Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 26

Four Corners (Canada)
This "place" doesn't even exist, and there is no proper name attached to it, except by those who have fabricated this as a spinoff of Quadripoint (which also is OR and should be reviewed as such and was formerly title "Four Corners"). There's not even a true fourway boundary point here, the boundaries don't meet up at a "crossroads". Lots of "reaching" and over-justifying here, buried under verbiage which makes this sound legitimate, and continued use of the term Four Corners in this article and in Quadripoint to retrench the use of that term as if anyone used it. There is no place called "Four Corners" in Canada, certainly not capitalized as if it were a proper name and legitimate/real concept. Wikipedia is not for trivia, nor for documenting the assemblage of trivia as a hobby.Skookum1 (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Taj Mahal
An editor at Taj Mahal is adding material which, s/he claims, represents a "feminist" point of view on the monument. It is difficult to summarise the issue here, as the editor is bringing in several sources to support a fairly obscure journalistic article, which raises serparate questions of WP:NOTE and WP:RS. My concern is with the use of the more legitimate sources is WP:SYN, that they are being used to advance an argument about an alleged feminist position which the sources themselves are not making. The editor writes: "Begley [Wayne E. Begley, ‘The Myth of the Taj Mahal'] goes on to quote many authentic sources to underline how Shahjahan's monument was 'intended to symbolise his glory and not only his devotion'. (p. 10) He says that monument 'served as a symbol, as it were of imperial destiny....a tangible manifestation of his magnificent obsession with his own greatness'. (ibid). That Taj Mahal has served as an image to advance the male notions of power is a logical inference of this argument. That non-notable journalistic article also draws upon many such studies to underline how Taj is not just a monument of love--but a manifestation of a male-cum-royal grandeur."

Of course I have no objection to Begley's discussion of the dynastic symbolism of the monument. My concern is that this is then used to make statements about "male power" (though the commission of a grand monument by the previous Shah's widow is not used to make claims about "female" power) Paul B (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My request to the editors: Please do read the entire discussion on Taj Mahal: Talk page before making a comment as you would notice lot of prejudices at work. thanks. Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed please do read the whole discussion: Talk:Taj_Mahal. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Also: For WP: Note and WP:RS, also see ‘exceptions’ stating “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” For WP: SYN, please read full articles on the blog as mentioned and Begley’s article too.

The present discussion should also bear in mind this guideline of Wikipedia: “Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.”

Saramohanpur1940Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Semantic infiltration
Anyone want to take a crack at Semantic infiltration? It was created by an obvious sockpuppet and I've already removed some of the most unsuitable content, but there still appears to be a good deal of OR and SPS. If you think it just ought to be TNT'd that's cool too, I thought I'd just bring it here first. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Lighthouse Pub
The creator of the Lighthouse Pub article has used his own blog as a source and claims to be a former journalist. If he can provide examples of his past work in the relevant field from reliable sources, could his blog be considered a self-published expert source, therefore passing the WP:NOR requirement? --Drm310 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Gayre's thesis regarding Ancient Zimbabwe
I am writing to ask whether, with your help and input, it might be possible to find an acceptable way of summarizing a few points made by Robert Gayre in his book (and maybe his articles) explaining why he favours the 'Semitic' theory for the origin of the ancient Zimbabwean Civilization. Some Wikipedia readers are undoubtedly curious and interested to learn what the arguments are - both for and against the 'Semitic' theory (and indeed the 'Shona' theory, too).

In the 'Lemba' section of the Wikipedia 'Great Zimbabwe' page, the old summary which was there until 4th May, was deemed to contain 'Original Research', and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia.

OK, I won't argue with that - but I am wondering if there might be a way of compromising - by simply extracting the relevant points from Gayre's book - and then presenting them - without discussing how they might relate to other people's findings. Could we then regard such a text, as not comprising 'Original Research'?

If so, this is how it might look:

- - - - - - - - - - -

1. The Lemba were esteemed by neighbouring tribes as exceptionally skilled miners and metal workers; (these were distinctive features of the Zimbabwean Civilization).

2. The stone phallic symbols discovered in some of the ancient ruins, were models of circumcised male organs; (that is significant because surrounding tribes regarded the Lemba as the masters and originators of the art of circumcision).

3. The Lemba buried their dead in an extended rather than a crouched position, (i.e., they chose the same style as that found in certain Zimbabwean graves which contained gold jewellery).

4. The old Lemba language was a dialect of Karanga (which is the language spoken today in the area around Great Zimbabwe).

Thus, Gayre argues that the South African Lemba are probably descended from members of the original community who fled southwards when Great Zimbabwe was captured by non-Semites.

- - - - - - - - - - -

It goes without saying that all suggestions for modification, will be well received.

Dougweller also asked me to mention that we have been discussing this topic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Zimbabwe

With thanks in anticipation, DLMcN (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gayre's thesis no longer has support among the vast majority scholars. It is mentioned in the article as a matter of historical interest. To expand the existing section without violating WP:UNDUE would require at least one reliable contemporary source, which appears not to exist. In the absence of a reliable source, the requesting editor has constructed various formulations that are clearly original research, reflecting material self-published elsewhere on the Web (which has also raised WP:COI issues. Johncoz (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User:4WhatMakesSense
User is adding idiosyncratic theories, or deleting properly sourced text, at multiple articles and "supporting" these by near-incomprehensible arguments. Examples include Book of the Dead, Aramaic language  , Mesha Stele. Zerotalk 14:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a lot to accuse because of one TALK. ~ I pointed out the Mesha Stele, might be a religious Piltdown Man, by one person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man ~ And here you are running to have me hung??? Lemaire, made the claim that the stone fragments of Meshe Stele were good enough to make plaster casts. Yet not good enough to keep??? What Archaeologist of sound mind would throw away the Stones referencing "King David" or "Israel" on them & keep only the plaster cast?


 * You seem to have no idea of what original research is and why it is not allowed on Wikipedia. You should start a blog or something, this is no place for your theories. Zerotalk 14:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What was being posted are people romantic theories. There is not proof Lemaires story or evidence is true. {Lemaire story was the same as when Hilary Clinton got off a plane and claimed she landed under fire. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/ } 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is the right board for this problem. It's really for discussing whether or not particular edits constitute OR, not for problems with user conduct, including deletion of sourced content the editor does not agree with. Paul B (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Paul B, Meshnaic related articles, need Editorial Oversite. Mishnaic Hebrew is not as old as Wikipedia authors, using corrupted author sources, are citing. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/259061/Hebrew-language#ref267076 Quote: "; Mishnaic, or Rabbinic, Hebrew, the language of the Mishna (a collection of Jewish traditions), written about AD 200 (this form of Hebrew was never used among the people as a spoken language);"


 * Quoting Britannica, "Few traces of dialects exist in Biblical Hebrew, but scholars believe this to be the result of Masoretic editing of the text. In addition to the Old Testament, a small number of inscriptions in Hebrew of the biblical period are extant; the earliest of these is a short inscription in Phoenician characters dating from the 9th century BC.


 * During the early Mishnaic period, some of the guttural consonants of Biblical Hebrew were combined or confused with one another, and many nouns were borrowed from Aramaic. Hebrew also borrowed a number of Greek, Latin, and Persian words."


 * ^ Encyclopedia Britannica repeats, people since inventing the Masoretic Text (900-1100AD) have been purposely destroying traces of which language produced the Hebrew Language. I have repeatedly confirmed by finding the original source, that Aramaic is phonetic or script of the Source Language being falsely called Hebrew. Even Hebrew University confirm Biblical Hebrew Script IS Liturgical Aramaic http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html


 * The Biblical Torah began with King Ahmoses in Egypt, when Minoan Crete Volcano Erupted between 1650-1550BCE, but someone is claiming Ah-Moses only reigned for five years 1555-1550BCE??? Facts are Aramaic is the only Language that covers the span between Book of Genesis Chapter 19 with Abraham seeing a Volcano, and then Ah-Moses Where the Upper & Lower Kingdom became one so they could move away, "Exodus" from Lower Egypt(Nile Delta) to what people call Middle Egypt or Memphis, escaping the Clouds of Ash which Rained with Fire from the Volcano about 1650-1550BCE. Aramaic is the language of God. A "Hebrew Language" did not Exist, it was like Ge'ez priestly Aramaic so commoners could not read it. 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * * Here is a University confirming Biblical Hebrew is Liturgical Aramaic. http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ 1300BCE Aramaic.

4WhatMakesSense has been blocked for disruptive editing. Zerotalk 02:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfc on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka
I have started a Rfc on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka which is relevant to this noticeboard - "Does this article comply with Wikipedia's core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research?" Please feel free to comment here. Thank you.-- obi2canibe talk contr 19:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Highway shields
Just after some generic advice, though I may bring up the exact discussion in question if discussion continues. Is a diagram of a highway shield considered to be original research if it is copied from, or based upon, photos of real-world installations. WP:NOR would seem to suggest that most original images arent considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. I would assume a highway shield which marks a roadway would not do either (and that it would affect things more like controversial graphs and diagrams which portray complex information in a visual form). Do others beleive I am correct in this regard? It seems pretty clear cut to me, or am I misreading the policy? Is there any circumstance where a highway shield diagram outside in a non-disputed territory could be claimed to be OR? -- Nbound (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you are interpreting the policy correctly, but I would have to see the image in question to know for sure. One thing to keep in mind (don't know if this applies or not)... often the image on its own is not OR, but the caption accompanying the image is. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, lets settle this then (or Im sure it will be bought up again): The shields im refering to are the New South Wales alphanumeric markers.
 * Sources included:  and multiple images asuch as those in a gallery (scroll down) here:
 * This is the old (at this stage partial) set based upon site here: - These are a promotional set and are unused in the real world.
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads is the discussion if it helps.
 * I have left a NORN-notice on the talk page of the other users who have posted.
 * These images are used in infoboxes, and generally dont ever have captions (no captions so far have been queried by anyone anyway). The may be related text for WP:ACCESS requirements (eg.  Testcase Highway (M1) )
 * See a real world example here on the infobox here: Sydney–Newcastle Freeway
 * Nbound (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I understand your question, but let me make sure I have it right... an editor has created some graphics depicting the various types of road signage used in NSW, and wants to use his/her editor-created graphics in the infoboxes of articles on NSW roads. The graphics are based on the diagrams and photographs you linked to above.  And your question is: can the graphics be used, or do they violate NOR?  If that is indeed the question, then the answer is: The graphics may be used.  They do not violate NOR per the "original image" exemption.  If there is some other question, please clarify. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the question, thanks for for your input. - Nbound (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 IRS scandal
This looks to me like a primary source:

Another editor is claiming it is a secondary source, evidently because the document is found on the WSJ's website. It appears that he's looking at the date on the first page (May 14, 2013) and using that information to assert that the document became available to the public on that day. While that may well be correct, in my view, he is doing original research. Federales (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Federales, I think there is some confusion here.


 * The link is to the Wall Street Journal web site. The material linked, however, is a PDF copy of the actual TIGTA report. Citing to the Wall Street Journal may be considered to be citing to a secondary source. Citing to the actual TIGTA report may be considered to be citing to a primary source.


 * The Wall Street Journal link was not provided by me. It was provided by some other editor, a few days ago, I believe.


 * The assertion is that the full report was released on May 15th. However, nothing in the material that is cited says that the full report was released on May 15th. I nevertheless left that unsupported assertion in the article''. It is not my assertion, and it is not the Wall Street Journal's assertion (as far as I can tell) and it is not an assertion found in the linked material. It is an assertion made by whoever added the statement to the article.


 * What you reverted was my text -- just added to the article -- to the effect that the TIGTA report was released on May 14th (the version of the report without the appendices). I merely added that notation to the article.


 * It is true that the statement is based on the fact that I myself downloaded the report from the IRS web site on May 14th. That may appear to be original research. However, I would argue that this is not prohibited original research as that term is used in Wikipedia. Let me illustrate.


 * Had I, on May 14th, actually added a link to the TIGTA report as shown on the IRS web site, and had I added text to the article stating, "the TIGTA report was released on May 14, 2013" (with a link to the actual page on the IRS web site), that would not be prohibited original research. On something this mundane, I would argue that we simply are not required to find a secondary source that happens to have a link or copy of the same material that is already available on the government web site (even though the government web site arguably can be considered a primary source).


 * To digress regarding the use of government web sites that might be primary sourcing: On the day in June 2012 that the Supreme Court Obamacare decision was handed down, we were not prohibited by the rules of Wikipedia from linking to the actual U.S. Supreme Court web site for a PDF copy of the actual text of the decision. That is not prohibited original research as the term is used in Wikipedia. Wikipedia contains lots of links to the IRS web site, to the Supreme Court web site, and so on.


 * Further, even though the link is to a primary source, that can be just fine. Contrary to what many Wikipedia editors seem to believe, Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of primary sources. Secondary sources are preferred, and articles normally should not rely primarily on primary sources. Primary sources should be used judiciously. But the use of primary sources is still allowed.


 * Getting back to the issue we are discussing: If anything is objectionable in this case, it is the unsupported reference to the release date of "May 15th." The source material -- which is the PDF copy of the TIGTA report at the Wall Street Journal Web site, simply does not say that the report was released on May 15th. The PDF simply bears the date May 14th. Under the rules of Wikipedia, it makes no sense for us to delete the reference in the article to "May 14th" and yet leave the totally unsupported reference to "May 15th" in the article. Famspear (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It makes no difference where the document is hosted, it's still the original government document and thus it is a primary source. Federales (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. You're still not understanding what I wrote. You're missing my point.

The Wikipedia article was claiming that the "full report" (the TIGTA) was issued on May 15th. That claim may be true, or that may be incorrect.

But the source cited for that claim in the Wikipedia article is only a PDF copy of the actual TIGTA report -- at the Wall Street Journal web site. You're getting hung up on my reference to the Wall Street Journal as being a secondary source. The Wall Street Journal IS a secondary source, when it comes to describing what is in the TIGTA report. By contrast, the TIGTA report itself is a primary source when it comes to describing what is in the TIGTA report.

