271:


 * "JUSTICE STEVENS' concurrence in the judgment takes the view that even though the search took place in Mexico, it is nonetheless governed by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment because respondent was 'lawfully present in the United States . . . even though he was brought and held here against his will.' . . . But this sort of presence - lawful but involuntary - is not of the sort to indicate any substantial connection with our country. . . .  When the search of his house in Mexico took place, he had been present in the United States for only a matter of days.  We do not think the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to the search of premises in Mexico should turn on the fortuitous circumstance of whether the custodian of its nonresident alien owner had or had not transported him to the United States at the time the search was made."

and similar discussions in various other parts of the ruling, which I believe would make it clear to any reader that this was the context in which the court had made its "substantial connections" statement. I didn't include that quote because I assumed (and still assume) that such a citation of a specific portion of the court's opinion as a source for the summarization in the Wikipedia article was not necessary, since the case itself was already explicitly under discussion, and anyone who wanted to verify the claimed summary would already have the tools at hand to do so by looking up the case and studying it for themselves.

Do people feel that a comment of this sort about the background of U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez would be acceptable if accompanied by a quote from the court's opinion such as the one shown above?

Do people feel that this sort of comment about the background of Verdugo-Urquidez would be acceptable without an explicit reference to specific parts of the text of the opinion, on the grounds that the comment's accuracy will be clear to a reader who actually goes to the trouble of reading the case itself?

Do people feel that some sort of comment about the background of Verdugo-Urquidez would be OK, but that perhaps I'm going too far in my attempt to summarize the case, and that such a comment ought to take a different form?

Or do people feel that this sort of comment is not appropriate in Wikipedia at all, unless some external secondary source commenting on the Verdugo-Urquidez case can be found that explicitly says that this is what the "substantial connections" comment meant?

I imagine that if a quote from Verdugo-Urquidez about the context of "substantial connections" were considered unacceptable, some might argue that the "substantial connections" quote itself was also unacceptable — a conclusion, however, which I would not be prepared to agree with. Richwales (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Supreme Court cases can be very nuanced, no matter how plainly stated they may seem to be. Scholars with doctoral degrees in the subject and decades of experience fiercely debate even the basic substance and thrust of US Supreme Court decisions. For example, whether US v. Miller approves of extensive gun control or reiterates a right to bear arms (appropriate for the purposes of the unorganized militia), or something in-between, greatly depends on the person giving the analysis. The United States is a common law country, meaning that no matter how plain a law or court case may appear to be, it is influenced, restricted and/or reinforced by the apparent intent of the lawgivers/judges, previous laws and court decisions, traditional Anglo-American common law, and so forth. I advise extreme caution in quoting Supreme Court cases, being sure to stay exactly to the source and avoiding even the appearance of drawing a conclusion or leading the reader. I would suggest that the decisions themselves be avoided (as direct sources), except when used to provide an illustrative quote that supports the conclusions of independent sources. Vassyana (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I'm prepared to agree to go quite that far in limiting quoting of Supreme Court cases, since impartial independent sources of analysis or interpretation of such cases could be (as you yourself pointed out) very hard to find — though, to be sure, POV sources are likely to be a dime a dozen.


 * At the very least, though, I would certainly object to saying that the U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez opinion "clarified" Plyler v. Doe — and on the other hand, I believe it would be perfectly legitimate to say that Verdugo-Urquidez did not deal directly with illegal immigration or the rights of illegal aliens in the United States, and that the extent of its impact on the holdings in Plyler v. Doe remains unclear at this time.


 * I believe this statement is self-evident from even a cursory reading of the Verdugo-Urquidez opinion, but if people feel a source of some kind is still necessary, I could cite — as evidence that at least some researchers hold to this view — the (by its nature inherently biased) amicus curiae brief in support of the petitioners in the cases Rasul, Shafiq, et al. v. George W. Bush, et al., and Al Odah, Fawzi K., et al., v. United States, et al., which (on page 22) says that:  "Standing alone, Verdugo-Urquidez does not clarify what circumstances other than citizenship, residence, and territorial presence should trigger the applicability of the Due Process Clause."


 * And I would have no problem if, juxtaposed to the above, someone were to cite another source claiming that Verdugo-Urquidez does in fact signal a change in the situation of illegal immigrants, in a "some say X, others say Y" framework. Richwales (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, Wikipedia is not about using impartial sources. Impartial sources are in no way a requirement of the content principles. All that's required is for the POVs presented in the article to roughly approximate the balance of POVs present in the general body of available sources. Using my US vs Miller example, the Wikipedia article should spend more time on the endorsement of gun control view because that is more predominant in English literature. Also using that same example, you can quote various portions of that decision that seem to clearly support one position or another. It is not that I don't think it should be quoted at all, but rather that it should be quoted alongside supporting citations. *hands out some salt grains* Vassyana (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the other editor is right here. There is an enormous despute involved, particularly today when the question of whether and to what extent non-resident aliens have rights vis a vis the military and other government agencies is a matter of significant dispute. Everything depends on context. Your particular choice of how to contextualize the decision -- the particular circumstances you think relevant to the holding and beyond which, by implication, it ought not to be extended, is clearly an interpretation, and if unsourced is just the sort of interpretation that WP:SYN prohibits. Better to simply use the decision's language. Better still to use an interpretation from a legal journal or other source, if available, where an expert proposes contextual elements that the expert (and not an editor) thinks are relevant and explain how the decision should be interpreted. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional note on WP:SYN: Pyler was based on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which applies only to states, not the Federal government. Verdugo-Urquidez was based on the 4th Amendment and 5the Amendment Due Process clause vis-a-vis the Federal government. One of the key differences between the two involves the treatment of non-citizens. The Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause since the 19th Century to mean that states can't discriminate based on citizenship status except for a compelling interest. But the same Court has interpreted the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause for a similarly long time to hold that the federal government can do just that, and it requires only a rational basis for laws that treat aliens differently. Because of these long-standing differences between the way these different parts of the constitution have been interpreted and the completely different rules they impose on the states and the federal government, there's simply no reason to assume that these cases have anything to do with each other. Leaping to such conclusions represents one of the problems with original research synthesis. An inference that seems obvious to an outsider may not be to an expert in the field. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That would seem to suggest that the best course of action here might be not to mention U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez at all in the context of Plyler v. Doe. I would be OK with that.  The other (anonymous) editor, on the other hand, might not agree, since he seemed insistent on mentioning that Verdugo-Urquidez had cited Plyler, including a quote of the "substantial connections" part of the Verdugo-Urquidez opinion as a presumptive "clarification" of Plyler.  It would probably be good to give the other editor a chance to chime in and speak for himself — assuming he's still around (I haven't seen anything from him in over a week now).  Richwales (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Better to be cautious, especially with court rulings where one can extract all sorts of statements, testimony and opinions to "prove" a point.  Suggest not mentioning the case at all until consensus can be reached on the talk page.  Windy Wanderer (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Rutter
I gave a third opinion on the page, and since then the page has exploded with potential OR and discussion about it. It'd be great if we could get another set of eyes to take a glance at the page. Basically, an editor made this edit and added all sorts of OR into the page. I added the OR template and fact tags all around, but they were removed. The editor has since added some references in, but the text itself still reeks of original research. Could someone take a glance at the page? The discussion is at Talk:Michael Rutter. Sorry if I'm being vague; hopefully I can clarify the situation a bit. Thanks. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WELL DONE, MATE!

Please can I make a special plea that whoever takes a look knows something about the work of Professor Sir Michael Rutter.

The concepts appear simple but there are some extremely important issues at stake.

What I am desperate for is somebody who has not been brought up on a diet of Bowlby.

This note is no reflection on the above third party who is clever enough to see that he is involved in something that is not quite what it appears. Once again I take my hat off to him for being confident enough to make this request.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PS May I ask you also to obtain a copy of the main article so that you can confirm the references are not OR.KingsleyMiller (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It does appear to be OR intended to promote Rutter (or discredit Bowlby). This is a heavily discussed topic in development psychology. Therefore, it should not be difficult to find a source clearly indicating Rutter's role in relation to Bowlby. It would be, of course, acceptable to use sources purely discussing Rutter or Bowlby to clarify points raised, such as the meaning of a particular phrase or theory. However, such sources should illustrate the central point, not be used to make it. A good example of the OR concerns (particularly in relation to inappropriate synthesis) is the use to three disparate sources to make a single statement (fourth paragraph, current version ). The same sentence displays further OR concerns, by pointing to a "great deal of professional disquiet at the time" while only citing Rutter's paper (rather than a source making the claim there was a "great deal of professional disquiet at the time"). The material certainly needs to be gutted and rebuilt using reliable on-topic sources that clearly discuss the matter. Vassyana (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana

Thank you for this kind intervention.

However there are 2 mistakes in your comment.

Firstly regarding inappropriate synthesis. The section you refer to quotes from the original work. The references you believe are used to 'synthesis' are in fact additional secondary sources to substantiate the article. This only goes to reinforce the value of what Rutter is stating in the first place not as you suggest to make unwarranted statements. (Please ask Fanities for a copy of the article).

Secondly, you say

The same sentence displays further OR concerns, by pointing to a "great deal of professional disquiet at the time" while only citing Rutter's paper (rather than a source making the claim there was a "great deal of professional disquiet at the time").

But the work cited is not Rutter's. 'The Deprivation of Maternal Care; A Reassessment of its effects' was published by the WHO and includes articles from a number of respected experts in the field sharing their professional disquiet about Bowlby's work. I think you may have confused the two?

Bowlby described Rutter as his 'erstwhile critic' and it is for his work 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed' that some would say is his major achievement. (I shall try to find some sources for this). Far from supporting the omission of the relevant paragraph your intervention has shown the reason it should remain.

Further I do not feel the piece is OR at all. I feel that it is because Rutter dares to criticise Bowlby that the objection has been lodged.