The Wikipedia article was falsely claiming that either the Wall Street Journal web site, or the TIGTA report itself, or both, are saying that the full report was issued on May 15th. That is false. The Wall Street Journal web site does not say that, and the TIGTA report does not say that.

It's not a question of whether the source -- the linked material -- is "primary" or "secondary." It doesn't matter whether you consider the link in the article to be a link to the Wall Street Journal (which would be a secondary source), or to the TIGTA report (which would be a primary source). Either way, a statement in a Wikipedia article must be supported by the sourced material. The statements in the source material must stand for the proposition in the Wikipedia article. In this case, the statement that the full report was released on May 15th is not supported. Famspear (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And neither is there any support provided for a May 14 release date. Based on what we have now, we could say the report is dated May 14, but there is no sourcing at all to say when it was released.  If you are basing the claim that it was released May 14 on the date in the document, that is original research. Federales (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I still disagree that the reference to May 14th in this particular context would be prohibited original research as that term is used in Wikipedia. My reference to the issuance date of May 14th is based on the fact that this is the date the report physically appeared on the IRS web site (i.e., the date I actually downloaded it), not on the date shown on the document (which also happens to be May 14th). But I agree with the main point you're making. We can solve the whole problem simply by deleting the references to both dates. Famspear (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I made this change in the article. Thanks, Federales, it's your baby now, if you feel it needs more changes. I gotta get to bed. Yours, Famspear (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Fam. Ideally, we can come up with a good RS to support an accurate release date, as that bit of info is an important detail in the overall narrative.  Failing that, I have no objection to saying "dated May 14", in the absence of better information.
 * As an aside, it was actually your edit summary stating you had downloaded the report on the 14th that triggered my scrutineering. I'm sure you realize that we could never make an editorial decision based on such a thing, regardless of how solid it may seem to an individual editor. Federales (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 Back Ground Section
I have started an RFC that is relavent to WP:ORN for the background section of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Please comment on this RFC, here.Casprings (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

IRS survey statistic
I'm curious as to whether the following scenario associated with the page List of Internal Revenue Service political profiling controversies implicates WP:NOR.

The claim "[t]hree out of four respondents felt entitled to deceive or lie when testifying before a congressional committee"  appears in the article under a subheading entitled  IRS culture. It is sourced primarily to a survey of IRS managers and executives. It's sourced secondarily to an opinion piece. However, the primary source does not actually include the cited claim, and the opinion piece that's the secondary source for the claim is just one of numerous opinion pieces that contains the claim.

Is it OR to remove the claim? I don't believe it would be, for a couple of reasons.

1. My understanding of OR is that it requires addition to an article, whereas removal of an unsupported claim involves subtraction. It seems counter to the notion of verifiability that, when a primary source is cited for a particular claim, that source should not be consulted to determine whether or not it actually says what it is being cited for. This seems like an exercise of verification rather than a violation of WP:NOR.

2. Although there are secondary sources for the claim, the only such sources are opinion pieces. Regardless of the number of such pieces that make the same claim, relying on opinion sources for a factual claim seems problematic enough that consulting the primary source is warranted. And, again, the point is not to analyze and distill the primary source; it's to determine whether the claim appears at all in the primary source.

There's further discussion of this at the article's talk page, with User:Federales being the primary (and I believe only) proponent of the notion that removing the claim is impermissible under WP:NOR. So am I just wrong about the meaning of OR? Is it acceptable (or even mandatory) to leave a verifiably false claim in an article just because secondary sources of dubious reliability make that claim? Dyrnych (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dyrnych has already initiated an RFC covering this exact question: Now he needs to let the RFC run its course.  Starting this discussion here is WP:FORUMSHOPing. Federales (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have initiated an RFC covering the advisability of the IRS culture section. As a subset of that, there's a question about the material at issue here.  I'm not concerned HERE about whether or not the subsection SHOULD BE REMOVED or whether the content SHOULD BE REMOVED.  I'm concerned--for my own edification--with whether MY INTERPRETATION OF WP:NOR IS CORRECT.  The one is judges the advisability of taking an action in a particular case; the other asks the permissibility of taking an action in general.  So no, I'm not forum shopping.  I'm trying to determine the scope of WP:NOR.  To recap: the RFC asks "Should this entire section be removed, and, if not, should specific content be removed under this specific circumstance?"  This question asks: "Is it always OR to remove content under circumstances factually similar to the one at issue in the specific case?" Dyrnych (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's the exact same question that you already included in your RFC.
 * The answer is very straightforward. Look at WP:PRIMARY:
 * "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy."
 * Just as I have already stated elsewhere, you are looking at a primary source and making your own interpretation, seeking to substitute your own judgment for that of a cited secondary source. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong - Wikipedia editors are not allowed to do that. Federales (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, I think you've already made your argument, and you're either ignoring or misinterpreting everything I just said about advisability versus permissibility. I'm primarily interested in what other people have to say about this; that's why I've moved outside of the discussions that we've already had on the article's talk page.  That said, I'm proposing that the analogy is to the following situation: a secondary source claims that a passage appears in a primary source book.  A cursory glace at the primary source book reveals that the passage does not in fact appear.  Therefore, the claim should not be included in an article about that book, and removing that claim is nothing more than searching the primary source for information "that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."  As the excerpt you've just quoted proves. And, again, the excerpt references ADDING INFORMATION from primary sources rather than EXCISING INFORMATION not supported by those sources.  So, please: let's get some opinions from third parties  rather than pretending that yours is the authoritative view. Dyrnych (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of "any", as in "any interpretation", are you having trouble with? You're trying to cherry-pick the policy to make it say what you wish it said, but is clearly says "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself". Isn't that pretty clear? Do not interpret. Do not evaluate.

And you're also misrepresenting the secondary source. Bovard (WSJ) doesn't claim the survey makes that statement directly, he is interpreting the survey to mean what he says about it. For you, as a Wikipedia editor, to go back to the primary source and second-guess Bovard is original research, which is explained succinctly in the verbiage that is bolded. It really isn't that complicated, is it? Federales (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, isn't that complicated at all from my perspective. You've thoroughly confused OR with verification, you don't understand the meaning of "interpretation," you've missed the point of permissible uses of primary sources, you don't realize that the proponent of a claim has the burden of sourcing that claim with a reliable source, and you're wedded to the notion that an opinion piece is a reliable source for a factual claim.  That's my view, which I've already made pretty apparent.  But you obviously have a different view, which is why I'm ASKING OTHER EDITORS.  And with that, I'll wait for other comment, as I suggest you do as well rather than condescending to me. Dyrnych (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Straumfjörð has major OR and SYNTH issues
I've already deleted a series of photos and maps here which, even without their captions, but simply by inclusion, suggested conclusions about this location mentioned in the sagas. There's more, including leading questions as captions on the remaining photos and lots of speculation in the content. There's probably more of this same kind of thing on Helluland and Markland and related articles, this one shocked me at how overtly original research all of it is.Skookum1 (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Artemisia absinthium
Apologies for bringing others into a painful discussion that we seem to be unable to resolve for ourselves. This noticeboard has been pointed to by a party to one of the two widely divergent opinions, and there seems to be no way forward without listing the matter here. Thanks for considering this. The discussion is at Talk:Artemisia absinthium. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Presenting theories as "fact" ?
In the article Outer space an editor at 15.211.201.82 noted the phrase "Observations now prove that it also contains dark matter and dark energy" is an "Extraordinarily claim despite unsettled science". I did a cleanup changing "Observations now prove" to "Observations indicate it may also contain" based on dark matter and dark energy being "hypothetical"(diff) (as stated in their WP articles). Another editor basically reverted the edit (diff) claiming "Nothing extraordinary at all about the claim that outer space contains dark matter and dark energy; it's the overwhelming consensus of astronomers based on the observations." The sources being used say "implying" and "evidence for" and "Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is"... so do not seem to support "proven" or "are the dominant components of space" (tried pointing out that the sources being cited do not contain a definitive statement but the editor kept reverting diffdiff). The editor's main premiss seems to be "its ok to boil down theoretical work to "facts" since its a boiled down lead summary and astronomer A and B are pretty sure it exist so it can be a presented as a fact" (I would also note the article body presents dark matter and dark energy as fact). To me "astronomer A being pretty sure" and "astronomer B being pretty sure" should not be joined together to imply a conclusion C "prove" or "are" or "90% of the mass is in an unknown form" or "is the dominant component of space" per WP:SYNTH. Also seems obvious to me theoretical work should not be presented as "fact" in any part of Wikipedia. Same editor has expressed these opinions before per: |Talk:Milky Way/Archive 3 (section Supermassive black holes). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Editor Fountains of Bryn Mawr, you are on the right track here. Keep it up. I would go further than you have already gone: I would favour a form of statement such as 'Speculative theoretical interpretations of observations suggest that ...'Chjoaygame (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim in article space that the overwhelming consensus of astronomers is that dark matter exists; I used that to explain my edit. I've checked the four astronomy textbooks which I've had handy in the last few days (Freedman & Kaufman: Universe; Zeilik & Gregory: Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics; Sparke & Gallagher: Galaxies in the Universe; and Binney & Tremaine: Galactic Dynamics), which are, respectively, a non-major undergraduate textbook, an undergraduate major introductory textbook, an upper level undergraduate/lower level graduate textbook, and a graduate textbook. All state the existence of dark matter as a fact but that its nature as unknown. Therefore, I don't think that stating its existence as a fact is original research or unsupported by the sources at all.
 * In response to the objections raised and after further thought and reading, I modified the debated sentence in the lede of outer space to read "In most galaxies, 90% of the mass is in an unknown form, called dark matter, which interacts with other matter through gravitational but not electromagnetic forces.", with a citation to the Freedman & Kaufman textbook. (This is my second edit cited by Fountains of Bryn Mawr.) What about this wording, or any wording in the article, is original research?
 * Part of the issue here is that there is a disconnect between whether dark matter exists and what it's made of. The former is well established; the latter is very much unknown. The objections to stating that dark matter exists as a fact largely, to my eye, come from conflating those related by separate statements. Again, I tried to clarify that in my last edit to outer space. However, this is all a content dispute, and bringing the discussion here (instead of Talk:outer space) just fragments the content discussion.
 * Certainly, the details about the evidence leading astronomers to this conclusion merits considerable attention, as it has on dark matter. However, I think that weaseling the existence (not the nature) of dark matter gives readers the wrong impression of both reality and what the sources say.
 * Of course, the Wikipedia articles cited above are not reliable sources; the textbooks and journal articles I'm citing are. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 03:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The existence of dark matter is fairly well settled at this point, but we can always phrase things a bit cautiously. a13ean (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since there is a scientific consensus that dark matter exists, any qualification would cast doubt on this and therefore be POV. TFD (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Men's rights movement
There is some disagreement over the WP:OR policy as it applies to men's rights movement (MRM). Two editors argue that we should use sources that don't deal with the topic of the article, i.e., the men's rights movement. To give you one example: An editor added this section about custodial sentencing. The source – a parliamentary debate and speech by Philip Davies – doesn't say anything about the MRM or any of its representatives. There is also no indication that Davies is a men's rights activists or someone who speaks for the MRM. So there is no connection. The editor who added the section argues that it "fits directly under mens rights" (I assume he meant "men's rights movement") and that sources need not say anything or make the connection to the men's rights movement. Similarly, another editor argued that it isn't against the WP:OR policy to use generic statistics on alimony and divorce from sources that do not discuss the MRM ("MRM makes claims about divorce. Neutral divorce statistics are brought in.")

Can uninvolved editors clarify if it is or is not a violation of WP:OR and WP:Synth to add statistics from sources that say nothing about the topic of the article (examples of stats and conent copied from other articles )? For instance, men's rights activists make claims about alimony, rape, dowry laws and a variety of other issues. Is it okay to add alimony, rape and dowry death statistics from sources that don't deal with the men's righs movement at all and do not make that connection? Can we just transfer the statistics from False accusation of rape, alimony and dowry death etc. to Men's_rights_movement, Men's_rights_movement, and Men's_rights_movement? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me guess... another case that hinges on defining exactly what the "Men's rights movement" actually is... yes? Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There are many scholarly sources which define the men's rights movement and discuss the claims in relation to several issues. It's just that some editors believe that it isn't necessary that sources say anything about the topic and that we should fill the article with generic statistics about anything that editors think might be related. For example, they state that it would be nice to have a prison section in the article and use sources about sentencing although the sources do not discuss sentencing in connection with the men's rights movement, e.g. what the MRM thinks or does about it. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All sources used should be about the men's rights movement. Otherwise we are conducting original research and also we are providing arguments in favor of or against the movement.  TFD (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Gasteracantha cancriformis mating
Hello, I'm Surfer43. I have observed the species Gasteracantha cancriformis mating and have uploaded it to commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gasteracantha_cancriformis_mating_in_Summer.webm. I want to include it in the article Gasteracantha cancriformis, but doing so would probably require a new section with text sourced from http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Gasteracantha_cancriformis/. However information from that page is contradictory to the video(For example, my video disproves that the species has only been observed mating in a labratory, disproves that the species only mates in Winter(I suppose it doesn't if you don't trust the datestamp on it), and generally adds more information about it.) I know information from this video is not from a verifiable, reliable, published source, but it seems ridiculous to write knowingly incorrect information that contradicts the video. I don't know how to get this new finding about the species "published". I am asking for any advice. Thanks, Surfer43 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps the video could count as a verifiable reliable source for "been observed in the wild" and "in summer". Surfer43 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This would fall under original research, so there's nothing you can really do on Wikipedia. I'm not really familiar with journals pertaining to arthropods, but what you could do is look for a researcher studying this or related species and drop them an email.  They may be able to help you out.  As long as you sound professional and polite, usually researchers are very helpful towards people who share their interests.  –  Maky  « talk » 23:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no reason that makes it obligatory for you to include that text, and especially that makes it obligatory to include all of its information. Just put your video on the WP page, update the page with whatever is sourced that you trust, while not writing anything of your own research, and meanwhile contact some arachnologist (is this the word?) to let them know. I suppose they could be interested in your video. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I put the video on the page. Thanks for the advice. Surfer43 (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Theistic Evolution
The article on Theistic evolution seems to contain an awful lot of OR and synth based on primary sources. I've removed the worst of the material, lists of adherents and proponents that were either completely unsourced or synth. There is a discussion going on on the talk page. Would appreciate it if more editors would examine the article and weigh in. There is a valid topic here, but the article seems to have become a coatrack article on a vague concept. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Is MoStudies Review a publisher of review articles?
Talk:Mormon_Studies_Review

I.e, is it a reasonable summary of the following sources to say the publication Mormon Studies Review is to be a review journal? New editor quoted at publisher's website:"... [It] is to be model[led] in part on Reviews in American History. We’re going to chronicle and assess the field, in other words, not contribute to it in terms of original scholarship. It will be a place where scholars and other interested readers can quickly, conveniently find great minds engaging one another about the current and future state of several fields."City newspaper's religion reporter:"'At this point, the biggest challenge might be trying to keep up with the variety and volume of scholarship about Mormonism. ... [The journal] will provide an overview and analysis of all the publishing in the field....'"Student newspaper at the university affiliated with the publisher:"[It] is to help fill a void within the ever-growing field of Mormon studies. The Review will include reviews of books, essays and other scholarly publications related to Mormonism and the field’s growth and development. The first issue of the Review is expected to be available this coming winter. .... The executive director of the Maxwell Institue, M. Gerald Bradford, is eager to see the Mormon Studies Review take its place in the field of Mormon studies. ... I expect it will soon become a major voice in tracking and commenting on developments in the growing area of Mormon studies.'."altho WP is not an RS, here's a quote from the WP article on review articles"' Review articles are an attempt to summarize the current state of understanding on a topic. They analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results. They come in the form of systematic reviews and literature reviews and are a form of secondary literature. Systematic reviews determine an objective list of criteria, and find all previously published original experimental papers that meet the criteria. They then compare the results presented in these papers. Literature reviews, by contrast, provide a summary of what the authors believe are the best and most relevant prior publications."Sources are linked to on talk page.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mystery solved? - Tho the 3 sources above speak in terms presuming interlocutors think, ah, a review journal, frustrating-to-a-WP contributor, they decline to #!@&$ say the d*mned term. But alas! at long last informed  commentary has beached up on the sandbed of my iPod from someone who didn't get the memo they weren't supposed to pronounce the actual technical term. The journal's publisher had announced, "Benjamin E. Park, a PhD candidate in history at the University of Cambridge, will serve as associate editor...." And here are the words of Ben, himself: LINK:"There have been an explosion of journals covering the field, to the point that one could say there is more quantity than quality. We have seen an increase in quality books, with many more to come. There are conferences throughout the nation (and lately, to a very limited extent, world), and academic chairs and programs cropping up at prestigious universities. [... ...] That’s where the Neal A. Maxwell Institute comes in. In a (sub)field seemingly so decentralized, the Institute is trying to establish a geographic core. This will primarily be through their new journal, The Mormon Studies Review. Aimed, in part, to be a Mormon version of Books and Culture, the annual journal will offer book reviews, review essays, and discipline, methodology, and topical articles that assess recent trends in the many different disciplines that live under the eclectic umbrella of “Mormon studies.” Written for educated lay readers as well as experts, it finds one of the last remaining niches left in the Mormon studies world: a review journal that is a mix between New York Review of Books and an interdisciplinary version of Reviews in American History.  [... ...]  I have the privilege to serve as Associate Editor, and I am genuinely thrilled to participate in such an impressive and important project."Question to the notice board: Can WP term the journal a review journal?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Based on the sources I have seen (and—with full knowledge that this is the OR noticeboard!—supplemented my own knowledge of what it publishes) I think it could legitimately be called a "review journal". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems like a logical supposition. For what it is worth, the first edition of the new Mormon Studies Review has not been published yet, so its final form at publication is actually not know.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes it is a review journal. Journals published by theologians can be rs if they are written to academic standards.  TFD (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it's not a review journal, even though it is obviously an academic journal. Review journals publish reviews, not other stuff. Note that many journals with the word "review" in their title are not review journals as such. This journal is said to opublish "reviews of books, essays and other scholarly publications", which is much widers than what a review journal does. In fact, Reviews in American History on which this journal is (partly) to be modelled, is not a review journal itself either. RiAH publishes reviews of books and that is something very different from publishing literature reviews or systematic reviews. The difference is subtle perhaps, but real. --Randykitty (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cmt - I believe there is - or at least SHOULD be - a "Strunk & White" Corollary to wp:OR: if the sole difference between the description of an activity and of the categorization of its actor  is that between active- and passively voiced constructions, the distiction in so-called "grammar" between the two doesn't amount to OR. An ed. board whose membership inc. a who's who inc. all the chairs of Cowboy poetry studies, as well as the North American Wrangler's Assoc.'s Resident Scholar in Cowboy Poetry, and whose journal is to refrain from publishing new researches but instead concentrate on reviews of published scholarship as well analysis of  the state of the field--well, such a pub IS a review journal. Thus, I dunno about RAH but putatively to claim that The American Historical Review pub'd recently by UChig (and now by Oxford) for the AHA - the "only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is unparalleled in its efforts to choose articles that are new in content and interpretation and that make a contribution to historical knowledge. The journal also publishes approximately one thousand book reviews per year, surveying and reporting the most important contemporary historical scholarship in the discipline. LINK"whose Wiki article sez"Each year approximately 25 articles and review essays and 1,000 book reviews are published."- ..... To sniff that the AHR inn't no review journal, while marvelously pedantic-SOUNDING,would I'd imagine be a false - slash - pretty much unsupportable, hence highly controversial, assertion (see,  eg, "Literature review"). No?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: We still don't have a reliable source calling this a "review journal," so I still do not support that categorization. Additionally, its own descriptions include a lot of things that are outside the purview of a review journal. I think we're still better off calling it an "academic journal." — Bdb484 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Really?  What content in vol 22 spoiled the whole apple barrel? OK there's a lot of free-standing commentary and the like in that iteration. But there was less in vol 23 - and in any case what is at issue at the moment is the stated purview for its upcoming numbers (say, vol 24-on--unless this vol is be renumbered No. 1). --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're trying to say. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The website you are describing is to FARMS Review: "apples" to the upcoming MStudies Rev. "oranges." (which will be made clear to those who refer to the "History" section of the Wikiarticle now being discussed).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per this cite (at Cambridge):"Redgrave [Information Systems] will publish a new review journal in American history and related disciplines which will carry timely, in-depth review-essays of scholarly and non-fiction trade books and of reprints, teaching and research materials. Reviews in American History contains 160 pages per issue...."So indeed apparently yes the term "review journal " is used in academia to refer to a journal that publishes more than the occasional review article (despite what the unsourced WPdia article Review journal claims: that  such a journal must publish exclusively such articles). Such pedantry has arisen solely on Wikipedia and in my humble opinion WP cannot trump via in-house technical categorization what we may allege to be too loose of definitions used by the preponderance of the sources, esp. when these sources happen to be prestigious academic journals.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Within a subsequent forum of my shopping (Talk @"Review journal") Randykitty posited abv quote hd been but an advert placed by then-new Revs.inAmerHistory in '72 in Cambridge-pubbed Journ.ofAmerStudies. ANYwho--- Rkitty pinged DGG, who'd written disputed def @ "Review journal" 8 yrs ago, and the latter posted this.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth & Somaliland
With respect to the Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria page, a user has added the following paragraph on Somaliland, a secessionist autonomous region in northwestern Somalia:

"Somaliland: unilaterally seceded from Somalia claiming succession to British Somaliland, which became part of Somalia shortly after independence in 1960. Its independence remains unrecognised. Delegates were sent to the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and applied to join the Commonwealth under observer status, although the application has not been granted."

He claims that this paragraph is both neutral and accurate. I've explained to him here that it is obviously neither since a) Somalia did not exist prior to its July 1, 1960 independence day, and b) the former British Somaliland protectorate actually united with Italian Somaliland on that day to form the new nation of Somalia (per the CIA: "Britain withdrew from British Somaliland in 1960 to allow its protectorate to join with Italian Somaliland and form the new nation of Somalia" ). British Somaliland was not later incorporated into Somalia as insinuated in that paragraph above. The third problem is the statement that Somaliland's "independence remains unrecognised" since that already implies that the region is an independent country, when it is in fact only a self-declared independent state. "Self-declared independence remains unrecognised" would therefore be a more neutral presentation.

Given this, I proposed the following modification:

"Somaliland: internationally recognized as an autonomous region of the Federal Republic of Somalia. Those who call the area the Republic of Somaliland consider it to be the successor state of the former British Somaliland protectorate. Having established its own local government in Somalia in 1991, the region's self-declared independence remains unrecognized by any country or international organization. Delegates from the territory were sent to the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and applied to join the Commonwealth under observer status, although the application has not been granted."

The user rejected this proposal and instead added two non-neutral links from advocacy websites to support his argument ("Qaran News" & "Somalilandpress"; c.f. ). Note that these partisan sources themselves don't claim that British Somaliland "became part of Somalia shortly after independence in 1960" (c.f., ). Please advise. Middayexpress (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Plain descriptions using dictionary/common words
There is a great debate going on in Talk:Gun control regarding what certain words mean, with accusations of original research all around. Some feedback from this group would be appreciated. Example debates


 * 1) Are "gun control" and "gun politics" by definition the same thing?
 * 2) If there is a debate, is the onus on people to find sources to show
 * 3) that they are separate concepts,
 * 4) or the same concept.
 * 5) (It is stipulated already that they are obviously related, and that gun control is part of gun politics)
 * 6) Are any government's laws or policies restricting ownership of guns by definition "gun control" (subject to an open RFC currently)
 * 7) Are other gun related laws or policies (hunting laws, lead bullets, CDC funding for firearms violence, microstamping laws, "smart gun" laws, trigger locks" etc obviously "Gun politics" or must sources be found declaring these topics to be so explicitly.
 * 8) etc.

To avoid forum shopping or splitting of the discussion/consensus, please respond at Talk:Gun control Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Shared universe
There is a ton of unsourced original research under Shared universe. 50.151.230.203 (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfc at Hookup Culture
There is currently two RfC's concerning the use of sources at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Gates of Alexander - am I destroying Wikipedia from within?
See Talk:Gates of Alexander. I hope to find time in the next week to do further work on this article to see if the material I reverted can be used without it being original research, but I think that my reversion was correct. The editor I reverted suggests, and may well be right, that there are "two overlapping notions" but his sources don't discuss overlapping notions, which I pointed out. The editor replied (this is only part of the reply so it may not be enough to represent the reply "If we have two sets which contain common elements we have an overlap. The common elements are the names. The two 'notions' (perhaps I should have used the word 'sets' itself; it might have been judged more Wikipedian) are so obviously real, distinct and overlapping that I fail to understand why you have difficulty with this. They would appear to be, as a famous constitution apparently said, 'self evident'!" The editor is very unhappy with me. I'd appreciate other eyes either here or perhaps better yet on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm


According to "The official website of the British Monarchy", a "A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch. There are 15 Commonwealth Realms in addition to the UK: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, Barbados, Grenada, Solomon Islands, St Lucia and The Bahamas."

Other than that, there appears to be little written about the concept. Yet there exists a lengthy article extensively sourced to articles that mostly do not even mention the term. The entire article therefore appears to be original research. It also appears to be a fork of Dominion. I would appreciate if other editors comment on it.

TFD (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 background section
User:Anonymous209.6 made a recent edit on the article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. The edit was discussed Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012here, but there was no consensus reached. Plus the background section was discussed in detail here. User:Anonymous209.6 states this is an issue related to WP:OR. This is an issue that was discussed on WP:ORN, here.

With that background, I wanted to get some outside opinions on the background section. Namely, is there a problem with WP:OR in using the background section for the entire article?Casprings (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

===WP:OR - SPECIFICALLY, is it WP:OR to state in WP's voice that 1980s WP:FRINGE theories that ONLY relate in any way to ONE section (Todd Akin) also are necessary to understand Mourdock, Bartlett, Smith, Rivard, Walsh, Koster?=== Conversations on the general topic of the present Background section are a total mess. They are spread out all over WP, instead of kept together, and have unrelated issues and questions mashed in. Anything resembling consensus is difficult to fathom, and this is complicated by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH being in fact SEVERAL issues. While as per the closing admin, and several independent editors, WP:OR looks pretty obvious, also per closing admin, the argument has not been adequately fleshed out, in specific; to some extent it has just been stated as obvious. Similarly, while a consensus has been correctly claimed, it is actually NOT on the issue of WP:OR, but unhelpfully on the issue of WP:RS, which was not in question. All original research (in the real world), and WP:OR actually involves some references; that is not the issue. WP:OR does not just imply the absence of WP:RS, but includes statements by placement, in this case, stating that information is Background, namely that it is essential to an understanding of the subject material.

The Background section is presently the Background section of the WHOLE ARTICLE. While some editors claim that the material relates to Todd Akin (only one section of many), there has yet to be an argument that it relates to any other section. A previously uninvolved editor coming to the article would be led to believe that ALL persons named in the article have been directly linked by WP:RS to 1980s WP:FRINGE theories on female reproduction, because by making this the Background section, that is de facto stated IN WP's VOICE. No article connects Richard Mourdock to 1980s WP:FRINGE theories. Richard Mourdock did not say anything about 1980s WP:FRINGE theories. WP:FRINGE theories are not necessary, nor do they add anything to an understanding of what Richard Mourdock did or did not say. Substitute any name for Richard Mourdock, except that of Todd Akin, and you have the same rhetorical question; is stating that this background section is essential to understand _____ and directly connected to ____, as it's existence does, WP:OR, or is it stated in WP:RS.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I did ask for a closure to the discussions. The link to the closing can be found in the OP.  Per the closing:

"A significant point raised by Casprings and FurrySings is that a background section will naturally draw in issues that are not directly related to the topic of an article (for example, events that took place before the topic of the article). Such a section is helpful to a reader but must be done be done fairly per WP:NPOV and using verifiable resources dealing with the topic of the article (Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 in this case) in order not to be original research. I didn't see evidence in discussion that that is not the case in this instance. Maybe the section in this instance is OR, just no evidence was given to demonstrate that it is so."