For example, I have produced a new page on Wikipedia called monotropy in which I outline the concerns about this particular concept. Both Fanitites and Jean Mercer seem to be oblivious to the fact that 'monotropy' is a key feature of 'maternal deprivation'. Instead they describe it as a 'tenet' of the attachment theory.

If you are familiar with this aspect of Child Psychology you will know this is a fundamental error.

I hope you will take the time and trouble to see the new page I have produced and compare it with the page on the attachment theory.

Once again thank you for your kind intervention.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I hope you already know the idea of 'monotropy' has long since been abandoned.KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re above comment;

The ‘Maudsley approach’

Michael Rutter’s book Maternal Deprivation Reassessed (Rutter, 1972) had an enormous impact on me. It is a model of a critical review. A 150-page tour de force of systematic and rigorous examination, it redefines a key research area. Further, numerous hypotheses are proposed, and are in turn tested for inconsistencies against the evidence available (around 450 publications). In this respect, the approach would no doubt have met with Popper’s approval.

The book also represents the ‘Maudsley approach’ at its finest. Aubrey Lewis in an interview once stated that ‘Maudsley psychiatry’ is ‘concerned with empirical clinical methods strengthened by the results of research, which then enable theory to be formulated and eventually applied to practice... [the approach] is a balanced one, avoiding the extremes of enthusiasm and bold claims, but not settling down into a stagnant acceptance of things as they are’. Many might see Rutter’s conclusion, that both the ‘maternal’ and the ‘deprivation’ in the term ‘maternal deprivation’ are misleading, as typically ‘Maudsley’. However, the dissection of the various ways in which bonds between a child and a range of other people can be disrupted or distorted, in a range of contexts, and with a variety of outcomes to which subsequent events contribute, marks a major advance in thinking. On re-reading this book, I was struck by the fertility of the hypotheses; many adumbrate themes central to research in developmental psychiatry today, for example, the study of individual differences, or gene–environment correlations as well as interactions. Reductionism does not work well in the study of development, but this book shows that scientific rigour need not therefore suffer. KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana,

In the biography I state,

The British Journal of Psychiatry credits him with a number of "breakthroughs"[2] in these areas and Professor Sir Michael Rutter is also recognized as contributing centrally to the establishment of child psychiatry as a medical and biopsychosocial specialty with a solid scientific base[3].

To anybody who is familiar with Rutter's work they will know that this is also an oblique reference to Bowlby. Many of Bowlby's ideas appeared attractive but had no scientific base. In the biography I allude to this reference by using 'maternal deprivation' as the case study to illustrate the point. Hope this helps.KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Almanac-type" facts
I seem to remember that at some point there was a WP policy/guideline which said that, generally speaking, for "almanac-type" facts, no citation was needed; that is where an uncontroversial fact could be easily determined by looking at readily-available standard reference material, no citation was needed. Examples of these standard materials include atlases, almanacs, dictionaries, Shakespeare, the Bible, etc. Examples of "almanac-type" facts would include that Denmark is north of Germany, summer follows spring, Hamlet dies in Act V, David slew Goliath, etc.

Any suggestions where to look for such a guideline?

I occasionally see over-eager editors slapping fact and source tags on these non-controversial "almanac-type" facts, and I'd like to be able to cite to something in removing these unnecessary tags. (Of course, if it is a controversial claim, the fact that it might be found in an almanac is not sufficient.) The current language in the policy ("Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source") encourages unncessary tagging, because the act of tagging can be viewed as a "challenge," which would then require a citation, for an otherwise non-controversial fact. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:IAR? Sometimes an editor simply needs a gentle reminder that WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS exist as tools to help make Wikipedia better, and not as ironclad rules that must be followed at all times or else. And so if there's a fact that no one in their right mind would actually doubt, it doesn't need a fact tag slapped onto it. To exemplify what I'm thinking of, I once saw someone demand, in good faith, that a citation be made to the statement that a millisecond is one one-thousandth of a second. I've also seen someone demand in bad faith, I highly suspect, that 8298 is the integer that follows 8297 (or something like that, can't remember exactly). Someguy1221 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You and I agree - but it would be handy to have a reference to an actual WP guideline/policy that talks about almanac-type facts as generally not needing cites. WP:IAR doesn't have an "almanac-type facts" comment like the one that I remember seeing. Any other suggestions? GiveItSomeThought (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to look at: The rules are principles. It is an essay, and not a policy or guideline, but it is a highly reguarded essay.  Otherwise, I can't think of a specific guideline or policy that discusses "almanac-type facts"... but your take definitely reflects consensus.  Basic almanac-type facts are not "likely to be challenged", so we usually don't bother to cite them.   The problem is that in your case, the facts have been challenged.  Technically, you should now cite them (to an almanac?).  The ultimate question is whether the challenger has a reason to make the challenge... does he/she doubt the accuracy of the material?  If the user has not stated a better reason than "WP:V says I can tag it"... then just invoke IAR.  One rule against another.  If the user has a reason, then hash it out on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... OK, thanks! It seems to me that (a) some reference to "almanac-type facts" used to be in WP:V (or somewhere... maybe my memory is soft on this), and (b) if there isn't one, then wouldn't it be useful to have some quiet reference to this consensus view somewhere? Maybe I'll start a conversation on the point at WP:V or WP:NOR. Thx again! GiveItSomeThought (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish mafia
Repeated insertion of unsourced primary research. The User is unwilling to accept that only secondary (or occasionally tertiary) sources are allowed, and seems determined to insert their own primary statistical analysis. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct in saying that what the user is adding is OR... but your reasons are off. Primary sources are allowed.  However, they must be used with caution because it is easy to misuse them (as is being done here).  In this case, the user is taking primary material and analyzing it... performing calculations and giving percentages to reach a conclusion that is not contained in the primary material.  The fault is not with the primary material, but with the analysis. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The User still refuses to accept that it is a breach of WP:OR. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Airstrip One
Herein we have an editor who continually reverts edits to restore uncited original research to the article and remove a couple of fact tags. The editor believes this is done in the name of building an encyclopedia and that any opposition to such material is tyrannical bureaucracy. What is to be done about editors who so strongly insist on leaving obvious OR in articles that they're willing to go to war over it? How is this productive? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Size of Soviet partisans
Article on Armia Krajowa has been protected due to edit warring over the statement "Armia Krajowa was the second largest resistance in the WWII Europe after the Soviet partisans" (or similar wordings). The protection ends soon and no consensus has been reached. So far we have several sources stating clearly that AK was the largest (see Armia_Krajowa; other sources quoted on talk), some numbers which indicate - without saying so clearly - that Soviet partisans were approaching and/or similar in size to AK (varies with time, I've tried to gather all the numbers presented on this graph) and not a single source that would state clearly that either Soviet partisans were the largest in WWII Europe or that AK was the second largest. Yet an editor keeps insisting this is the case. Please see: Talk:Armia_Krajowa and Talk:Armia_Krajowa for most of the dispute. In the end we have a version like after this edit, with a claim that "AK was the largest in Europe outside of the territory controlled by the Soviet partisans", and a note which cites several sources about AK being the largest without mentioning anything about the Soviet partisans (since the Soviet partisans claim is being added without any references...). I believe that this edit warring is not only disruptive, but a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:V. Comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Research or not?
I want to give an image as a source for the text which I am writing in an article. The text can be said as depiction of what is presented in the image. So, does it constitute to Original Research. -- S M S  Talk 17:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on the image and the text. Adding a very basic caption to an image is acceptable... much more than that is not. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I want to write about the uniform of a regiment of Pakistan Army as shown in some images like and . -- S M S   Talk 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Image:800px-Colonisation3.gif was removed on allegation it was original research. The editor did not explain his reverting on the discussion page and gives no explanation of what aspect he is claiming to be OR. The main item I included in the revised map was the United Nations colonial possession for which it created the UNTEA; the territory was then "administrated" by the Republic of Indonesia; I don't think there is any original research in graphically summarizing the colonial territories in the years involved.Daeron (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OR in Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination
This article is largely a mess of WP:OR with editors adding straw polls that of questionable relevance (such as high school caucuses) and using them to calculate all kinds of leader boards later in the article. I've tried to clean out the polls that were clearly sourced poorly and remove the unsourced leader boards in hopes of cleaning some of the cruft but they have been added back in, complete with more questionable sources and recalculated leader boards and map. Am I completely off base on thinking that that without a single reliable source being used to validate the selection of straw polls for inclusion, and determining leader statistics, that the entire article is effectively OR? Burzmali (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The map with the summary of the most recent straw poll results looks like OR, because it's not sourced. The individual straw polls might be WP:V, if they have citations. The best way to approach the article would be to find reliable sources discussing the phenomenon of straw polls in the context of the current elections. IMHO, of course. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahamada
Hello, i've noticed that somebody redirected article Mahamad to some holy book (Bhavishya Purana). it would be better if its redirected to Tripurasura because Mahamad is not only mentioned in Bhavishya Purana and it further says reincarnation of Tripurasura an Asura. --Padma10 (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Full details here. The correct redirect is in place (the bit about Tripurasura is just a detail in the  "story"). rudra (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And an update. rudra (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

First-Hand Report
In the case of a person whose biography or references appear in Wikipedia who is (or was when alive) personally known to a contributor who encounters material which he knows to be incomplete, misleading or just wrong, is it admissible to enter a counterbalancing sentence clearly flagged as original, such as the following; (ORIG) Bloggs is often cited as a leading anti-smoking lobbyist (ADD) although friends (the present contributor) report he enjoyed the occasional cigar.

I mean of course when the fact is verifiable and relevant and occasions no unfairness or unpleasantness but has not necessarily been published.