 * What I have said in the past has been misrepresented by User:Anonymous209.6. The background section of the article is related to all the events during the election.  It provides a political context for which the statements were made.  It is useful for the reader to understand the background to understand the events of the election.  Moreover, I think they are written to align with WP:NPOV.  I would also state that the consensus was this before this and User:Anonymous209.6 has not changed that.Casprings (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Subject/headline
Please! Someone must undo this Original Research → http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Rhodesia&diff=428686199&oldid=420657150 I can not undo it. The guy who did that, had 2 messages about Original Research on Wikipedia. User talk:72.222.237.173


 * 15:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Question
Is this release of excerpts from a report a primary source? Or should I just source direct quotes from it? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The People's Union for Civil Liberties, which published an abridged summary of a report (not excerpts) from Concerned Citizens Tribunal of Citizens for Justice and Peace is a reliable secondary source for what was in the report. (The tribunal's website is here.)  Therefore you should not provide direct quotes, just say what is in the report.  It may be that the tribunal is itself a reliable source, in which case you could use the report as a reliable secondary source for facts.  TFD (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you very much. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR/Synth argumentation in biography
Note: A version of this query was posted on WP:BLPN where no one responded except regarding procedural matters; two noninvolved editors at Editor's assistance said it would not be Forum Shopping to bring it here; editor in question objected.

WP:OR reads in intro: ''To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. ''


 * At this diff I removed as argumentative for a bio a sentence written by User: SPECIFICO giving Milton Friedman's opinion on an economic issue which contradicted bio subject Jesus Huerta de Soto's view, but the source does not mention Huerta de Soto.
 * User:Lawrencekhoo reverted it, writing: If a claim is made about economics, it's entirely appropriate to present the mainsteam view.
 * Srich reverted it writing: as presented, particularly with "however", it is WP:OPED. Article is a BLP, not economics subject..
 * SPECIFICO puts back another version of same material with more refs that do not mention Huerta de Soto. [Added later to clarify, language which I believe should be removed: Chicago School economist Milton Friedman, whose positivist methodology was antithetical to the Austrian approach, foretold the 1970s stagflation in his 1967 Presidential Address to the American Economic Association.   
 * Note that talk page discussion was here.
 * [Added later/forgot about it: I just put a Synth tag here on material User:Specifico added which was inaccurate and I corrected it here; even though Soto actually consulted on the first edition of Skousen's book, it's still just WP:OR argumentation about Mises predictions.]

Given that the editor has been going through a lot of biographies of Austrian economists he disagrees with, it needs to be made clear to him that adding this kind of WP:OR is against policy. Such debates belong in articles on the subject in question (for example, Economic forecasting), not in bios. If they were allowed there, many bios would just become argument fests of sources not mentioning the subject at all. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 13:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the issue to be resolved and why is this being posted here? Seems that the contentious edits (mentioned as DIFFS) are old and perhaps displaced by subsequent edits. Wasn't the issue hashed about in the BLPN and on the talk page? Is this notice intended to bring up the "Other issues" we see on the BLPN, or are we just to focus on the Friedman/Soto/Krugman/Joe Blow  comparisons? Because mention of "the editor" disagreements is brought up, is this a NPOV issue? Just who is invited to participate in this discussion?  – S. Rich (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You put up the synth tag at this diff and have not removed it. If you changed your opinion, you should have said so at BLPN and/or taken off synth tag. Obviously this posting only talks about one issue. OK, I added language I want removed, if that's what you meant. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 21:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your many noticeboard postings are futile because you do not state policy-based questions on which you seek editors' comments. Srich and I have each independently pointed this out here, others have done the same elsewhere, and in my opinion this is the reason there has been virtually no meaningful result to any of your forays on the noticeboards.  When editors feel that a posting is mere venting, personal rumination, or attack, they make no response.  That's been my reaction even when you ramble on about me personally. Take it for what its worth. Maybe time for a breather.   SPECIFICO  talk  22:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What part of this quote above do you not understand? WP:OR reads in intro: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.  The article is about Huerta de Soto, not economic forecasting.
 * You and User:Lawrencekhoo have had ample opportunity to defend your edits on policy matters and have not done so. That's because you do not have a policy based case.
 * If other non-involved editors have not responded, it may be that it is so obvious SRich and I are correct they don't think they need to. That's my reading, anyway. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 22:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not smart like you, but I am considerably more civil. SPECIFICO talk  22:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure would appreciate hearing a policy based argument as to why your edit is not WP:OR. Maybe neutral noninvolved editors would agree and that would be the end of it .< ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 17:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutrality requires that when we quote someone making a controversial claim that present the mainstream view. However, we no synthesis means that they should be taken from the same source.  The problem is that there are not sufficient secondary sources to support developing this article beyond a stub.  As WP:RS says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  If we followed RS, then the conflict in NPOV and NOR would not arise.  TFD (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * First, remember this is a BLP so it's not mandatory to counter every non-"mainstream" view a person might have. But if one chooses to do so, it's ok to have different sources; the issue is, are they both regarding the subject of the BLP? We don't let editors run around BLPs countering things they believe/said that do not refer to the subject of the BLP.
 * Actually there are a number of sources I've found and haven't put them all in yet. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 00:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

More WP:OR added
Just to make it clear what the complaint is, and since User:Specifico keeps adding WP:OR, here's the material we are talking about as of today. Only the first two sentences are sourced by material mentioning Huerta de Soto, the subject of the WP:BLP. The rest are in italics.:

If this sort of thing is allowed, we might as well get rid of the WP:OR policy. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 00:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As I just wrote at WP:ANI not having comments here is aggravating the situation. "We really have to start beefing up community input with some sexy/exciting new program to get more former, experienced editors back." I've got a FUN one and might bring to village pump early next week. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  17:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't think you're going to get random economics-knowledgeable people wandering through here who might be able to add expert opinion and the issue here probably isn't sufficiently clarified for non-economics people to get their head around it easily. Having these things at different noticeboards just gives everyone lots of things to watch at once. In many cases, you'd be better off starting a properly categorised RFC on the article talk page.
 * Anyway, on the above; I think the middle section is completely pointless. Why should Jesus Huerta de Soto's BLP include commentary from someone else about someone else's job (or not) in a bank in the 1920s? Just pointless. The last bit is more complicated. The subject made a claim which has subsequently been contradicted, though without specific reference to the subject. In my view, that's like Donald Trump's claim about the President's birth certificate. If the official White House response doesn't reference Trump by name in contradicting him, is it synthesis to include it in his article? To an extent, perhaps, but not really. If someone else contradicts Trump's claim without mentioning him is it relevant? Perhaps, but perhaps slightly less so. I think presented factually and with as neutral language as possible, stating, Huerta de Soto said x, however, Person B contends y, would be okay. Put another way; if Huerta de Soto had suggested "the Earth is flat", I think it would be okay for us to say "but NASA has suggested the Earth is round" without NASA having to have added, "and Huerta de Soto is an idiot" to the end of their press release. Does that make sense? Stalwart 111  01:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First the following is hardly an outrageous statement by Huerta de Soto: "He also stated that Austrian School economists predicted the stagflation of the 1970s which followed the so-called oil crisis of 1973.[4]" So what relevance is the statement: "Chicago School economist Milton Friedman, whose positivist methodology was antithetical to the Austrian approach, foretold the 1970s stagflation in his 1967 Presidential Address to the American Economic Association."?? They both predicted it, fine. But how is that directly relevant to a BLP??
 * There are lots of articles where "predictions" are mentioned: Mendeleev's predicted elements, Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) for predicted race war, The Man Who Predicted 9/11 (security officer who died there), Kevin Cowherd who predicted a specific earthquake. Do we just add whoever else notable predicted the same thing? There are several for race war and 9/11 that easily can be added to the relevant articles.
 * Can we go through the Milton Friedman or Paul Krugman articles and say "OH, Hayek said such and such too" or "Oh, Friedrich Lutz (economist) said such and such too?" You are opening a door to a lot of controversy. I am sure I could "make that point" by going to several BLPs which are actively watched and adding material about some other notable person who agrees with the BLP on something and let's see how quick people make policy arguments as they delete it. But I observe WP:Pointy. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  02:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, yes, that would be a spectacularly bad idea. But my point was that there's nothing wrong, per se, with including a counter-argument or a counter-point to give someone's commentary some "worldy" context. The commentary doesn't have to be "outrageous" nor am I suggesting his was. Otherwise people read lines like that and think, "yeah, but of all the things he ever said, why make note of that line?" The reason is that other people have made a point of also predicting such things, commenting on those predictions or contradicting each other on those predictions. Just like there's nothing wrong with saying "other people have disagreed", there's also nothing wrong with saying, "other people have also considered this important enough to comment on". I think that's especially true in "non-mainstream" subject areas. I don't think that's "opening a door to a lot of controversy", rather I think it's opening the door to explaining complex concepts to regular readers. But if it doesn't add anything or enhance the article that's different, though you hardly need ORN for that - just a discussion on the article talk page. Stalwart 111  05:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

In general I agree with balancing the less credible claims of Austrian School economists whether they appear in biographies or not. Wikipedia is uncharacteristically biased with hagiographies of Austrians and walled gardens supporting them which leave inaccurate impressions of the entire field due to the undue weight they have been afforded. I think it's reasonable to be pragmatic about that problem while it exists. EllenCT (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I finally realized there actually is an essay called Walled garden so now I know what you all have been talking about. However, editors' laziness or lack of expertise in finding unrelated and outside sources should not be read as meaning no other solid WP:RS write about the topic. And it's particularly annoying when one brings in a good WP:RS from academic scholars and then have editor(s) who have yelled "Walled garden" immediately remove or try to remove them as not notable enough! This has happened in the article in question. I hope you would agree that that is questionable behavior.
 * Second, the problem here is that User:SPECIFICO favors some Austrians and disfavors others, so it's not like he defines mainstream the way you do.
 * Third, I believe it was User:SPECIFICO who insisted on adding what de Soto predicted, seemingly so that he could show that it was a fringe claim. That seems to be just the opposite of what Fringe theories wants. He wants to put in what he considers odd ball stuff so he can ridicule it. Well, I'll investigate more there.
 * Finally, if it really is community consensus that one can do that sort of thing and add material that makes no reference to the subject of the article that should be added to WP:OR or WP:Fringe policy. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  18:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * carolmooredc, Soto did not make any predictions. It's not that he made the predictions.  It's that he asserted that only Austrians have made correct predictions about specific historical economic events.  He has repeated that claim in diverse venues.  It's reported in WP:RS that he makes these statements.  There's no need to be either unduly promotional or unduly defensive about his views, but these views (that Austrian Economists were the only ones to make these predictions) are stated by him in conspicuous public venues, are reliably reported, and are associated with Soto.   SPECIFICO  talk  19:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But where are the WP:RS saying that this a notable thing he's said that there is a problem with? I find all sorts of problems with all sorts of things living people have said. But I can't just stick them in there (and mostly from primary sources and thus notable mostly in one's own mind) and run around finding people who said something else that a smart reader can infer (synthesize) means he's wrong. You can do that explicitly in your PhD dissertation or articles you write for peer reviewed journals, but that's a pandora's box people don't open here - except in the mostly obviously fringy cases. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 21:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He himself has published on the subject and suggested that, "the only theorists to predict the Great Depression of 1929 were Austrians". If that's blatantly untrue (like the examples I gave above), it's not necessarily original research to point that out. The alternative is to remove that section all together, but given the importance he himself has placed on that aspect of his work, I'm inclined to think it's worth including. And anyway, so what if he was wrong... who cares? The guy used a bit of hyperbole in support of some of his mates. In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter. I'd be more concerned about cleaning up the bare links, the many references to his own CVs or the section that quotes just one respondent. We're getting hung up on the minutiae of balancing part of a single section when the rest of the article remains unbalanced.
 * Carol, you've now discovered WP:Walled garden... well this is classic walled garden stuff - tending a small plot of flowers without addressing the giant wall that encloses them. This article definitively falls into the walled garden category with references to and responses from few beyond Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Yeager, Sechrest, North and Ron Paul. It's the same old "crowd" without any substantive response or coverage from people Huerta de Soto wouldn't describe as "friends" or "colleagues" (in fact the article mentions some of those people in those terms). I'd almost be inclined to think we would have to do some work to substantiate the notability of Huerta de Soto - while there might be "significant coverage" of him, I would query how much of it could be considered "independent". Coverage from friends is not coverage that substantiates notability. To be honest, I'd be spending some time working on the reflist as a whole before worrying about an extra line here or there that might be OR. Stalwart 111  12:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting comment, Stalwart. In case you were not aware, this article was recently mooted for AfD. I had no opinion on that, but it led to the current round of editing activity at the article. SPECIFICO talk  13:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was - kept on the basis of a pass per WP:PROF basically, but I don't think that addresses the lack of independent reliable sources. If we included only what could be verified by independent reliable sources I think we'd be left with a stub. Stalwart 111  13:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We may be getting off-topic for this board, but I think your comment raises a question: One might feel, as I did, that there was little harm in leaving the article in place.  It was innocuous and looked like this.  That's information a user could find, for example, to locate Soto.  The issues you mention all arose after editors attempted to resolve some of the criticisms raised during the AfD discussion. It's not yet clear that those issues can be resolved, for the reasons you suggest, but does that mean that WP should ultimately delete the more limited listing as it stood in May? Any thoughts?  SPECIFICO  talk  14:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's probably no "harm" in keeping it and consensus at AFD was pretty clear in my opinion, so I don't think it is likely to be deleted anyway. I think the problems can be resolved but the current version probably isn't a good example of how that should be done. The focus needs to be independent reliable sources. Anything else at this stage is a waste of energy and resources, in my opinion. Stalwart 111  15:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's right, however the current condition of the article results from editors trying to find RS material and finding only sources from within the walled garden. It seems to be the case with Soto, as with many of his colleagues, that nobody outside their cohort has commented on them. Even book reviews have tended to be written by others within the group.  Actually what is remarkable about Soto is that even his fellow believers appear critical of his output.  I think the current article gives a good sense of him and his work, and it's beyond me to know whether it should be kept in WP.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In essence, it doesn't really matter whether the coverage is critical or praising - both are a problem. But yeah, this is all a bit off-topic with regard to that one particular line. Stalwart 111  02:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Chanc. Inq. p.m. 4 Hen. VII, No. 87. = died 1488?
I have doubts that WP:CALC applies to converting an entry such as "Chanc. Inq. p.m. 4 Hen. VII, No. 87." (as shown in a pedigree chart published in the late 19th century) into "died 1488" in an article. It's not something that the average reader could confirm without some specialist knowledge. Our articles Inquisition post mortem and Regnal years of English monarchs provide background info, and the discussion at Talk:Manor of Molland is relevant. And if consensus is that WP:CALC does apply, should the date be shown as 1488, 1488/9 or 1489? —S MALL JIM   21:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be common knowledge for editors researching genealogy or legal history that "4 Hen. VII" means in the fourth year of the reign of Henry VII, and that since his reign began in 1485, that the fourth year of his reign would be 1488/9. Since "Chanc. Inq. p.m." refers to an Inquisition post mortem in the Court of Chancery, it is reasonable to assume that the person died that year.  I think CALC allows us to say that the person died circa 1488.  Since the file number (87) is available, it is possible that the record of death, which could establish the date of death, still exists.  TFD (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a wholly standard form of dating used by historians, see regnal year. May I suggest that a search for the text of the inq.p.m. might be warranted if the exact date of death is highly material to the article in question, which it isn't in this instance. Either 1488 or 1489 cannot surely be stated to be more than 8 months out, (4th year of H VII was 22 Aug 1488 - 21 Aug 1489, per Cheyney, Handbook of Dates, 1978, p.23) and therefore quite reasonable, certainly not misleading. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC))
 * Yeah... once you understand that the abbreviation is referring to a Regnal year, the conversion is not really "specialist" knowledge... and the calculation is basic math. I might think again if there is some reliable source that gives a different date... but in the absence of one I see no real reason to challenge it. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I felt that the need for the reader to also understand that "Chanc. Inq. p.m." effectively means "died in or before" adds an extra complication onto the standard regnal year conversion. My concern was (still is, really) that the average reader trying to check a death date in the source wouldn't find anything that looked like a date or anything about death at all and might assume there is a error in the citation. These conversions are being used widely in articles such as Manor of Molland (see after almost any person's name).