Such a comment has just been removed from such a page summarily by the main editor of that page, who represented ?himself as having "the final say". Is the NOR policy so rigid as to disallow such personal knowledge of matters which, because too trivial for the written word, may remain otherwise unrecorded in the service of a public image? And is this matter so grave as to allow no flagging, no discussion, no attempt to verify on the part of the "controlling" editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redheylin (talk • contribs)
 * From what you describe, the other editor is correct in removing the information. If it is not available in a published source, it is not verifiable for the purposes of Wikipedia. If a detail is too minor to be published in normal sources (which devote much more space to their subjects than Wikipedia articles), they certainly don't have a place here. Vassyana (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal synthesis of sources
On this article, another editor is arguing that because one side is arguing one thing, they must also argue a second position. The problem is that not only do none of the sources say that, but some of them actually contradict the logic and outright disagree with the second position despite arguing the first position. I read over this protocol before but I'm not sure if this synthesis is considered "original research"? What should I do? --Robertert (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit in question, it seems to be a case of opinion editing. You may wish to ask for assistance at the NPOV noticeboard. You could also ask for a third opinion. Vassyana (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiktor Poliszczuk
Editors are inserting content stating that the subject has no history degree and isn't affiliated with any university, and are using as a source the fact that his biography does not mention a history degree or a university affiliation. Assistance would be appreciated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On the contrary, to explicitly point out the absence of evidence for something constitutes an implicit claim that there is a notable controversy about the subject's academic history, which is not mentioned nor sourced anywhere else in the article. I have reverted on BLP grounds and will watchlist. –Henning Makholm 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing credits on Children of Men
An RfC has recently been opened in relation to this topic. Another request regarding the sources in particular has been opened on the reliable sources noticeboard here. This particular message concerns OR.

For more than a year, an editor has been, for the lack of a better word, obsessed with the importance of certain trivial elements within the closing credits of the film, Children of Men. At least five talk page archives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 as well as the current talk page have been devoted to the smallest minutiae of the closing credits of this film, to the detriment of improving the article and to the exasperation of several RfC's, third opinions, and intervention from the film project.

The crux of the issue concerns two things: 1) the sound effects in the closing credits, specifically, the sound of "laughing children" playing in a schoolyard, and 2) the use of a closing title that appears at the end of the credits, that says "Shantih Shantih Shantih". Now, the consensus has been for the last year that these details are trivial, and unless reliable sources can be found for their inclusion, they should probably be left out of the article. Dozens of discussions have not deterred this editor, and still, he continues to insert this information into the article. First, it was placed in the plot section. Then, when it was demonstrated that the credits have nothing to do with the plot, it was deleted, only to emerge a year later when the editor found a personal website that copied the information from a user-driven part of the IMdB. The editor then claimed that this was proof that the information was notable, and placed it in the "themes" section of the article.

The irony is that this information was first uploaded to Wikipedia right around the time it was added to IMdB. I have often speculated that the editor in question added it to IMdb, and then used that as justification to add it to Wikipedia, but that is not the issue at hand. The issue is original research. To date, there are no reliable, published sources that discuss the laughter of children in the film's credits, nor its importance in the plot, as a theme, or anything else. Although most people following this issue many not be aware of this, the editor had originally attempted to insert this material into the article back in early 2007 as a means to advance a personal pet theory about the conclusion of the film. The editor has stated his theories in the talk archives, explaining that the sound effects of children laughing tie-in to the "Shantih" that appears in the closing titles. While several reliable sources have briefly discussed the Shantih in passing, none have referred to the sound effects.

Now, with that said, I have tried to argue the opposite, that is, to support the editor by examining evidence that would lend credence to this apparent synthesis/OR and render it suitable for inclusion. At present, there is only a primary source, that is the movie itself, to support including this material. While the information doesn't appear in the screenplay, the closed captioning on the DVD does say "children laughing" or "laughing children" (I can't remember which) when the credits roll.

After a year of this nonsense, I recently compromised by adding a citation to the primary source with the exact time stamp listed in the cite video template supporting the inclusion of the "laughing children", which aside from the DVD citation, cannot be supported. The editor in question promptly removed the source, which appears to me in direct violation of WP:V, as this material has been challenged for over a year and discused in the talk archives and the current talk page. Furthermore, the material currrently appears directly next to the sourced "shantih" material, supporting the editor's original pet theories about the connection between the sound effects and the closing titles.

In one of many explanations of his pet theories, the editor has stated that he believes "the Shantih and the sounds of children laughing and playing is part of the story" (17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)) and that the director "tells us that everything works out by using the sounds of children laughing and playing" (16:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)) and that "the Shantih and the children laughing are all by themselves. There is no confusion as their strength or purpose as a plot device. There is no chance to blink and miss the imagery. It is a part of the movie, a continuation of such. In short, the sounds of children laughing and playing as well as the Shantih have thematic components. They are also technically a synoptic part of the movie, not as set dressing, not as lighting, not as background, but by themselves." (17:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

I am seeking comments on the RfC as well as suggestions on how to end this year-long conflict over OR. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We are dealing with two issues here... whether the material is OR, and whether it is trivial. On the first issue... no, it is not OR to bluntly state that a sound effect can be heard in the closing credits.  We can indeed cite the film itself as the primary source for that.  If the article were to go on and analyze or interpret the sound, discussing why the sound effect was placed there, or what significance that sound effect has... then we would be in OR territory and would need a secondary source to verify the statement.  On the second issue... I agree with those who say it is essentially trivial information.  How does it improve the article to mention this?... and conversely, how does it hurt the article to leave it out?  This isn't a policy/guideline issue however.  A consensus needs to be reached on the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Arcayne

 * While I responded more specifically to this point in the RS noticeboard, I am responding here as well, as a rounder picture of the issue might be somewhat more helpful. I am not going to address the uncivil characterizations by Viriditas, since its taken me a year to realize that it is a dead-end road to do so. Asking him to be civil and ease up on the personal attacks over the past 16 months hasn't been effective in curbing the behavior; I have little reason to believe that making the same request now would be any more effective.
 * I readily admit that I am of the opinion that the laughter of children in the closing credits - a dénouement of the film about human fertility and possible extinction of humanity - has some thematic weight. When I first started editing about this matter, I was still new to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and didn't understand that even thought I could observe the phenomena, there was no citation about it, and could therefore not include it. After a RfC (Comment) decided the matter in favor of non-inclusion, the matter was put to rest for a time, and I went along with the findings of that (somewhat) independent finding. While I am not particularly bothered by the inclusion of my older posts by Viriditas, I think that dragging them here is rather pointless, akin to crying over spilt milk. After all, a person's edits and editing behavior is likely to mature over a year or so from the time they start. The arguments submitted for concluson have thusly matured as well, and have been since supported by documentation and reference. Most others would note that the posts (dredged from year-old archives) are all quite old. This should signify that there isn't really any sort of "obsession" with the article - or the other editor. It seems rather odd that Viriditas apparently maintains a list of my years-old posts. That would appear to better fit the definition of 'obsession.'
 * Citable references as to the usage of the closing credits end text "shanthih shantih shantih" noted in particular as to the likely meaning of their placement at the very end of the film. It should be noted that the same phrase also is used inthe film by one of the main characters while discussing the pregnancy of another character. As an independent source found that bit of information important to the theme and symbolism of the film, I would submit that, having done so, it is no longer Original Research or trivia to include it in the article (though personally, I think that it belongs in the Themes section, and not in a unique 'Closing Credits' section).
 * When another citation was found that noted specifically the sound of children's laughter, the citation - not a 'pet theory' or whatever - I reverted its undiscussed removal. The source of the citation itself was attacked as unreliable, and consensus found that while it wasn't a bad source, it wasn't established enough to warrant inclusion. The nonsense about copying from Imdb was speculative at best, and I won't waste this noticeboard's time with contesting the consensus found elsewhere. I didn't contest the results after they were given.
 * I did not create the Closing Credits section, and likely would not have done so; that was a creation of the complaining editor, Viriditas. I did not ad the bit about the children's laughter, as I could not cite it. After a recent noticeboard discussion concerning the view on the laughter as observable phenomena, I likely would have considered discussing its addition long before adding it to the article, so as to find a consensus (and subsequently avoid the vitriolic behavior and recrimination by Viriditas that attends virtually every post I make to the article). I only removed the addition of musical tracks from the section - as including only those particular songs without citation as to their noted importance would be original research.
 * ""As well, I removed the cite video template noting the time-stamp of the incidence of the children's laughter and shouting (playing at a playground, as has been offered by Viriditas, is also speculative; the laughter and shouting of children is observed, not the playing). As a special section was added by Viriditas to include (or perhaps to segregate) the information about both the (cited info about the) shantih occurrence as well as the laughter phenomena, it seems like overkill to time-stamp the observable phenomena; we know it is in the closing credits, as the section says so. Would the casual reader really need to know precisely when the laughter began during the credit roll? Like I said, more info than is necessary. While I think the cite video (noted as an alternative) to be mostly redundant as to its usage in the contested edit, I think it bears pointing out that time-stamping is "useful for citing specific scenes, quotations or data.1". As the creation of the section, Closing Credits pretty much specifies where the observable phenomena occurs, and since the phenomena occurs throughout the credit roll, the cite video time-stamping is redundant and unnecessary. In short, it's overkill. In each instance of reversion, I requested that we discuss the issue, as simply reverting wasn't resolving the issue still being discussed in article talk. Only after quickly arriving at 3RR did the other editor begin discussing the matter in earnest. His seeking out different forums here, the RS noticeboard and Wikiproject Films are a direct outgrowth of reaching that revert limit.
 * So, let's sidestep all the personal drama, and focus on the actual points, which I have explained my edits to the article, and (hopefully) clarified a better picture of the issue's background noise. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Viriditas

 * I have responded to your duplication of this discussion on the RS noticeboard in this reply. I want to point out that the diffs on the talk page and in the page history show that I have been engaged in discussing this for three weeks, and at no time did Arcayne reply or respond to the discussion on talk.  Furthermore, I was actively engaged in discussion during every edit I made to the article  while Arcayne blindly blanket reverted my edits and claimed that I needed to discuss his reverts.  This is a serious OR issue, and there are significant number of diffs, both in the talk page archives and in the page history itself that show that Arcane's deletion of material is being done to support his pet theory that there is a connection between the sound effects and the end titles - a theory that cannot be found in any reliable source.  Both Blueboar on this noticeboard and Shoemaker's Holiday on the RS noticeboard are in agreement that we can cite the film as a primary source for the sound effects.  I have seen no editor other than Arcayne dispute this fact, so I will consider the matter regarding the RS closed and cite the material in question using primary sources, otherwise it should be removed from the article as both unsourced and trivial.  Now, regarding the OR connections between the sound effects and the closing credits ("Shantih"), this pet theory of Arcayne's is only made visible when one deletes the songs listed in the credits.  Arcayne has been removing this material specifically to highlight his pet theory, not as he claims, because it is "non-notable bloat".  In fact, the three songs have at least two reliable sources in the article, and others are available.  The Children of Men (soundtracks) article has the same/similar sources.  So, the OR issue has not been resolved.  Arcayne is attempting to synthesize a relationship between the sound effects and the closing credits by deleting any material that comes between the two items, namely the three notable songs.  Multiple diffs can be provided showing that Arcayne has expressly and directly stated this idea in talk archives 2-6.  Arcayne is banking on the fact that nobody but me has actually read and followed the comments on the talk page for the last year, or remembers how Arcayne has tried to repeatedly add OR to Children of Men since January 2007.  To summarize, Arcayne first tried to convince us that the main character of the film had lived not died (contrary to all reviews and comments by the director and cast).  Then, when he found that he couldn't edit war that false information into the article, he tried adding a trivia section describing the types of guns used in the film based on his own expertise.  Again, that was reverted.  Then coincidentally enough, someone added a user-generated entry to IMdB, and Arcayne began adding the exact same information to the article shortly thereafter, this time claiming that the sound of laughing children in the credits was directly related to the plot.  After he tried edit warring this into the article and failed, anonymous IPs seemed to follow him around reverting to his version.  Interesting coincidence.  Even a few brand, spanking new registered accounts showed up out of the blue to help out.  Then, Arcayne tried to argue that the organization in the film (The Human Project) was evil because he personally saw a sailor in the film with an "unsmiling face", and Arcayne tried edit warring his personal beliefs about the emotional state of a fictional character into the plot section.  When this OR was reverted, Arcayne began arguing that the esteemed British film critic, Philip French was not notable and his film criticism should be deleted because Arcayne's personal beliefs were more reliable.  To date, French's criticism has still not been added back into the article.  This disruptive, nonsensical behavior went on for a year.  More recently, Arcayne recently found a personal website that - surprise, surprise - copied the original information from IMdB, an unreliable source - and he added it back into the themes section.  When consensus on the talk page and film project showed that this source was unreliable and should be removed, Arcayne refused to delete it, leaving it in the article for three weeks until I arrived to remove it, and here I am. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would counsel you against taking action whilst this matter is still in discussion, Viriditas - you are capable of expressing your viewpoint here to engage other editors and admins in weighing in on your interpretation without returning to edit-warring and 3RR. You have found yourself pointedly ignored in discussions where your lack of good faith and personal attacks is seemingly designed to distract folk from the main arguments. So, when you treat your fellow editors like crap, you should not at all be surprised when they choose not to interact with you. Rather than make furtive accusations about me operating sockpuppets, maybe submit an RfCU and await the results. Provide proof for any of the several pet accusations, and provide them in the proper venue. This is not the place for them. You might have failed to notice the name of this noticeboard; it is not named the 'Viriditas:-Things-I-Have-Compiled-a-List-About-Regarding-User:Arcayne' noticeboard. It is named the NOR noticeboard. Please make the less than Herculean effort to stay on topic, and on topic alone. While I can see where my behavior over a year ago, as a newbie was less than exemplary, your willingness to BITE first and assume incorrectly later is no more appropriate now than it was then. Please be more civil.
 * Now, with that bit of unpleasantness aside, the main issues are - again - is an observed part of the film, such as movie summaries and credits, exempt from the NOR and V rules? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that I was under the impression that Viriditas had removed the citation as per discussion; it is clear that he has never seemed hesitant to remove anything I have added before. This recent issue is not prompted by that removal, but with the addition of redundant info and bloat. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no redundant info and bloat. That's something you invented.  Citing an academic who compares the end titles to T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" is neither redundant or bloat - it's the very definition of encyclopedic.  Describing the use of two unique songs that appear in the credits and nowhere else is neither redundant info or bloat.  Now tell me again how the sound effects of laughing children in the credits rises to a level above trivia?  And where can I WP:V this sound effect in WP:RS?  You're trying to promote your interpretation of the film, an interpretation that was originally added by a lone IP address in late 2006.  What is the connection between sound effects of children laughing in the credits and the end titles?  If there is none, and you are merely just observing the credits, why  are you deleting the mention of two notable songs that also only appear in the credits and nowhere else, and a third song that was specifically created for the film?  I'm not following your logic at all. Either we describe the most notable aspects of the closing credits or none at all.  You do not get to pick and choose what you personally feel is notable.  That's why WP:RS are important.  And if we use RS, we discover that there is no source that supports describing the "sound of laughing children" and multiple sources that discuss the songs and their songwriters.  Whenever we run into problems like this we are supposed to ask two questions:  why is this material important, and where can I find it represented in a reliable secondary source?  In the case of the "sound of laughing children", there is general agreement that it is a trivial matter, and it cannot be found in any RS.  So, why should it not be removed? Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How many times do I have to say that I am not and have not promoted any interpretation of the laughter? Yes, yes, you point to instances when I did over a year ago, but how about recently? Again, you keep making this about me, and not about the issues. Yeah, you don't love me - I get it. Can we move on, please? If you find them inextricable, you might need to step back from the problem altogether. Here are some specific questions:
 * Explain how the time-stamp telling us where the laughter occurs in the Closing credits isn't redundant, when the section is called 'closing credits', and when the laughter occurs throughout?
 * Explain to me how noting an observable phenomena requires citation, and how this is different from noting the plot in the plot summary?
 * You keep saying that the songs appear only in the credits and nowhere else; can you expand on what you mean by that? Are you suggesting that they aren't a part of the soundtrack or just weren't used in the film?
 * What is your specific argument on the materials' triviality?
 * Arcayne, answering a question with a question is not a legitimate form of discussion. As the supporter of the material, you have the burden of proof.  Primary sources were added, but you removed them.  Secondary source citation requests were made, but you removed the cite request tags.  Now, I've added a refimprove section template into the article.  Please find secondary sources to support the challenged material and describe its importance.  Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My questions remain. You don't have to answer them, but understand that I will wait for them before responding to any ancillary questions you may wish to pose. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your questions have all been answered. There are no reliable sources that support your pet theory regarding the trivial sound of sound effects children laughing in the credits.  On the other hand, there are RS supporting the inclusion of the three songs in the credits. (Crust, Kevin. (2007-01-07). "Sounds to match to the 'Children of Men' vision". Los Angeles Times)  Now, why did you remove the songs and leave the sound effects of children laughing in?  Now, if you will be so kind as to answer the questions I asked of you above your comments, I would appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you have sort of answered #4. How about answering questions 1-3? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Arcayne, the burden of proof is on the editor adding content. The content you added about "laughing children" is not found or supported by any reliable source.  Because it is unsourced trivia that you are using to push a POV about the conclusion of the film (in the words of User:80.192.175.116: As the screen fades to black, sounds of lots of children laughing is heard, showing that her baby was the answer, and humans are able to conceive once again) we can't use it.  If you can find a RS, great, but until then, it doesn't belong in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered both above and below - you only have to read to see. Why do you keep adding anon user interpretations? They aren't my comments. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Baseball Bugs