 * What about the display in the article, though? 1488/9 would appear to be the most accurate format. It would give those in the know a clue that it was actually calculated from a regnal year, and it would give everyone else an indication that something at least was unusual – I'd prefer this. TFD prefers the use of circa; Lobsterthermidor doesn't seem to care which is used. Do you have a preference, Blueboar? —S MALL  JIM   19:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not spell it out with hyperlinks in the footnote? "Court of Chancery inquisition post mortem in the 4th year of the reign of Henry VII, File no. 87."  Incidentally, we often have a similar problem when we have a year and age at death.  For example someone dying this year at age 100 may have been born in 1912 or 1913.  The Manual of Style says, "When the year of birth is known only approximately, use c. : "John Sayer (c. 1750 – 2 October 1818) ..."" (See MOS:DOB.)  TFD (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TFD. For reference I've proposed an addition to MOS:DOB, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. —S MALL  JIM   10:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Olympiacos women's volleyball
Where are the sources for all these names and facts? How can we check them out. This entire article looks like a puff piece to me, but I am really interested seeing some citations. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) How can you say they are "notable" if they don't have Wikipedia articles. Tagging for challenge and removal. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, the fact that these players don't have (English) Wikpedia articles doesn't mean that they are not notable. I am sure you will agree that Wikipedia still has many gaps and many unwritten articles in a vast range of areas. Now the fact that this article looks like a puff piece to you is really baffling to me, but I assure you that it ain't. I will be delighted to provide you with sources, but I must inform you that the vast majority of the available sources on the particular subject are in Greek language. Anyway, as far as the names are concerned, I'll try to add some additional sources. The facts are already sourced. The article is a product of research and experience and every fact and name in it is accurate. Looking forward to hearing your point of view, Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should we take the word of the editor above, whose contributions are limited only to articles about this team. I am afraid the editor, like many other sports enthusiasts, or perhaps sports public relations paid agents, is taking advantage of Wikipedia's anyone-can-edit policy. I fear not much can be done about this EXPLOSION of content, but we might as well start here. Even if this team is Notable (supposedly, who knows?), does that make articles about it exempt from a requirement for sources? In short, how are we supposed to check out all of this information? Yes, a requirement for sources may be pro forma, but it's still a central tenet of the WP philosophy. I don't mind carrying on a conversation about this, and if you can refer me to a previous discussion on this matter, well, please do so: I am no zealot, just fed up. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

False accusation of rape
More attention at False accusation of rape would be nice, where we have someone repeatedly inserting his own personal opinions about a study which found a lower rate of false accusations than he believes in. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the diff and it is unconvincing. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

High Noon: Date of the story
An IP editor added a section to the High Noon article about the date of the story. No references were cited other than the film itself. I content that the section clearly violates NOR. I deleted the section twice over a several-day period citing either a reference is needed or NOR in the edit summary. I also looked for a reference but failed to find one. Another registered user deleted the section once also citing NOR in the edit summary. The IP editor contends their entry is not OR in a discussion on my talk page. Under several different IP addresses in as many days, they restored the section. Their most recent IP address is: 130.251.51.82; note that they have deleted messages regarding this issue from their talk page (update: they were restored). My feeling is that another party will be needed to resolve the issue. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice that neither you nor the IP editor have discussed the matter on the article's talk page. Please do so. I agree that mentioning an exact date is the result of original research but perhaps the war posters are adequate to state that the film takes place during the Spanish-American War. Some original research we run across on Wikipedia is hogwash, while some is worthy of discussion in reliable sources. I think this falls into the second category. I suggest that the IP submit an article about the dating to a reliable film history journal. If published, it could be cited in the article.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cullen328's suggestion is good, to engage the editor on the talk page.
 * In an attempt to solve the problem, I tried to find some reliable sources which connect 1898 to the film's notional plot but I came up empty, absolutely empty. The closest I got was a book describing an 1898 Oklahoma land rush starting at high noon on April 22 (which is, of course, not at all related to the film.) So our IP editor's contribution is classic textbook OR, unfortunately.
 * Even so, I found his text entertaining. Aside from NOR, his mistake is that he puts too much faith in the abilities of the set dresser, the leadman, the set decorator and the production designer to faithfully portray the wishes of the writer, director and producer. In my understanding of the film business, these people do not always stick to the story's time frame, even when they are told exactly what it is. Often, they use props that are at hand, or ones that can be acquired cheaply. Something as specific as the film's fictional date would have to be written in the scenario or screenplay, or described by significant observers. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially weak is the IP editor's claim that the film could not possibly have been set before the date in 1891 that the Sierra No. 3 locomotive was built. I happen to be the original writer of that article. This locomotive, featured in many movies and TV shows, was often refitted with dummy smokestacks, ornate paint jobs, fancy lights and so on, to represent various time periods. It was used, for example, in a film Kansas Pacific set in the 1860s, over 20 years before the locomotive was built, and also in The Great Northfield, Minnesota Raid, set in the 1870s. So much for that theory. Hollywood is Hollywood, after all.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The very cleverly reasoned and entertaining addition is OR. I too have looked  for sources confirming the suppositions, thus far to no avail. At any rate, even if if a source dating the story was found, unless it followed the exact same lines of reasoning, the paragraph as written could not remain. I concur with Cullen328 and Binksternet that moving the discussion and the deleted section to the talk page  is the best way. Someone may be able to find a source. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul-Louis Couchoud being turned into "an article on an aspect of the history of rationalism in France based on Couchoud"
One editor is continuing to replace material at which is basically original research supporting the Christ myth theory without actually discussing Couchoud. He's been warned by another editor for OR on this article and on another article by a 3rd editor, but he either doesn't understand our policy or doesn't care. See his talk page - c for his comments (or lack of them) and for more evidence about his interest in the Christ myth idea. I haven't reverted him after his latest replacement of it but I would like others to see if they agree with me. His latest revert is and as you can see his edit summary is "article on important chapter of history of rationalism in France based on Couchoud, his reception, during and after hislife" - which examplifies the problem, this is meant to be a biography, not an article on an aspect of the history of rationalism in France based on Couchoud. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * After looking at the edits and the comments on the talkpage I definitely agree that ROO BOOKAROO's edits are OR. Nothing he has added cites a single reference source. Being OR, the material does not belong in the article. Dougweller makes a very apt additional point: BOOKAROO's additions are not pertinent to a biography, this, however, is for the time being secondary to the fact that complete lack of sources makes this material OR. I noticed that since this posting, BOOKAROO's edits have been removed. I sincerely hope he lets the deletions stand this time. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

1952 United States presidential election and Battle of Triangle Hill
Article affected: Battle of Triangle Hill (possibly United States presidential election, 1952 depends on the outcome of this dispute)

Edits disputed

Other dispute party: User:NumbiGate: notification sent.

current discussion on talk page

Focus of dispute:

1) Mentions of 1952 United States presidential election should be included in the article of Battle of Triangle Hill since they are both major events of Korean War and happens to happen at the same time period.
 * My response: During my research I could not find a single US political scientist that linked the above events together on the ground of chronological relations. Also, linking events together based on their chronological order is not covered by WP:FACTS due to post hoc ergo propter hoc. However, I am asking community input on whether linking the two events together in the See also section is a valid edit in this case.

2) Statement based on citation 84 (Despite its impact and scale, the Battle of Triangle Hill is one of the least known episodes of the Korean War within the Western media.[84]) should be amended because Battle of Triangle Hill is mentioned in mass media in the United States during the 1952 election.
 * My response: Citation 84 is written by Allen R. Millett and explicitly stated that the event is one of the "least-known battles of the stalemate period during the Korean War" (page xi), plus I could not find an history/media expert stating the contrary. Thus I believe the personal interpretations that the "battle was well know during the 1952 election" due to the mere fact that the event was mentioned in US mass media in 1952 is not sufficient in overturning established expert's opinion.

3) Summarizing primary documentations in the article without stating conclusions that "Battle of Triangle Hill affected the 1952 United States presidential election" is not breaching WP:PSTS policy.
 * My response: Given in this argument, I believe User:NumbiGate implied that s/he has renounced the claim that "Battle of Triangle Hill affected the 1952 United States presidential election". In this case per WP:TOPIC, I had perfectly valid reason of removing the mentions of 1952 United States presidential election since it is off topic.

4) During the entire discussion User:NumbiGate refused to provide any secondary sources that supports his points, and it is making me unable to either understand or incorporate his suggestions due to lack of sources to cross reference. Jim101 (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the sources provided in the section removed by Jim101I have to agree that none of them made a connection between the Battle of Triangle Hill and the 1952 US presidential election. Thus, as I think even NumbiGate stated on the talk page discussion, that connection is inferred. Inferences unsupported by sources are OR. Unless proper sources are found that establish a clear correlation between the battle and the election, that section should not be in the article.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

IAAF Hall of Fame
Should the article IAAF Hall of Fame contain an unsourced list of athletes that, according to the research of Wikipedia editors, meet the criteria for a future inclusion in the hall of fame? I found eight factual errors in the section and objected to the content based on WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BLP, arguing that it constitutes unverifiable original research and unencyclopedic speculation, but two editors who have worked on the list disagree with me. Prolog (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not original research since the IAAF establishes objective criteria for inclusion (see here). Make a list with the athletes who have acquired such rights is an objective fact (as well said Trackinfo here). If Prolog has correctly found mistakes, correct it is right, but not delete all the list (as he has done with its own independent decision), this is undoubtedly a detriment to the encyclopedia. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the revered but unverifiable "objective fact", dubbed "PUBLIC RECORD" by the other user and commonly known as "The Truth". Please read the following policy quote and do not treat it as an optional method: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Prolog (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kasper for linking my several responses on Prolog's talk page. To make this simple:  In order to be considered for the IAAF Hall of Fame, an individual has to reach the pinnacle of the sport of Athletics.  Each of the individuals named in this so called Original Research are primarily known for the multiple;  Olympic medals, World Championships and world records they have earned.  The attributes are so famous that I contend it would be like having to find a source to prove someone was a United States President, in order to be included on the list of United States Presidents.  Its so easy its a waste of time and space.  The first assertion that Prolog made was that there were errors in the list.  Admittedly there were errors, have you ever seen a wikipedia article that is absolutely perfect?  Do we exterminate anything that is not perfect here?  These errors were to the detriment of the qualifications of these people who were listed as achieving the threshold for consideration, under counting the number of World Championships or world records they were claimed to have.  In order to know this level of detail, Prolog would already have the knowledge or have had to have done enough research, as in, clicking on the wikilink to the individual article, to see the error.  Each article has sources.  But in order to claim this is not sourced, suddenly he is conveniently stupid and cannot find what is some of the easiest information to look up.  I even gave him a common source;  sports-reference.com which, for the uninitiated duplicates the official Olympic documentation, having an article on every Olympic event and participant, much less the multiple gold medalists we are referring to.  Plug any of these highly notable names into it and you'll get almost everything.  Google works fine too.  Wikipedia has the lists:  here, here, here, here and here (see also the linked progressions).  The greatest discrepancies in the facts of the list relating to these people's eligibility would be their official retirement date, meaning at worst it is just a matter of time before they become officially eligible.  That is not WP:CRYSTAL, the standards have been met, they need to do nothing more, living or dead, the clock merely needs to run out on the waiting time for these individuals. Trackinfo (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comparison to the list of U.S. presidents is not appropriate as that list has no issues regarding the verifiability and encyclopedic nature of the content. More analogous would be the creation of a "list of U.S. presidents of Irish descent" based on one's own conclusions from genealogical sites, without a clear source for each claim. Prolog (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely wrong, Prolog. With the exceptions of ambiguity caused by the Olympic Committee or IAAF being in the process of changing results relative to a disqualification, these Gold Medals, these World Records are a very well defined, finite category.  No opinions can be interjected.  I contend they are so well known among anybody who pays attention to this subject that there is is no need to source these well known facts. Trackinfo (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The only facts that matter concerning entries to a list of IAAF Hall of Fame members is whether the persons named are in fact IAAF Hall of Fame members. The persons you have listed as 'matching the criteria' are not IAAF Hall of Fame members, therefore they do not belong in the article. This is all that needs to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As a once-contributor to the article I have been invited by Trackinfo to express my opinion:

The discussion whether WP:NOR or CRYSTAL etc is the case here is IMHO time-vasting. There are only two crucial pieces of information for the article - 1) criteria of eligibility, 2) list of members (ie those already inducted) with year of induction. Both of them are satisfactory covered and make the article solid. IMHO there is no need to have also a list of possible future inductees who match the criteria. Only these already chosen and announced as members of the Hall of Fame are necessary for the article. So please drop any appendices listing potential candidates from the article. This should solve the whole issue. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Miaow Miaow. The focus of this article shouldn't be distracted by people who aren't IAAF Hall of Famers (yet). This is a very new HOF so the list of those that meet the criteria but haven't been honoured yet will vastly outweigh the actual list (which is what ourr focus should be). We should just list the actual Hall of Famers and let the IAAF do the rest as the years progress – this is not an article called List of athletes who have won multiple global athletics gold medals, broken a world record, and retired in the last ten years. SFB 12:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that the IAAF have stated that their criteria may not apply to future honourees, merely requiring that they have had a significant impact on athletics (e.g. Grete Waitz). This obviates the possibility of creating a list of those who meet the criteria, because they are entirely subjective in this case. SFB 12:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will add that IAAF, IMO, is correct in introducing flexibility into the standards. In the case of, particularly women's records, Flojo, Koch, Kratochvílová and the Chinese athletes have so skewed the World Records that the standard for a World Record has placed a cap on most contemporary athletes.  Its not just women.  Bubka has sealed men's pole vaulters fate in much the same fashion that Warmerdam prevented Bob Richards from ever getting the world record.  Lewis never beat Beamon legally and Powell has only extended the difficulty of getting a Long Jump world record.  I suspect decades from now we might find the same thing about Bolt. Trackinfo (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that WP:BLP policy applies on talk pages. Your speculations above are not only irrelevant to article content, but also in violation of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're inferring something in the Trackinfo's comments that isn't there. His point is that occasionally an athlete appears and sets a record which is beyond many generations' abilities. FYI – by "legally" he means without wind-assistance, not anything untoward. That said, we're heading more into general discussion than discussing the original research question. SFB 08:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't there now. It was before Trackinfo edited it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I'd like to add my opinion. The list as presented simply states which athletes match the criteria for inclusion to the IAAF Hall of Fame, rather than speculating if they will or will not be inducted. By that measure, I would not say that it quite falls under WP:CRYSTAL, but the possibility of changes in or waiving of criteria for induction does mean that such a list cannot be, well, crystal clear. I think, by that measure, it distracts from the article by giving the impression that there is a mechanical process to the induction, rather than consideration of individuals who already meet the criteria - if there is no source to confirm that any of the athletes mentioned are being considered by the IAAF for future induction, then I feel it gives something of a false impression of surety.

I can see the potential for a short list of athletes in prose illustrating that a number of athletes who are eligible have not been inducted, and I would definitely support cited discussion of any debate regarding the IAAF Hall of Fame and its processes of induction, especially the debate over the criteria for inclusion into the IAAF Hall of Fame - the points raised above regarding things like unattainability of new world records in some disciplines are important background for anyone reading the subject, and sourced controversy would add a lot to this article. Perhaps instead of continuing to debate whether or not the list should be included, editors could provide some flavour of the criteria debate to the article itself? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Miaow Miaow and SFB. It had bothered me from the beginning, that the criteria seem to be very broad. Lots of athletes match these criteria, maybe nearly hundred or more? Especially I missed great athletes from Russia and East Germany, which shaped a whole era.Montell 74 (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Prince George of Cambridge
Editing dispute about the timeline of the naming of this individual. Several editors claim that he has a "style from birth" that include his forenames, citing the precedent set by other "Royal" articles for this practice. No direct source for this given. Indeed, it was stated the day after that not to have been chosen at that point (copiously sourced), was then announced to the public the day after that (also copiously sourced), and then registered yesterday (again, copiously sourced). There are also sources stating in advance what the title would be, once the name was known. Question is, does this take "retrospective" effect, or should it be reported as if it does, "by convention", and what sort of sourcing would be sufficient for this. Incidentally, tags pointing out that the date isn't in the source keep being removed. 84.203.39.131 (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to note I clearly provided a source that was issued on the day of birth that doesnt need any original research to show he held the title from birth, the statement says He is styled His Royal Highness Prince [name] of Cambridge. as this was issued on the day of birth then this bit means the day of his birth (not original research). The other statement was that the The names of the baby will be announced in due course, it is not original research that this source gives his title, the fact that the name wasnt announced doesnt mean it didnt exist, we have to use a bit of common sense here guys (commons sense is not original research). Nearly all biographical articles on wikipedia use sources later then the date of birth, so presumably the same argument would be that they are not named until the source date, clearly a daft idea and will mean a lot of articles need to be changed to show that they didnt have a name for x-days/months or years. I wonder if this point about subjects having no name until they are announced or sourced will soon get the record for the number of different forums it has been raised on? MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is quite plainly not a source for his name at the time of birth. The non-name part of his style is sourceable to that date, and indeed before (unless the palace were going to reverse themselves with regard to recent letters patent, obviously issued for just such a birth).  Indeed, secondarily sourceable, better yet, unlike the curious obsession with primary sources in this article.  His name is sourceable from two days later.  It's the conflation of the two that are impermissible WP:SYNTH.  If you were citing the name-and-style without an erroneously early date, or the date without claiming what the name was later to be, we'd be grand.  That it wasn't announced doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but a) we say way what we can verify, not whatever we like that can't have the contrary verified;  and b) the contrary is verified in this case, which is what makes it that more egregious than the possibly many other royaltriviacrufty articles which may include such, without clear evidence either way.  Or possibly some or all of those articles do include reliable sources to that effect.  Note that it doesn't matter what the date of the source is.  If a reliable source from one date says that something occurred on an earlier date, or will occur at a later date, we use the date reported, not the date of the report.  But that's not the case here.  As for record number of fora, I'd say that if the disruptive addition of unsourced material and removal of appropriate tags continues, a few more might be added, likely soon to include WP:AN/I.  84.203.39.131 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is no different from any other person, except that we do not normally create articles about people before they are born, named and achieve notability. We do not in most BLPs draw any distinction between when a person is born and when they are named, and treat them as if their original legal name was their name at birth.  TFD (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Had we but been spared the blanket media coverage, this might have been avoided on many scores... Do (m)any other examples arise where a person is verifiably born on Day 1, there's verifiably a public statement on Day 2 that they don't yet have a name, verifiably have a name announced on Day 3, but editors insist that their "style", including the name, is backdated without verification to being from Day 1?  84.203.35.99 (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council
An editor has added a list of staff and employees (non-members) to this list of members of the organization. The editor admits that it is original research from primary sources but sees no problem with that, re-adding it after acknowledging the OR. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Electronic cigarettes
The article on electronic cigarettes currently mentions that they contain tobacco specific nitrosamines. Would it be OR to change that to something along these lines:


 * "The FDA found that e-cigs contain TSNAs at a level of around 8 parts per billionCite study showing that e-cigs contain TSNAs at around 8ppb. This is around the same levelCite study saying e-cigs and nicotine patches have the same TSNA level as nicotine patchesCite study saying nicotine patches contain TSNAs at around 8ppb"

Thanks.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this would be WP:SYNTH. You could state both facts separately without comparing them though. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's actually a study that states both products have similar TSNA levels. Would that remove the SYNTH issue?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will note that primary sources and their (mis)use has been a consistent issue at this page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 00:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * However I would say that an FDA press release on an FDA study is also a primary source, so if Health NZ is out so is the FDA reference.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a different noticeboard -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 00:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, isn't it? Let's stick to OR here, not primary sources.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a recent high quality secondary source that makes these comparisons? If not that agree it is synth Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The bar seems to be rising a bit here. We appear to have gone from "secondary sources are preferable to primary sources for medical information" to "only secondary sources are acceptable as sources for anything."--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is "raising the bar." Have you looked at WP:PSTS?
 * "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
 * The next passage about primary sources specifically mentions some of the problems with using them, and though it does not mention the WP:OR policy by name, it clearly alludes to it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 23:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly where are you getting "novel interpretations" and "original analysis" from? What I want to do is say "e-cigs contain about the same level of TSNAs as a nicotine patch" and support that with a study which says "e-cigs contain about the same level of TSNAs as a nicotine patch." It doesn't imply that. It can't be interpreted or analysed to support that. It says it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wittes breakdown
User:Geo Swan has a subpage in his userspace called Wittes breakdown, which he claimed here "contained information which could be plugged into restored articles on any captive" and that it was a reliable secondary source because it was a summary of a 99-page academic paper. Conversely, I believe this is synthesis. Looking at the page, it is full of elisions. Therefore, the summaries there are Geo Swan's, not the paper's. One is therefore relying not on the source, but on Geo Swan's interpretation of it. This is tagged as a rough notes page, but it's not being used as such given the assertions made. IMO, this is not appropriate material for userspace, but I've decided to bring it here for further opinion. MSJapan (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The paper in question is an analysis of the basis for detention of the Guantanamo captives who remained in custody as of December 2008. Approximately two thirds of the captives had been repatriated at that time.


 * The scholars at the Brookings Institute went through hundreds of allegation memos, looked at each allegation, on each memo, and if they thought it was a common allegation, repeatedly leveled against many captives, they paraphrased it in their study. For every allegation they summarized they listed the name and ID number of every captive who faced that allegation.  I collated the separate places the Brookings scholars mentioned particular individuals, and listed those separate mentions in one summary.  This is simple collation, not original research.


 * For example, consider User:Geo_Swan/Wittes_breakdown -- it lists 5 allegations, each supported by a specific passage in the Wittes paper.
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Scholars at the Brookings Institute, lead by Benjamin Wittes, listed the captives still held in Guantanamo in December 2008, according to whether their detention was justified by certain common allegations :
 * Abdul Haq Wasiq was listed as one of the captives who "The military alleges ... are associated with both Al Qaeda and the Taliban."
 * Abdul Haq Wasiq was listed as one of the captives who "The military alleges ... fought for the Taliban."
 * Abdul Haq Wasiq was listed as one of the captives who was a member of the Taliban leadership.
 * Abdul Haq Wasiq was listed as one of "36 [captives who] openly admit either membership or significant association with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or some other group the government considers militarily hostile to the United States."
 * Abdul Haq Wasiq was listed as one of the captives who had admitted "being [a] Taliban leader."
 * Abdul Haq Wasiq was listed as one of the captives who had admitted "being [a] Taliban leader."


 * }
 * On page 34 we have: "The military alleges that the following detainees are associated with both Al Qaeda and the Taliban: Abdul Haq Wasiq, ISN 4..."
 * On page 38 we have: "The military alleges that the following detainees fought for the Taliban: Abdul Haq Wasiq, ISN 4..."
 * On page 41 we have: "The Taliban leadership group includes: Abdul Haq Wasiq, ISN 4..."
 * On page 16 we have: "36 openly admit either membership or significant association with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or some other group the government considers militarily hostile to the United States." Abdul Haq Wasiq and the other 35 men are named in a footnote on page 42.
 * On page 45 we have: "The detainees who admit being Taliban leaders include: Abdul Haq Wasiq, ISN 4"


 * MSJapan incorrectly claims I indulged in synthesis here -- specifically that I made up my own wording, my own classifications. I did not -- not even close.  The classification is entirely the work of the Brookings scholars.  The wording is either a quoted from their paper or it is very clear and indisputably fair paraphrase of the paper.


 * In the first two allegations the Brookings scholars decided Abdul Haq Wasiq faced, I quoted their wording, replacing with ellipses the phrase "the following detainees". This is not original research, and is a completely normal and completely policy compliant example of what good faith contributors do all the time, and not original research.
 * The third allegation is a completely reasonable and non-controversial paraphrase of the Brookings' scholars original wording, and not original research.
 * The fourth allegation is a direct quote from the the paper, barring only that I added '[captives who]' to supply context -- again not original research.
 * The fifth allegation is also a direct quote from the the paper, barring only that I added the article '[a]' to supply context -- also again not original research.