 * Is this movie on DVD? Do the producers of the film have anything to say about this matter? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the film was released on DVD in 2007. The producers, the director, the cast, and other members of the team have not commented on the topic of the sound effects (laughing children) and the end titles (shantih), however, interestingly enough, they have commented on John Lennon and John Tavener, two of the songs removed from the closing credits section by Arcayne.  Michael Caine's character is expressly based on John Lennon, and the director has spoken about his collaboration with Tavener and his composition for the film, "Fragments of a Prayer".  So mentioning that these songs appear in the credits is notable, and there are multiple, published sources that review and discuss the music.  There are no sources that discuss the sound effects of laughing children, and only one, web-based source that mentions the "shantih" end titles. Viriditas (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Correction: At least two other sources have been found that discuss the Shantih, an article in the  Coshocton Tribune and the Los Angeles Daily News.  Thanks to Erik for bringing this to my attention. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did they comment on where the story might pick up after the film's storyline ends? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Never, and there is precedent for artists, writers, and directors to leave this type of speculation to the audience. Cuarón even makes this clear in a number of interviews, repeatedly making comments like: "We wanted the end to be a glimpse of a possibility of hope, for the audience to invest their own sense of hope into that ending. So if you're a hopeful person you'll see a lot of hope, and if you're a bleak person you'll see a complete hopelessness at the end."  I should also mention that in addition to reading a hundred or so articles on the subject, I have listened to and transcibed the two interviews from the Creative Screenwriting podcasts with Alfonso Cuarón and Timothy J. Sexton, and while the topic of music repeatedly comes up (the director and the writer often used music as a creative catalyst during their writing sessions) the sound effects and end titles in the closing credits are never mentioned. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Never having seen the film, I could nonetheless get from their comments that the sounds of children tie in with their "possibility of hope", i.e. that the human species would not go extinct. Taking the "hopeless" side, the sounds would be simply irony, i.e. something that would never be heard again. Also, I don't speak Hindi, but I take it that word "shantih" means something like "inner peace". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "get from their comments" as the director is talking about the end of the film, not the credits, and has never discussed the sound effects of children laughing in the credits. If one had to speculate about the sound effects, one would have to look no farther than the screenplay or scene 12 of the film itself, titled "Waiting for Syd" on the DVD.  In this scene, the dead silence of an empty school playground is remarked upon by Miriam: "As the sounds of the playgrounds faded, the despair set in. Very odd, what happens in a world without children's voices." (Time stamp: 1:02:43-57) The sound of children playing in the credits draws upon this very scene, reminding us what we've been missing for the last 109 minutes.  There has never been a direct, sourced tie-in with the sound of children laughing in the credits and the "possibility of hope" pertaining to the fate of the human species.  That theory was initially proposed by Arcayne a year ago, and he has been edit warring it into the article ever since.  It is pure original research.  Like you, I Want to Believe there is a connection, but there is a big difference between our personal beliefs and what is.  WP:OR is pretty clear on this: we don't publish original thought, the material must be attributable to a reliable, published source, and the articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.  Arcayne is trying to promote the very idea you have described, that "the sounds of children tie in with their "possibility of hope", i.e. that the human species would not go extinct."  Unfortunately, there is no evidence supporting that idea.  On the other hand, Erik was kind enough to post two sources, one that linked the Shantih to the theme of hope (Lowman, Rob. "Cuaron vs. the world", Los Angeles Daily News, 2007-03-27.) and the other that defines it as "the peace which passeth all understanding". ( LaCara, Len. "Cruelest of months leaves more families grieving", Coshocton Tribune, 2007-04-22)  This still doesn't address why the music was removed from closing credits section, nor why the sound effects of children laughing in the credits rise above trivia.  Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the director has given us one datapoint, and the comment by Miriam is another datapoint. So the children's voices over the closing credits counterpose the ending. It's easy enough to report both of those statements and also report the sounds heard over the closing track, without spelling it out... in short, presenting it exactly as the filmmakers did: thus the readers, as with the film audience, are left to draw their own conclusions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid you haven't been following this discussion. The director has never commented about the sound effects of children laughing in the credits nor the ending credits ("Shantih"), nor does the in-world comments from Miriam have anything to do with this, as it would WP:OR to even mention it without sources.  The directors comments about the "possibility of hope" concern two things unrelated to this topic: the theme of hope and its relation to contemporary events (which is a separate topic and is already covered in the article); and the  presentation of these themes in the documentary "The Possibility of Hope" included on the DVD.  This has nothing to do with this discussion. This discussion is about original research.  Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The opening and closing credits are part of a film. You have that quotation from a critic, or whatever, that points out the connection between the "Shantih-Shantih-Shantih" and T.S. Eliot's despair-filled classic poem. And you have the statements by the director and the character in the film. So that takes care of the OR issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please educate yourself about the difference between diegetic and non-diegetic film elements. The credits in question are not part of the fictional world, nor is there a single reliable source that states otherwise.  For the second time the statements by the director and the character in the film have nothing to do with any aspect of this discussion.  The directors comments specifically address the theme of hope and how it relates to the real world.  As for the character, we cannot use film quotes to promote an idea without RS; you may want to review WP:OR if you don't understand what I am saying.  Please limit your comments to direct statements concerning the topic of original research.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The closing credits are part of any film. The music and sound heard on any closing credits often have to do with the film's contents and themes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The main difference between Arcayne's version and yours seems to be whether to also include the music. Is that what this dispute is about, after a year? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what this dispute is about at all, and I've outlined the dispute several times in this discussion, on the RS noticeboard, and in the current RfC on the talk page. I would like to thank you for wikistalking me here from Talk:Bibliography of Philip K. Dick.  I know you are upset about our last discussion, but the if you are going to insert yourself into a discussion, the least you could do is first familiarize yourself with the topic.  Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not upset about anything, it was you that was upset, and your accusation of wikistalking does not help your credibility. I have the right to read, comment upon, and question anything I want to. And the only difference I'm seeing, currently, between the two versions, is whether to talk about the music or not. Since Arcayne wants to exclude it, presumably he needs to explain why. Or maybe he already has, somewhere in this megillah. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you ever edited on this noticeboard before your reply to me? You seem to be following my contributions in order to make trouble.  That's wikistalking.  You also seem to be ignoring my comments and making off-topic speculations that have nothing to do with this topic to distract the discussion away from the topic.  You've had your say, now please, go away. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the right to follow and comment what anyone else is working on, which I often do (as do many others) because it broadens our base of knowledge and interest; and you have no authority to tell me not to. It is you that has gotten yourself into 3RR territory on this topic. And I'm raising these questions because I'm curious to know. This is an educational process. I had never heard of that film before, and now I'm curious about it. It seems like a different twist on the "end-of-the-world" scenarios that are explored in literature and media from time to time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting that you violated WP:STALK. Now please read and understand it. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand it. Not guilty. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you put a couple of fact tags in the article. Does the word "shantih" appear on the screen in English? If so, no fact tag is needed, as it can be observed unambiguously. The children's voices, though, might indeed need a fact tag, because how do we know for sure that it's children's voices, and not something that happens to sound like children's voices? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for your comments about the film. Please use Talk:Children of Men.  Please also read and understand WP:V: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like you've got commentaries on this matter all over the place. Maybe if it were all in one place, it would be easier to follow. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, you ignored my question: Does the word "shantih" appear in English on the screen? If it does, there is nothing "controversial" or OR about it, as it is uniformly verifiable by anyone who sees it. The same might not be the case with the kids' laughter. To even characterize it as kids' laughter might be considered OR. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to discuss the topic with someone who admits to wikistalking me here in order to disrupt this discussion. I have not ignored any questions; the problem is, you don't know what you are talking about.  The word "shantih" is used both in the film and in the credits.  I suggest you learn a little bit about the topic before continuing to distract the discussion.  If you are concerned with citations, then bring it up at the RS noticeboard, where there is already a thread on this very topic.  Your childish, immature behavior on Talk:Bibliography of Philip K. Dick speaks volumes, and I do not wish to encourage it here.  Please, go away. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You've decided that I've admitted to wikistalking, when all I have done is perfectly legal. Just as you decided I had accused someone of plagiarism on that other page, which I did not do. Back to the real topic, there's a distinction to be made between simply reporting that it appears on-screen vs. putting an interpretive spin on it. If the word "shantih" appears on-screen, in readable English, then it is automatically verifiable and is not OR. Interpreting its usage, without citable discussion, obviously is OR. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't what is being discussed here, Baseball Bugs. If you are concerned about sources, please take it to the RS noticeboard.  I believe I have already explained this to you. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OR is the topic, and I have asked a simple question about OR that you should be able to give a simple answer to: Does the word "shantih" appear in print, on-screen? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, being as how you two have apparently been having this debate for a year now, with no resolution, it seems like some other parties coming in here and asking some questions could be beneficial toward resolving it, as the two of you by yourselves alone don't seem to be getting there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are seriously misinformed, and once again, distracting this discussion. This dispute was resolved many times from RfC's to third opinions, and most recently by the film project.  The talk page notes that conensus was achieved each time against Arcayne's insertion of OR.  Arcayne has never accepted the consensus at any time.  Each time, he returns with the same material, trying to push it into the article.  Seeing as you wikistalked me here from another article where you are personally involved in a dispute with me, you are not neutral  nor in a position to comment without bias.  Consensus has been reached on this issue many times without your help, and each instance, consensus was against Arcayne.  That Arcayne chooses to continue editing in a disruptive and tendentious manner, is his choice.  There is nothing to discuss with you Basball Bugs, as every edit you make distracts and distorts the topic under discussion.  I'm placing you on ignore now.  Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to be under the mistaken impression that I am defending Arcayne against you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, subtracting my questions, the only verbiage on here, other than one statement by Blueboar, is between the two of you. Since you two are at loggerheads over this, I wonder how this issue could get resolved if it's just the two of you talking about it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason this kept my attention is because of its deja vu aspect. When Superman Returns came out a couple of summers ago, there was this intense debate over whether the article could say that the child in the film was the "love child" of Kal-El and Lois Lane. It was as plain as the nose on your face that that was the case. However, it was not overtly stated in the film, and so it was technically speculation, i.e. it was OR. That issue and this one have some similarities. The difference is that the Superman issue was quickly settled. For this one to go on for a year is absurd. Get some arbitration, get the attention of an admin, or whatever it takes, to get this resolved. Otherwise you'll be spinning your wheels until doomsday. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finally answering my question straightforwardly. The word "shantih" appears on-screen, so mentioning its presence is not "controversial", nor is it OR. Interpreting its presence, without appropriate citation, would be OR. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * As mentioned preciously, discussion on no less than four articles (two of them noticeboards) has considered it 'clear consensus' that the children's laughter is observable phenomena and as such, doesn't require citation. The shantih is cited, but even if it weren't, it too would be includable, as it is also observable. Now, if we wish to change policy as to how we use at WP:PSTS, we have to address the following:

=
 * "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."


 * As the source of the laughter (and the Shantih) both fulfill this criteria, let's read on:


 * "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
 * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
 * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."


 * and since there is no interpretive value being added to the observation of the laughter. check and check.
 * Okay, that was from WP:NOR. Looking at WP:V, we see:


 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."


 * Since the phrase 'burden of proof' has been tossed around willy-nilly a few times, lets put it into the context intended by the actual policy. The burden of proof, such as it were, is to prove that something actually occurred, or that a citation is in fact what it claims to be and represents what is claims to represent. As there is no editor who challenges the existence of the laughter or where it occurs in the film (any more than someone challenges the plot of a film) the burden of proof has been clearly met. Were someone to say, 'golly, that sounds like a string quartet there at the end' or 'are those dogs I hear barking?' there might be an issue. However, it is not. Everyone agrees that the sound is indeed laughter, and the laughter is indeed from children.
 * Lastly, the contested information has been contested as being trivial. Okay, let's look at that, as well:


 * "Trivia sections should not be categorically removed. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture"), whichever seems most appropriate. Items that duplicate material already contained elsewhere in the article can be removed in most cases."


 * Though we aren't dealing with a list of trivia, I think the intent remains the same. Even were the contested statements to be considered trivial, we usually try to incorporate them into the article text. This was already done, as presented in the Closing Credits section already present in the article.
 * Were that not persuasive enough, the guidelines on handling trivia say almost the same thing about integrating stand-alone trivia


 * "Stand-alone trivia usually make excellent candidates for integration into the articles they appear in."