 * The work I did was not original research, it was collation. If I was working on an article about a sports hero, and summarized in one spot the scores sports journalist reported they achieved I would be doing essentially the same kind of work I did here.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Since my name has been brought into this, I really don't see how this noticeboard applies to User sub pages, primarily per WP:TIND, and secondarily for pages created to quickly share reliably sourced research with other editors, as was the case here. If you really wanted to force the issue, take it up at WP:MFD. -- Kendrick7talk 03:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not inherently opposed to the existence of this user page. However, its size has been bloated to a significant extent by repetition of sentences, citations, names, and phrases. This page is longer than all but two articles in the mainspace. I could easily reduce the page's size by over 100,000 bytes without having it lose any actual information. Admittedly, that's not an issue for this particular noticeboard. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Scottish independence
Commonwealth Realm

There is a dispute about how to interpret the statement by Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party. Salmond said an independent Scotland "would still share a monarchy with the rest of the UK just as we did for a century before the Parliamentary Union of 1707, and just as 16 other Commonwealth countries do now." Does that mean that an independent Scotland would be a "Commonwealth Realm?"

Current "Commonwealth Realms" include the United Kingdom and former colonies, now members of the Commonwealth, that have retained the Queen as their head of state. They agree to maintain a similar succession law and style and titles.

James VI, King of Scots, became James I, King of England in 1607, and in 1707 the crowns were merged as the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Scots have long protested the 1701 Act of Settlement, which barred the Stuart claimants, and the numbering system, even demanding that the current Queen be known as "Elizabeth I" in Scotland.

I do not know if the monarchy of Scotland would be considered a restoration of the Scottish monarchy or a continuation of the British monarchy or whether any of these factors would determine whether the Commonwealth would consider Scotland a Commonwealth Realm, or whether Scotland would accept the description. Salmon does not even say in the source whether Scotland would continue in the Commonwealth.

It seems to me that unless there is a source saying Scotland would become a Commonwealth Realm, it is OR to say it would.

TFD (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like OR to me. What is wrong with actually quoting Salmond? It is speculation anyway, as the status of an independent Scotland within the Commonwealth couldn't be determined by Scotland alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks like OR. Plus there's two levels to it - would it be a Commonwealth Realm and is that what AS thinks? Even if we think we can deduce the answer to the first part, we can't put words in someone's mouth. Formerip (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, TFD didn't quote what the article Commonwealth realm actually says: "The following year, Portia Simpson-Miller, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, spoke of a desire to make that country a republic, while Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party (which favours Scottish independence) stated his intention for an independent Scotland to be a Commonwealth realm." Note that nowhere is it stated Scotland will or would be a Commonwealth realm. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it appears to attribute words to Alex Salmond that he never said. Formerip (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Such as? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Commonwealth Realm"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What else could Salmond possibly mean by "16 [sic] other countries" that "share a monarchy with... the UK"? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can only presume him to mean "16 [sic] other countries" that "share a monarchy with... the UK" because he doesn't elaborate. So we shouldn't elaborate for him. I think it quite probable that Salmond does foresee Scotland as a Commonwealth Realm, but he may not. I think it quite likely that many Scots nationalists would take the view that the British monarchy is the Scottish monarchy by default, regardless of the Commonwealth. Perhaps the answer is to look for another source that is clearer. Formerip (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Given Salmond's occasional habit of contradicting himself (not unusual for a politician, I hasten to add), I would think it presumptive to assert that he couldn't possibly have meant something else. Not that it matters - we can simply quote what Salmond said, and let our readers decide for themselves, should they wish to do so. In any case, given that the term 'Commonwealth realm' has no official status, it is entirely unnecessary to decide whether he 'meant it' or not. If and when Scotland becomes independent, the relationship between Scotland and the Commonwealth will no doubt be formally negotiated - and we will have sources to clarify the situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether he has a tendency to contradict himself or not (I wasn't able to find record of any instance wherein he contradicted his above quoted words), my question was: what else could he possibly mean (well, have meant)? That hasn't been answered. Any suggestion will do beacause I am certain it won't fit the definition of a Commonwealth realm.
 * Yes, his words can be quoted exactly. But, they don't have to be and doing so uses many more words to say the same thing. Still, I'll change the article. I think it's pertinent to the subject and, having read articles about other Scottish politicians wanting a vote on whether or not Scotland will remain a monarchy after the independence they desire, I recently thought some brief mention of that should be included, as well. If we're going to keep the Jamaican Prime Minister's stated want for Jamaica to become a republic--something that also may or may not happen--then so too should information about publicly stated wants for Scotland's future status vis-a-vis the personal union of the Commonwealth realms. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You changed the text to quote Salmon saying Scotland "would still share a monarchy with... the UK, just as... 16 [sic] other Commonwealth countries do now." But that is still OR - using a quote to imply something.  Again, assuming Scotland became a constitutional monarchy and remained in the Commonwealth, we do not know if it would be considered a "Commonwealth Realm."  Would they, as the article says, have "a royal line of succession in common with the other realms"?  My belief is that they would accept Elizabeth as the legitimate heir to James II, rather than Sophia, Electress of Hanover.  Of course this is all speculation.  TFD (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note Salmond's words: "share a monarchy with... the UK, just as... 16 other Commonwealth countries do." What countries do you think he's talking about? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

He also says "just as [Scotland] did for a century before the Parliamentary Union of 1707." Which arrangement is he more likely to follow - Scotland or the Commonwealth Realms? TFD (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Salmond mentions both the 16 independent nations that currently have the same monarch and pre-union Scotland. It is not clear whether Scotland would be the same as a former colony that retained the British monarch upon independence or that it would restore its ancient crown.  (Despite the dispute over the Stuart succession, Elizabeth is the legitimate heir of James VII of Scotland.)  Would the Queen be known as "Elizabeth II, Queen of the UK, Scotland, etc." or would she be "Elizabeth I, Queen of Scots"?  Would the 1701 succession act be adopted in Scotland?  Would the date of the ascension to the throne of William III be the date recorded in England or the date in Scotland, where he was William II?  Would a separate coronation be required?  Would Scotland be a kingdom, or just a realm?  Would it be possible that in the fullness of time, Scots might find a different person on the throne?  Can you find any sources that discuss these issues?  If not then it is just OR.  TFD (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right now what ever he means is pure speculation. The relationship will be determined by the vote and the options given during the vote.  They could decide to keep the status as is, become an independent Commonwealth Realm (like Canada), become an independent Commonwealth Republic (like India), or opt to be a independent Realm with the Queen still on the throne but having there own line of succession afterward.  Only the 1st Minister knows what he truly means, and even then if it's not an option to be voted on it won't matter. Caffeyw (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source for "crowns were merged" (TFD above)? No one, not the Queen or any one else, can "know if the monarchy of Scotland would be considered a restoration of the Scottish monarchy or a continuation of the British monarchy... " per TFD above. How can such speculation determine the content of the article? It is idle and pointless. Whatever OR may be, it is certain that if Salmond is to be mentioned in the article, his words should not be paraphrased but quoted, in main text or footnote, per AndyTG above. An attempt to paraphrase would be equally idle and pointless. Why is it there anyway? To promote his soapbox? Qexigator (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The Act of Union 1707 says, "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN...." For the last 100 since James VI inherited the English crown as James I of England, the same person (with a few lags) had been king of both kingdoms.  The situtation of an independent Kingdom of Scotland differs from the Commonwealth realms in an important sense.  They are former British colonies that belong to the Commonwealth and have chosen to retain the British monarchy and have agreed to have the same succession laws and similar titles, guaranteeing that the same person will always be the monarch in each country.  Scotland may agree to that formula or it may decide it has no obligation to agree with any other country on its succession laws.  If it is the latter, then we cannot foretell whether it would be considered a Commonwealth Realm.  Hence Salmond's comments have no relevance to the article, which is about "Commonwealth Realms."  OTOH, if we can provide a third party source that comments on what status it would hold, then we can include it.  TFD (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC on international LGBT rights
Editors are invited to participate at Talk:LGBT rights under international law, a Request for Comments concerning material on countries' obligations under international law to protect LGBT rights. One of the main issues for discussion is whether the material in question constitutes original research. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Forums as sources being discussed at Talk:IRS
For some reason a discussion over a particular forum was initiated at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources which has grown into a general discussion about forums as sources. There's a request for comment and it seems to me that others here will probably be interested and may have missed it. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony Ortega
User:Laval has purged a significant amount of properly cited biographical content from the new Tony Ortega BLP article less than 12 hours after I posted it claiming that it was original research amongst other things. Although I am a noob editor, I find those edits troubling and request somebody more knowledgeable than I am to review the version history to see anything that was stripped away can be restored. I spent several weeks developing that article offline in order to replace the stub the user originally posted that I thought was questionable in the context of lacking serious biographical material when there was so much readily available. Additionally, some of edits removed entire sections (Eg. Recognition that listed industry awards and honors the subject received) that I had carefully drafted based on seeing the same sort of content on other articles for seasoned journalists with comparable history. Thus I'm quite perplexed as to why it was removed in whole. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Hapshepsuit (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As explained on the talk, most of those are primary sources from Ortega's blog and the tone was incredibly promotional and advertorial in nature. It's an encyclopedia article, not a resume or a promotional vehicle. Please read reliable sources, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. These are even more important considering the article is about a living person. Laval (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, as stated on the talk, most of the article was pure original research and even using sources that don't even mention Ortega directly. As far as questionable sources in the stub, you removed the article about Ortega in the New York Observer as well as the fact that he is a freelance blogger. The POV tone and OR is easily apparent. Also, based on the edits and off-wiki information, there is a strong possibility that this editor is closely connected to Ortega, in which case there is a definite conflict of interest. Laval (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I respectfully disagree. Of the 66 references I originally cited, 61 were from media outlets, professional associations and other online sources that were not written by the subject of the article. None of my work was original research, but rather a summation of a wide collection of biographical material readily available from sources that were removed such as the NYTimes, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia, the Investigative Reporters and Editors organization, the National Association of Black Journalists, etc. Thus I am asking for a second opinion. Hapshepsuit (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You used very few secondary/tertiary sources as your contributions show, plus quite a few sources didn't say what you had written or even omitted data as was the case with his graduate work and the circumstances of his blog. As I said, your contributions are right there in the history and the POV and OR is clearly apparent, as was the promotional tone which was written like an essay. And of course you should ask for a second and third opinions, however WP policies on BLP are pretty clear on these things. Laval (talk)


 * Not to distract from the convo too much, but Laval also made similar edits on Freemasonry here, here, and here. Seems to be an issue of what the editor believes is correct more so than what the community believes is correct per guidelines.  I know sourcing types are hard to identify sometimes, as I've had questions myself, but multiple reversions should indicate there is an editing pattern problem. MSJapan (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Lavabit email service
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:


 * Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.

There have been concerns expressed as to whether the above violates our no original research policy. Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Spengler's Civilization Model: Prolegomenon
A certain user is continually reposting original research and racist spam. The "prolegomenon" (by itself an un-encyclopaedic phrase) to the article "Spengler's Civilization Model" (Spengler's civilization model) is clearly racist as well as unrelated to the subject matter. It is 100% original research.

Every time I tried to add the OR tag the same user deletes it. I tried deleting the Prolegomenon but he keeps reposting what is essentially a speculative essay filled with cliches, stereotypes and generalizations unrelated to the subject whatsoever. Using the Talk Page did not help at all, since the user just ignored what I wrote.

I have currently bolded certain parts of the Prolegomenon which are especially obvious in their offensiveness - however, the WHOLE THING needs to go, it is pure speculation and original research and unverifiable and therefore un-encyclopaedic content. It even makes predictions about the future ("In the end of 2014 AD, the synergy of new debt will decrease to zero, at which moment the world will undergo an electrical breakdown—an instantaneous tunnelling to a more negative energy state.")Ben Ammi, Ben Ammi (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Examples of the madness:

As it stands, the Prolegomenon to this article even claims to prophesy the future, hardly an encyclopaedic thing to do: "In the end of 2014 AD, the synergy of new debt will decrease to zero, at which moment the world will undergo an electrical breakdown—an instantaneous tunnelling to a more negative energy state."'''

So is this a fact or not? If so, I'd like some verification and sources - furthermore I'd like sources for all these claims, that Wikipedia is currently making to the world in its Prolegomenon section to Spengler's Civilization Model:

"Women like pink; Mongoloid flags (Japan, China, Vietnam) are red; sunrise (the spring of the day) is red"

"Men like blue; the Jewish flag is blue; midnight (the winter of the day) is blue ("No brown after six")"

"The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well:"

"Being such blueshifted fallen angels, men are Promethean (future-minded, goal-oriented) mentally and Mephistophelean (spaghettified, serpentine, penile) corporeally."

"Cerebrotonia is the predominance of nervous tissue, which is "cosmopolitan"—interconnected encapsulated groups (ganglia) of neurons ("Jewish communities") reside in all organs ("countries") and orchestrate them into a single organism"

"Infantile (feminine, rural, Mongoloid) brain: Predominance of gray matter (the neuronal cell bodies and their dendrites, the short protrusions that communicate with immediately neighbouring neurons in the brain)."

"Adult (masculine, urban, Jewish) brain: Predominance of white matter (the axons that reach out from neurons to more distant regions of the brain; since an axon is insulated with myelin, it is "Aspergian"—alienated from its immediate surroundings)."

Are all these crazy claims actually verifiable facts ? I doubt it. But this guy keeps reposting this stuff again and again, spamming Wikipedia and making a mockery of the "online encyclopedia."