 * and in fact, the recommendations on handing trivia (same article) backs that up rather clearly:


 * "Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created."


 * This would mean that the trivial bits about the music previously added to the Closing credits question should likely be added to the aptly-named section 'Music'.
 * It is quite likely that the editor taking issue with the inclusion of this information is seeing this as a sourcing or content issue, which might be part of the problem. It is instead a citability issue, which I think has been resolved through a closer look at the actual policies and guidelines. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bravo. That's a wonderful example of wikilawyering and gaming the system.  In reality, the "observable phenomena" of what you describe as "children's laughter" is your interpretation of a sound effect.  To me, it sounds like children talking and playing on a playground, and it was apparently not significant for any reviewer or critic to make note of it.  Please place your interpretations of trivial sound effects aside, and focus on finding reliable sources for your claims.  Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.  All challenged material.  There are no exceptions. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the repeated requests for a cessation of the personal attacks and your promises to others to be more civil seem to have been forgotten. Perhaps you should actually read the post without your disdain. You yourself have stated the core of that which you seek to remove - it is the sound of children laughing. It is your OR that suggests they are playing - an opinion I removed after you added it. You are not challenging the existence of the laughter, as you yourself have added it a number of times yourself. I don't disagree with you adding it. I do disagree with you using a time-stamp self-redundantly using the cite video template. When the primary observation is made that children are laughing (using the explicit and implicit source that is the film), it doesn't need citation. It would if an evaluation (ie, interpretation) were made as to the meaning of it were suggested. Despite your pointing to archives over a year old, that simply hasn't been made recently. That and your rather disruptive accusations of old sockpuppetry (which you have yet to provide any proof of outside of vague accusations) tell me that you don't really disagree with the implementation of the statement noting the children's laughter. You simplhy disagree with it because I want it in. With apologies, Wikipedia is not a battleground; please stop treating it as such. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is serious doubt as to it being laughter. Any reasonable person would agree with that statement upon watching the closing credits.  Again, something as mundain at this is not OR... it is citable to the film itself.  On its own, the blunt statement that one can hear laughter of children during the credits is not a violation of WP:NOR.  However, any statement as to what that sound means, or is intended to convey must be cited to a secondary source.  That leaves the question of whether the blunt statement is relevant or worth mentioning in the article.  That is an issue you will have to argue about on the article talk page, not here.  Can we please call this settled? Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, Arcayne has said several times on the article talk page that your phrase, "it is citable to the film itself", means we do not need to provide a reference. In the past, I have provided both a primary source and a note showing exactly when the "children laughing" occurs in the film.  Arcayne thinks that references and notes like this are not needed, but of course, since the material has been challenged, WP:V needs to be enforced.  There is nothing wrong with sourcing this information to the film.  The problem is, unless we have a secondary source showing why this trivia is important, it is OR, because this material has been used to advance a position that the sound effects in the credits are meaningful and are a commentary on its conclusion.  No reliable sources have made this connection, which is why the material has been repeatedly removed.  Whenever we use primary sources like this, the material needs to be supported by secondary sources.  We do not get to pick and choose elements from a film merely because we think they are important.  That's what is going on here, and that is why Arcayne has repeatedly removed sourced information about the closing credits (such as the songs that appear in the credits) and placed it other sections.  By deleting this material, he is attempting to game the OR and RS policies, and advance the position that the sound effects in the credits (an unsourced observation) are linked to the end titles and the conclusion of the film, a theory he has talked about at great length in the archives.  To date, there is no evidence for this claim, and the cherry picking involved here is OR.  The statement "citable to the film itself" does not mean "remove primary sources and notes showing where the sound effects appear in the film". Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As has been asked at least six different times, please point ot even a single instance within the past 12 months when an interpretation has been offered in the article. The reason I keep asking this is - quite simply - because you cannot indicate that I have done so. The music is better off in the music section, where I did a rewrite to make it flow a lot better in the article. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And as I have explained several times, the interpretation is implicit in inclusion. There is no RS on record observing or describing the importance of the sound effects.  Your position has always been that the sound effects are important because they comment on the survival of the human race.  I have rebutted that notion by observing the direct reference to scene 12 which refers to the absence of children's voices in the world.  IMO, the sound effects are reminding the audience what it sounds like and what we have been missing for the last hour and forty minutes, and do not in any way comment on the conclusion.  Because of this ambiguity, and lacking RS, the OR policy recommends avoiding including such information.  Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification requested: In order to resolve this issue, I would like to have the following questions answered by Blueboar or any other outside neutral party: Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Per MOS:FILM and WP:V, challenged material requires sources. Is it acceptable to add a reference to the sound effects of children laughing in the credits?  Can this reference be the film itself, and list the time stamp indicating the time the closed captioning appears describing the sound as children laughing?
 * 2) The editor adding the sound effects of children laughing in the credits has argued on the talk page for the last year that this information needs to be included because it is important to the film and gives the audience information about the conclusion. In the opinion of the editor, it tells the audience whether the human race survives at the end of the film; in this theory, the sound of laughing children indicates that the human race did not go extinct, and the human race survives to reproduce.  Therefore, inclusion is an implicit interpretation.  WP:PSTS states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."  Additionally, "unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material".  The OR policy also makes it clear that: "'Original research' is material for which no reliable source can be found...Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided...It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."  Is it acceptable to remove the sound effects of children laughing from the article until a secondary source is provided describing its importance?
 * 3) The editor adding the sound effects of children laughing in the credits is also removing sourced descriptions of other elements in the credits in order to highlight the personal interpretation of the editor, namely the importance of the sound effects. Other sounds that appear in the closing credits, like the songs by Lennon and Cocker, have been described by the staff writer of the LA Times as having significant meaning.  By removing these sourced elements from the closing credits section, the editor is attempting to advance the position that only the sound effects and closing titles are important to this section.  Is it acceptable for a closing credits section to only describe what is important as stated by reliable secondary sources, rather than relying on editors picking and choosing elements from the film without reliable, published sources?
 * Yes. The blunt statement that "the sound of children laughing can be heard during the closing credits" is acceptable, as it is verifiable. You should cite the film itself as the primary source for that blunt statement.  In fact, since it has been requested you should cite it. If this sound is discribed in the closed caption, this should be mentioned in the citation as well, and adding a time stamp for this is highly appropriate.
 * The opinion of an editor as to what the sound may indicate is clearly OR. Unless you have a reliable secondary source that discusses the sound, you should not say anything about what the sound might indicate.  In the absence of a reliable secondary source, ALL you can say is that the sound exists. Period. I am not sure why you would want to mention this sound without including any comment as to its importance or meaning... but you are allowed to do so.  Simply saying "the sound of children laughing can be heard during the closing credits" is not OR, and is verifiable... but it does seem irrelevant.  As for removing the blunt statement... It would be an error to remove it on NOR grounds, but it might be removed for any one of many other reasons.  For one thing, it might be removed if the consensus is that it is irrelevant to the article, or is nothing but trivia.  I don't think there is such a consensus, but it would be a legit reason to remove (This needs to be hashed out at the article talk page, and not here - as it has nothing to do with Original Research)
 * It is very bad form to remove information that is cited to reliable secondary sources without consensus to do so ... especially since these sources do discuss the reasons why the other sounds and songs were chosen (ie what their significance to the film is). It may be removed if there is consensus to do so... but that does not seem to be the case.  This information should be kept.
 * Finally... My advice on this... I see no harm in keeping the blunt statement that "the sound of children laughing can be heard during the closing credits" (cited directly to the movie), even though it is somewhat irrelevant without explanation. Then move on to discuss the information about the various songs and their meanings (cited to the sources that discuss these songs). Blueboar (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am willing to abide by your recommendations in full, not in part. As an aside, previous consensus in the talk archives has found this information to be trivial and has recommended leaving the sound out of the article as a result, but I fully support fleshing out a closing credits section that includes all notable elements with appropriate sourcing.  It should be noted, however, that using the film as a primary source to add trivial elements that cannot be found to be supported by secondary sources is not best practice.  I agree that the sound effects are  irrelevant without explanation, which is why they don't belong.  The essence of a good article is distilling the topic down to its essential, encyclopedic points, and presenting the information in a format that can be easily verified.  While it is true that with the addition of a primary source, we can verify that the sound effect appears in the film, it is entirely unclear why we are mentioning it in the article.  And the reason it continues to be added to the article is due to the implicit nature of the theory formulated by the editor that keeps adding it.  So I continue to maintain that this is OR by inclusion.  However, noting my objection, I am willing to restore the closing credits section in full, which means including the sound effects sourced to the film as a primary source and noting their appearance in the closed captioning, adding the music and explaining its importance, and mentioning the closing titles (shantih) and the description of the closing titles in the closing credits section - not split into the music and credits as Arcayne has been trying to do.  I would ask at this time that Arcayne also agree to the proposal offered by Blueboar and compromise, noting also that I am compromising by allowing the sound effects to even be included without a secondary source explaining their importance or at the very least, noting their appearance. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree to the information about the laughter of children being added. I will compromise in allowing the cite template to be used, hackneyed as it is. The music doesn't belong there, and I stand by the edit that put it in the section called - oddly enough - Music. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not negotiable and you are not agreeing to a full compromise as proposed by a neutral third-party that requires concessions form both sides. Please try to compromise.  Allowing for a source to be used isn't a compromise; it's policy.  The compromise is spelled out above.  Either agree to it or not.  I am on record agreeing to a proposal made by a neutral third party, and I am on record making a concession and a compromise.  Please do the same and work towards consensus.  Agreeing to the information abut the laughter of children being added isn't part of the end of your deal, as that is expressed position.  Agreeing to promote your own position is not compromising in any way.  Please, no more games.  Read the proposal above and agree or disagree with it. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, I believe I have made my answer clear, Viriditas. I accept that the info about the children shout be cited suing cite video. The music doesn't belong there, and has been placed in the music section, where it belongs (and where you further edited it). Please, no more incivility and personal attacks, accusations of sock-puppetry, use of 14-month-old newbie edits or whatnot. Consensus says its in. It's in, though via a clumsy citation tool. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Read Blueboar's proposal. You have not made any concessions or tried to compromise.  Blueboar has repeatedly stated that adding sources and placing the music in the credits section is acceptable.  That's the compromise.  Blueboar is a neutral third-party, and that also happens to be the consensus of contributing editors to the RFC, such as MovieMadness, MPerel, and others.  So, Arcayne, I must ask you put your POV aside and follow consensus. The comments on the noticeboards have given you an opinion.  The RFC has given you an opinion.  Now, you must stop edit warring and accept it. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I have made my position perfectly clear. I agree to adding both the music and the children's laughter. There is no POV on my part (and despite me asking you to provide proof of that, you have been strangely and uncharacteristically silent). The editors you just noted all note the ned for the inclusion of the material. There are more who ''explicitly say so, though you forgot to mention them.
 * The music is already in place in the Music section - where I moved it and wrote it better (with citation). You may add the cite video template as to the laughter of the children. What is your issue? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are both agreed that the material should be in the article, and are just arguing about where to put it... may I suggest that you take the discussion back to the article talk page... you are not really dealing with NOR issues anymore. Blueboar (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My agreement is based on a concession. I don't agree without a concession from the other side. The sound effects are disputed because of their OR implications.  We do not just pick and choose elements of the film to add to the article.  This particular material was added to support an interpretation of the film.  Now, if it is important enough to include, RS will have discussed it.  They don't.  And, by removing a sourced observation about the music in the credits and placing it in another section, the sound effects become selectively chosen for emphasis and are highlighted in the absence of any other notable aspect of the credits, so we are back to OR.  In other words, a selective presentation of the credits is a synthesis of published (shantih title credits) and unpublished (sound effects) material.  A closing credits section discusses all aspects of the credits as described by RS.  Arcayne's insistence on removing the sourced material about the music (music which takes up the majority of the closing credits and is considered notable to the credits by the LA Times) and adding his preferred, selective highlighting on the sound effects of children laughing and the shantih end titles, is a deliberate gaming of the RS rule, which originally prevented him from adding the IMdB and another personal website that quoted the IMdB which originally hosted this material.  So this is a repeated attempt by Arcayne to game the RS policy.  And this is being gamed to present OR.  It is true that we can verify that the sound credits appears in the film, but we cannot verify their importance in terms of presenting it in the article.  NPOV is pretty clear on this, as it used specifically to represent significant views, not the views of editors.  It is a case of editorial bias to selectively choose only one or two aspects of the credits to present, while presenting other aspects of the credits in another section.  This bias is supported by numerous remarks made by the editor in the talk page, where he has argued that the combination of the sound effects and the end titles represent an important commentary on the conclusion of the film.  By removing sourced descriptions of the music in the credits, the editor is given the opportunity to synthesize his selective opinion as fact.  That is the very definition of OR. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh... let me be repeat this clearly and bluntly: It is not OR to include the blunt statement "The sound of children laughing can be heard during the closing credits".  It is a factual statement that can be verified and cited to both the film itself and to the text of the closed caption version.  If Arcayne (or anyone else) adds further comments, discussing why this sound occurs or what it might mean, without citation to a secondary source, then (and only then) you might have an OR issue.  Arcayne says he does not seak to include such comments.  He is satified with simply including the non OR blunt statement.  So there is no longer any OR issue involved in including it.
 * The information about the songs and their meaning is also not OR. That information can be cited to reliable secondary sources.  Thus there is no OR issue involved with including it.
 * In other words, there is no OR issue here. As far as WP:NOR is concerned, all of this information is allowable.
 * There may be other issues that need to be discussed, such as as to whether any of this information is important enough to mention, or where it should be mentioned. But these issues are not within the scope of this noticeboard.  They have nothing to do with Original Research.  Please take your endless debate back to the talk page of the article... or over to some other policy's talk page/noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, the statement is OR as it is being used in synthesis with the end titles, "Shantih", and as a selective representation without two of the songs that take up the entire credits. There is no evidence anywhere of this connection (and its isolation) and it is an interpretation of the credits by the editor, an interpretation that is being made to support a pet theory discussed at length by the editor in question.  I have solved this problem here by placing the sound in the sound section and the reference to Eliot in the contemporary references section.  Therefore, the content is preserved, but is no longer artificially linked by the editor in question.  Arcayne has added the word "shouting" to his description of the sound effect.  That word appears nowhere; The closed captioning says "laughing".  It is an interpretation for Arcayne to link this sound effect to the end titles, and he continues to do it.  It is also an interpretation for Arcayne to selectively portray only the parts of the credits that support his theory.  There is no secondary source that describes the sound effects of children laughing, and none that links them to the end titles.  This piece of trivia is being used to promote a personal theory by an editor, and it is being connected to the end titles in a way that cannot be supported.  This construction is original thought and cannot be found anywhere else. All material must be attributable to a reliable, published source.  It's that simple.  Editors can never make observations about a film that do not already appear in reliable sources.  Plot sections can always be sourced on official websites, in critical reviews and commentary, and in interviews.  The OR issue here is that Wikipedia is now being used as a primary source.  Prior to this addition, an anonymous editor added this information to IMdB.  Since IMdB is considered an unreliable source, it was not allowed to be added.  Arcayne tried to get around this by quoting a personal website that cited IMdB.  That too, was removed.  Now, Arcayne is trying to use the film as a primary source to cite the IMdB material.  This is a deliberate gaming of the OR and RS policy.  There are six achives, and five of them are full of this stuff.  This is just from Talk:Children_of_Men/Archive_2:


 * "One of the things that ties the shantih at the end to the story is that the sounds of children's laughter and playing is heard while the credits roll (and while end title music plays). After the title music ends, close to the end of the credits, the children sounds are still heard, which fade at the same time the shantih fades. then there are 4 more seconds of silence until the film flickers the way it does before the lights go up. Arcayne 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)"
 * "As the Shantih and the sounds of children laughing and playing is part of the story as well, it is inappropriate to move it. Arcayne 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)"
 * "I disagree with your assertions that the Shantih Shantih Shantih at the end of the film are “non-narrative, thematic interpretations” (and I think it fair to expect you to cite referential material to support that claim, if you can). I have stated on several occasions that it is part of the story, and is part of the plot as final piece of the story, tied together by the sounds of children playing and laughter. These sounds continue in the background, while the music plays, while the credits run their course. The sounds stop after the Shantih is displayed...Simply put, the Shantih is part of the plot because it occurs during the sustained past of the film, tied to it by the sounds of children laughing and playing throughout the credits and musical accompaniment. It is stated, like dialogue or graffiti on a wall, and not purely thematic (like the presence of pets, or the fact that Theo never touches a gun). That the Shantih is also thematic is not disputed. However, it is a part of the plot as well. I am not going to spend more than a moment to address the rather silly claim that the sound of children laughing may not even be that, and is not up for us to decide, because if that were true, then nothing we can observe throughout the entire movie is up to us to interpret, and a plot synopsis itself in an invalid concept. Nor am I going to address the prior claims that the sounds or the words were diegetic in nature, as it simply doesn’t meet the definition of such. And I think it would be unfair to address the claims that the laughter and sounds of children does not “reflect directly upon the structure of the plot or its conclusion” - in a movie about a possible future without children at all. It would be vastly unfair to drive the Choo-Choo Train of Sensibility through the hole in that reasoning.  Lastly it has been suggested that the Shantih shouldn’t be compared to TS Eliot’s poem The Wastelands, because a “barely reliable source” supports it. Perhaps here Viriditas has something of a point; reliable sources are important in Wikipedia. It is why, for example, a so-called “official” movie script cannot be utilized as reliable source material. I am sure that eventually, some reviewer will stumble across the fact that both the poem and the film end with precisely the same words and that, as Cuaron is a Catholic and not a Hindu, and realize he is making the same point that Eliot was, and included it as a major plot point. Alas, until that day, I am not sure we can say it in the article...Arcayne 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)"
 * "If you are going to again shift your argument to insist that the laughter and shantih is now an audio sample and a title, you certainly need to defend that conclusion with citation. The observable fact that the items aforementioned are actually in the movie, and a continuation of the storyworld are inescapable and honest. To deny they exist is silly, as the proof of one's own eyes from viewing the movie clearly shows. Arcayne 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)"
 * "I said that the children's laughter and shantih (not 'audio and titles') had thematic components, not that they were solely thematic.Arcayne 03:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)"
 * "Yes, it is addressed in the Themes section, because that is the only place where the Shantih can be explained, and its connotations explored through citable reference. I am not now, nor have I ever argued that the Themes section is not where that should be explored. However, I have provided equally apt technical reasons as to why it still remains in the synopsis (no longer plot synopsis, but synopsis). I have explained why both are plot points (as observable events not in the background but notable events occurring in the foreground on arguably equal footing with dialogue), and have done so repeatedly. It is not extraneous imagery, like a prison gate or a hooded prisoner; such are set dressing or production choices designed to have thematic elements. The Shantih and the children laughing are all by themselves. There is no confusion as their strength or purpose as a plot device. There is no chance to blink and miss the imagery. It is a part of the movie, a continuation of such. In short, the sounds of children laughing and playing as well as the Shantih have thematic components. They are also technically a synoptic part of the movie, not as set dressing, not as lighting, not as background, but by themselves. And I have said this before, but the practical aspect bears repeating: if a user comes here to get the synopsis of a movie before s/he goes out and sees it (trying to keep from plunking down dead presidents for a crappy movie), they deserve to know what happens in the movie - even the very end of it, so they don't leave before seeing it. They aren't going to focus on the other sections until after they've seen the movie, to see if their opinion is shared by the article. I am guessing that there isn't a lot of mention of the Shantih because the reviewers were probably not even aware that the story was going to continue after the credits (a la Young Sherlock Holmes and JFK), and likely left while the credits rolled. You will note that most of the reviewers noted the laughter of children, as that continued through the end music and credits. Most of the reviewers likely didn't stick around. But then, that is just a reasoned guess on my part...It has occurred to me that there might be a different way to look at this. In one of the interviews mentioned in the Themes section, Cuaron said he meant for the end of the movie to be ambiguous and uncertain. While I personally think that he tells us that everything works out by using the sounds of children laughing and playing, it has proven (at least here) to be very ambiguous indeed. I also think that Cuaron made a point of making the Human Project, the supposed Sanctuary of the piece, seem a bit darker than originally thought....Arcayne 16:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)"


 * There's a lot more where that came from. Viriditas (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

 * Oh, I understand - you are confusing consensus with concession. That isn't the case here at all, V. The consensus says that the film itself can be used to note the laughter of the children. Plain as day. You don't want it to be in the article because you yourself are imparting an "OR implication" to the laughter - an implication that no one else has made in over a year. I am sorry, but you should consider that keeping something out based on speculation is as OR as putting something in based on speculation. Also, characterizing someone who holds a different viewpoint than yours as a sock, wikilawyer or someone who is "gaming the system" are other examples of your speculation not being actually of any import here. In fact, they can get you blocked.
 * Moving the musical selections to the music section is not a move to impart greater (or any, for that matter) import of the sounds that appear in the closing credits. It simply puts the a part of the film into that section specifically created for it. We use sections in this manner so as to assist the reader with knowing what parts of the film are notable. Musical references is added into the music section, themes expansion into themes, production details into production, etc. This is why I moved them - and not removed them, as you bizarrely keep stating - it was a readability issue.
 * You are the only person here - the only person - who is adamant that the sounds not be in the article at all and yet, you are the one who initially added them. Only after your usage of the cite video template was challenged did you become abrasive and drastically alter the article to suit yourself. I suggest that your forum-shopping this issue to two different noticeboards, repeated incivility to anyone who disagrees wth your viewpoint and unwillingness to compromise are clear signs of OWNership. Until you are ready to actually compromise (which is quite a different thing from concession), you will not find me a willing participant in your own administrative woes. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Arcayne, I'm not following you at all. The material was added by you to the article, and the diffs show that:  Really, sometimes you don't make any sense.
 * The music in question only appears in the credits - it does not appear in any other part of the film, and is supported by a RS, unlike your sound effects. In fact, the music in question takes up the majority of the credits, so removing it from a "closing credits" section is not justified in any way.  The music section deals with the score and the music that appears in the film. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The material you say I added was based on a link that was later determined to be less than reliable. When I say you added it, I am referring to wehn you removed the bad source and retained the children's laughter and used a cite template on it (1, 2) It was only after the material was added by yourself that you tossed in the material about the music (3), which you incorrectly describe as "(taking) up the majority of the credits"; the laughter of the children occurs throughout the credits. Might I ask you to source the basis of your statement that the two songs appear nowhere else in the film? Were that even true, it begs the question, so what? Many films have songs - or "sound effects," as you call them - that only play in the credits (King Ralph and Blues Brothers); it isn't especially notable that this one has one or two songs that aren't in the body of the film. Now, name some films that have children's laughter playing throughout the closing credits - I couldn't think of any that did, either. Let's just keep the music in the music section so the reader can find it easily enough. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  12:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading through this entire sordid affair, I have come to two conclusions as an uninvolved editor: 1) there is no dispute that the sounds of children are in the end credits; however, it is tangential to the article and I fail to see it as notable enough for inclusion; 2) any interpretation of the sounds is OR, as there are no sources to back up what it means. If the fact that the sounds exist is included, it should simply be a one-line mention, with no interpretive value added. -- Kesh (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with you that this has indeed taken on a far larger (and more contentious) context than it needed to. I also agree that the statement about the laughter should be noted, without any interpretive value added without secondary citation to that effect. Neither I nor anyone else in this discussion has intimated a desire to add a speculative interpretation to the article. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Kesh, I agree with you and so have a dozen editors in the past year; the sound effects of laughing children are not notable for inclusion. The problem is that Arcayne is including the sounds in the credits without any RS and removing two unique songs that only appear in the credits and are sourced to the LA Times.  The fact is, the two unique songs take up most of the credits and have been commented on by the staff writer of the LA Times.  Yet, according to Arcayne, the two unique songs are not suitable for the credits section.  The reason the trivial sound effects of children laughing (not supported by any RS) continue to be added to the credits, is because Arcayne has been promoting a theory about their use in the talk archives, and believes that the sound effects are commenting on the conclusion of the film.  The interpretation is implicit in its inclusion.  No RS has made mention of the sound effects, so for Wikipedia to observe them, is in effect, turning Wikipedia into a primary source for the importance of the sound effects. Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.  Allowing for these kinds of edits is to permit the worst kind of editing.  By allowing for a primary source to be used whose notability, applicability, and relevance has been questioned, is an invitation to opening the floodgates to OR.  Anyone can take a dozen primary sources, and select specific aspects to quote and include, and what you get is pure bias.  When primary source material is questioned, we turn to secondary sources for guidance.  This is especially important in works of art like films, since film fans are constantly trying to game the system to push their pet theories.  This is exactly what is going on here, but may not be obvious to people removed from the complexities of the discussion.  To me, it is very simple.  If you don't have a secondary source to support your primary source "observation", and the material is challenged, we can't use it. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, who are you commenting to, Kesh or me? The post was kind of all over the road, so I wasn't sure.
 * On the off-chance that you were trying to reply to me, let's point out what errors you seem to continually make here. I add them in the fervent hope that you finally listen:


 * I have no - I repeat, no - interpretation of the sounds of the children laughing through the closing credits. Viriditas keeps pointing to year-old archived edits because nothing recent has been offered by me in terms of interpretation. In all honesty, I don't know what the children's laughter means. It's kinda the reason I stopped speculating about it as a newbie 14 months ago. Also, its OR to do it, and I haven't added anything like that in over a year.
 * In point of fact, I would submit that the only OR interpretation being observed is Viriditas' synthesized speculation as to what adding the basic observation of the laughter will mean. I won't even mention the mis-speculation involved in interpreting my motivations in the worst possible light, as that's more of a civility issue than NOR noticeboard stuff. There's also the speculation that by allowing the use of the explicit and implicit source of the film (not at all the first time such has been used) this will somehow cause Wikipedia to explode in some odd, arkle-seizure-like fashion, but that's more of a bizarre conspiracy theory and speculation than actual fact. Perhaps we are all too simple to understand all the "obvious complexities of the discussion" that the other editor alone presumes to grasp. Maybe if we were dolphins, we would understand.
 * As observed phenomena, the laughter is part of the film and we cite the film as a source using the cite video template. This acknowledges that the film is the primary source of the film. Were we to have a a secondary source regarding the laughter, it would trump the primary info, as per WP:PSTS. It isn't "opening the floodgates to OR", as there is no OR involved. No one is disputing the presence of the laughter and shouting of the children - not even Viriditas. He is disputing it because he thinks that allowing it is an interpretation itself.  By that reasoning, we cannot mention Verbal Kint in Keyser Soze's article, for all the wrong reasons.
 * Observed phenomena are those things we observe from the film, like the plot summary (which isn't cited, either). Information like this is corrected through consensus. It is one of the reasons we do not see edits where space aliens carry off Scarlet O'Hara in their groovy flying saucer at the end of Gone With the Wind; other editors have ensured that the plot and other observable phenomena remain consistent with what everyne else witnessed. We have already surmounted that problem as everyone (including Viriditas) agrees that we are hearing children's laughter and shouting, and not dogs barking or the inside of a jet engine.
 * I hope that explains matters to everyone else. Viriditas already knows how these dots connect together. I think the connected dots help make a better article. From his last post, it would appear that the dots connect up to make a big scary monster. What do the rest of you see? (this kinda means that Viri can hold off replying, and give more folk a chance to talk) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  12:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All plot summaries can be sourced to official websites, critical reviews and commentaries, and interviews with the cast and crew. Whenever they can't and something is controversial, MOS:FILM recommends sources.  This material was originally uploaded to IMdB by an anonymous editor, where it was linked with the Shantih in the credits.  No secondary source has ever made this "observation".      The closed captioning says "children laughing" not shouting, and there is no evidence that it is more important than any other part of the credits, such as the songs played and discussed by Kevin Crust in the LA Times.  Note, he discusses the use of sound in the film, but never mentions the sound of children laughing.  Why is this trivia important?  In order to answer that question, you will need to provide a secondary source.  We do not get to choose what elements we personally think are important.  By using primary sources to selectively pick and choose things from a film, film fans can string together trivia to lead the reader into false interpretations.  This goes on all the time and people like me watch out for it and remove it.  The fact is, the only reason this sound effect was ever added to the film article was to support, promote, and further the theory that it was a commentary on the conclusion of the film.  This has been removed repeatedly from the article.  Arcayne has also commmented extensively in the archives about this.  So, by implication, the inclusion of this "observable" sound effect has some kind of implicit meaning known only to the editor who keeps adding it.  I have asked for secondary sources to see how critics treat this information.  If it is important to include in the article, others will have commented on it. Nobody has.  This sound effect is being synthesized with the end credits by Arcayne only; no other critic has made this observation.  Wikipedia is not a primary source.  We can only quote what others have published - even in plot sections - which are supposed to represent only the most significant plot points, most of which have been published.  Arcayne accidentally revealed his agenda above when he claimed, "the laughter is part of the film".  If you look at the talk archives, you will see that this is precisely the point that Arcayne has been trying to make for a year.  Arcayne believes that the laughter is a significant part of the film, and he has propounded his theories about this at great length.  Each time, he was told, that Wikipedia does not do OR.  He has never accepted this, and is now pretending that he has changed his tune, when in fact, he is still making the same argument.  Viriditas (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)