Ben Ammi Ben Ammi (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the editor adding this material for a 3RR violation, and others have removed the material each time it was added. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The White Queen (TV series)#Historical Inaccuracies
The section The White Queen (TV series) is 100% WP:SYN. I pointed this out on the talk page, but to no avail. As an IP editor I have no weight, so if there is a more experienced editor here who wants to step in, that might be helpful. 202.81.243.196 (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there were a few sources, eg "Jane Shore, Edward IV’s mistress, is portrayed as a young courtier. In fact, she was a mature woman, the wife of a London tradesman. REF: Ross, Charles. Edward IV. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974" -- of course, the TV series was broadcast this year - is this time travel? Anyway, someone did listen to you and it's gone. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I will repeat what I wrote on the talk page: One of the most interesting aspects of historical fiction is departure from fact for dramatic or other reasons. It's also an issue in which many readers are interested. As it happens I have long disagreed with the interpretation of WP:OR that you present here. If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate. If there is no ambiguity about what the film shows and there is no uncertainty about the historical facts, then there is no original research, because no new idea is being "sythesised". It's not a new idea that the battles did not happen in the same year. Now, I accept that there are ambiguous cases. In this instance you might say that there are chains of reasoning that go beyond mere "fact", such as the deduction that it is supposed to be winter when the Battle of Bosworth takes place. Maybe, but it would certainly have been a very odd August. Of course the snow is obviously emblematic, like the eclipse (though that really happened), suggesting an ending and beginning. No doubt that's one reason why they changed the details. Another was probably because they could create the impression of a battle with about ten extras in a dense forest, but in a field it would just look silly. Now adding that would be OR. But undisputed historical facts are not. Paul B (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I do think we need to have a proper debate about this issue, because I think it's one of those areas in which anti-OR dogmatism damages the project. The point of WP:OR is to prevent people presenting their pet ideas as though they are accepted fact, are more significant or have more justification than mainstream opinion asserts. In this case, the effect is actually to suppress mainstream opinion in order to leave deviations from historical fact unchallenged. I have long felt that this is a kind of perversion of the spirit and intent of WP:OR and that we should stop repeating the mantra that reliable sources have to have directly commented on "inaccuracies" in films and TV shows with historical content before we can note these. As far as I can see cases like this are similar to the issue of whether making arithmetical calculations, or writing translations, are OR. If there is nothing to dispute then the concept of OR is inappropriate because there is in fact no "synthesis" occurring. By adopting the approach advocated by the IP and some other editors we damage the encyclopedia by excluding information that is verifiable and which serves the purpose to inform. In addition, as I said above, this is actually one of those aspects of historical fiction that people are most interested in, for perfectly good reasons: how much of it is true? We do not serve readers by excluding information that is not in dispute. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:No original research for a discussion of the broader issue. Paul B (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are convincing me. But the problem is, if we allow this, do we also allow it say in fringe articles, eg Where Troy Once Stood? Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware we do not have to have sources commenting directly on that book to summarise the mainstream views of where Troy was, but of course that is not a case where there are simple matter of fact being contrasted with a fiction narrative that deviates from known fact with what is called "dramatic licence". We all accept that historical drama does that for aesthetic or thematic reasons. In the case you give, the author is arguing a case for an interpretation of actual history. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * (e-c) I agree with Paul regarding some cases, like works of fiction, where the writers can sometimes play fast and loose with history. The problem is, like Doug says, some of the wacko science out there, like people who get interviewed on Coast to Coast AM and who write what might be called "speculative nonfiction." The Jesus Dynasty and a lot of the work of Eric von Daniken, Michael Baigent, and the like come to mind here. In a lot of the cases of, like, books, I could reasonably see having the "reception" section indicate the major points of deviation from academic or general consensus. We do seem to be getting more articles on these "alternative views" than many of us might have expected, and it might make sense to acknowledge that with some changes in the policies and guidelines dealing with them. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "One of the most interesting aspects of historical fiction is departure from fact for dramatic or other reasons." While that may be true, as Wikipedians it is not our job to be investigating and creating such analysis and interesting commentary. We are merely aggregators of content that other reliable sources have found interesting enough to publish. Our only analysis should be on whether or not or how much the published analysis represents the mainstream views. And just providing a list of the inaccuracies does nothing to enhance our reader's knowledge of " departure from fact for dramatic or other reasons." - did they depart from fact because they didn't do research? because they believe a fringe theory that they consider "fact"? because the budget wouldnt allow them to do another scene set in the town X where Sir Y actually died? because killing someone 3 years before their actual death would allow a dramatic widow scene in season 2 rather than season 4? all of the actual interesting parts are stuff that need the backing third party sources. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we put forward out own interpretation of the reasons for departures from fact, then we would indeed be engaging in original research. That, in fact is the whole point. I think you draw the line in the wrong place and miss the central issue, which is the question of what constitutes OR. Of course we would have to leave it up to readers to decide what the reason for a departure from fact was - whether it was for ideological or dramatic purposes. I see nothing wrong in that at all. Readers are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions. I am sure a lot of the time they simply want the correct information, so that they can then make of it whatever they want. This is precisely why what I amn proposing is not "creating ... analysis and interesting commentary", it is providing sourced facts and facts alone. Indeed I made that distinction very clear in my first message about the difference between speculating about why facts were altered and noting them. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No i do not draw the line at the wrong place. An encyclopedia does not "bring up questions for the reader to ponder and answer themselves". an encyclopedia provides the answers. if we have reliable sources that talk about the unanswered questions related to the topic, we can mention the current debates if appropriate - but again, it requires third party sources talking about the specific topic of the article.
 * re: "it is providing sourced facts and facts alone." Calling out on our own, and particularly in a standalone section called "Historical Inaccuracies" ,has far more nuances and implications than "facts alone" and is highlighted in policy WP:STRUCTURE. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Red (if I can call him/her/it Red) has a good point here. Having a separate section devoted to "Historical Inaccuracies" not only has some serious OR problems, but also quite possibly, in a lot of cases, serious WEIGHT problems. Braveheart and a few other works which have had significant attention to their inaccuracies are one thing, and I can see, in some of those cases, a standalone section. But otherwise, for a lot of these "variant histories" in fiction, I myself would probably favor just adding some words in the otherwise existing material on the subject of the history something to the effect that what is portrayed is not widely accepted by historians. So, for instance, describing that movie as "a fictionalized version of the life of William Wallace" would be to my eyes perfectly acceptable, and even a lot of the material in that article, about the screenwriter's use of sometimes dubious sources, seems reasonable. But if the subject hasn't received a lot of attention in the context of the subject of the article itself, I would be really hesitant to create a separate section. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, listing historical inaccuracies that cannot be sourced is OR. It is unlikely there will ever be many sources, unless someone decided to write a piece specifically on this topic. There are some, but they mention the inaccuracies in very general terms, mainly to explain that without them no one would want to watch the show . A few are more specific [. Those can be used and some are in the article. Anything more, without proper sources, fits the standard definition of OR. That may be unfortunate. The preamble to [WP:ISNOT] explains what Wikipedia is, it says: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, indeed a "high-quality encyclopedia" then it probably aims to educate, at least to a certain extent. I believe that a section showing just how inaccurate history that has been fictionalized on TV can be, might be useful, especially to younger people who are likely to be Wikipedia's readers. In that respect, I would not mind a limited modification of the rules on OR .--[[User:Luke Warmwater101|Luke Warmwater101]] (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels
I am having a dispute with NinjaRobotPirate about the above-mentioned article. He appears determined to remove most the article as it stood before two days or so ago, as "unsourced". His editing policy is that one edits best those articles to which one is indifferent (to paraphrase from his talkpage). I accept that he is acting is good faith, as he may see fit, but I strenuously disagree with his actions.

Also, by being indifferent to material one is editing one is less likely to be familiar with it, and, even more importantly, less invested in it. I do not understand what has to be done to "source" this material, almost all of which, directly dovetails with the lengthy, spoilers-and-all, synopses of all these mystery novels, right here on Wikipedia. Where I am supposed to find paperbacks to cite page numbers?? Those (Christie) novels which were written after ISBNs came into existence have them on their article pages. I admit I am fond of the article in question, as a long time Christie aficionado, and to see it whittled down from a redwood to a bonsai is painful and, I believe, unnecessary.

Yours, Quis separabit?  23:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I should probably apologize for my rather curt and irritable posts to Rms, as I had originally assumed (from the age of his account) that he was quite familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Due to my assumption, I was perhaps a bit too hasty to assume that he was edit warring, protecting his ownership of the article, and other bad faith assumptions. I realize now that I probably should have engaged with him in a more patient and friendly manner, and maybe this whole thing could have been avoided; plus, as he initially suggested, I probably should have used the talk page to explain my edits, instead of cryptic edit summaries which alluded to Wikipedia policies.  That said, I stand by my edits, and, as Rms says, I am fairly determined to remove the original research from this article. Without rehashing everything on the talk page once again, I'm not really sure there's much to say.  Yes, someone spent much time writing up a long analysis of the tropes in Agatha Christie's fiction, but Wikipedia is not the place for such things. Unfortunately, citing primary sources, such as the books themselves, is not a valid citation. In order to have a page that discusses the tropes in question, one must find a reliable source, such as scholar or journalist, who says something is a trope, and then Wikipedia can quote that person. I suggest doing some research on Google Scholar and Google Books, which is where I found the few citations that I made. As it stands, this article is nightmare of original research, and it needs to be whittled back down to that pathetic bonsai tree in order to fit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * From a quick look at the article, I have to agree that it is almost entirely WP:OR. Who says that the 'tropes' in the novel are indeed 'tropes'? Nobody but Wikipedia contributors apparently, who have read the relevant novel, and decided that it contains a 'trope'. That is original research, plain and simple... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just so everyone is aware. I did not create the article. Sordel did. I am not familiar with "tropes" and it is not a word I would use; I am insufficiently intellectual for that. I did contribute after the article was created. Just so that's understood. It would have been better, I think, had it not been created at all. Perhaps AFDing later depending on the final outcome. Quis separabit?  00:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not matter who created the article or really who added content (the "who is recorded in the edit summaries which is what Wikipedia requires for attribution). What does matter that the the content that is added or re-added to the article., particularly any analysis or commentary, is supported by a reliably published sourced that straightforwardly makes the claim. Wikipedia editors are not so much writers as merely aggregators of content and analysis that others have already written. Yes, finding sources can take time, but books.google.com and scholar.google.com are both great free resources. (and the cite tool, when its working, makes the WP:CITEing easy. and even if you do not understand how to provide the appropriate cite, simply linking to the reliably published sources (not blogs or random websites) within tags with a request for someone to complete the reference will suffice. The subject seems to me to be one that would have oodles of sources, although many places may not specifically use the word "trope" and I am not sure where or how the line is determined about "they did not specifically use the word 'trope' but they were clearly talking about 'tropes' " --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * An article could be written on this topic, but it will take time and effort. One can not simply write long essays and upload them to Wikipedia: this is the very definition of original research.  Instead, one must find published works and summarize them.  If you're willing to do the research necessary to write this article, you can save it.  If you're not, that's fine.  Someone else might be.  Deletion is a last resort, and it's not used to punish poorly written articles.  Articles lacking notability or impossible to verify are routinely deleted, but poorly written articles just get turned into stubs.  This is what I did.  It's perfectly within guidelines, and there isn't really any policy- or guideline-based argument you can make to keep the old version of the article.  It's been a month now since I originally tagged the article as needing additional sources, the old AfD advised a total rewrite with sources (which is what I did), and the current version of the page violates Wikipedia policy.  There really isn't anywhere to go except to revert back to my edit, which stubbed the article.  Once this is done, you can expand the article to your heart's content, as long as you find reliable sources to back up your assertions.  I found several sources which discuss tropes in Agatha Christie's novels, so the topic seems notable to me.  I would not support a deletion proposal.  However, I would support merging my stub into Agatha Christie. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. I found a reflink regarding an interesting "trope" that most people are unaware of: Poirot letting or even suggesting (in certain cases) that the murderer/killer/perpetrator take his or her own life to avoid scandal, shame, prosecution, execution, etc. I also removed some marginal stuff, as well. Quis separabit?  01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to make this more clear. Maybe it's because I'm repeating myself, but I don't think you're understanding me.  Every unsourced line has to go.  Every single line in the article body has to be deleted.  There are no "iffy" sections.  Unless you can find a reliable source (such as a book, magazine, or newspaper article – not a random blogger) that backs up the assertions made, they can be removed by anyone.  I think that I've been quite patient; I originally tagged this article with a few cleanup templates a month ago.  When I returned to check up on the article, it was still a mess.  I stubbed the article and replaced it with some cited material, which you reverted.  I really must insist that you either revert the article back to my stub-version, or I'll do it myself.  Once this is done, you can re-add the removed material, but only if you can find a citation for it.  You had a month find citations for these statements, and nothing was done.  The time for precision editing has passed, and it's time to replace this mess with a proper article that's within policy.  My stub-version is exactly that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are much more kind and patient than I am! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Interac (Japan)
I have been trying to clean up Interac_(Japan) for some time now and there has recently been a revert and edit of my previous edits. I request help with this page.Taurus669 (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This page is full of original research related to the Union presence section and below.

In particular, the revert and edit made by Mah2012 on 23 August 2013 and by 202.241.4.55 on 30 August 2013 seem to be full of self-published materials by the same union(s) that these editors are including.

The edit on 30 August 2013 called "Operation Slingshot" appears to be 100% original research.Taurus669 (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ventura, CA: Points of Interest - Westside
On August 28, 2013, a large paragraph was added to Ventura,_California about the Westside Neighborhood that has no citations and appears to be original research.

Could an editor provide further comments since the entire section needs work as does much of the page? This paragraph and others are beginning to describe neighborhoods rather than Points of Interest. The rest of the Points of Interest just seem to be random sentences. There is also a list of Notable locations with the distinctive feature that many of the places are not "worthy of notice" and do not include links. If one uses the WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline, where would information about notable landmarks and locations go? On a separate page? --Fettlemap (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a fairly active wikipedian from Ventura. My office was once in the Erle Stanley Gardner Building at the center of town.  I know nothing about this subject.  Other than the local knowledge that the vcstar is the local paper and the best RS close to the scene, I don't have much to bring to the party that couldn't be googled.  So as I advise others to do, I hit google.  It sounds like a lot of well informed, probably accurate, OR.  I did find several pictures glorifying the vandalism in that area of town, but matching the descriptions.  The gang name is real.  OR:  Later I drove down Ventura Avenue and its not that graffiti ridden.  It is an old, low income area.  This article indicates there is a long standing graffiti problem.  About all the biker gangs, well, my own OR knows a past Hells Angel's president lived here for many years.  I think he is now residing at one of our state prisons.  There is a biker convention of sorts here.  The locations, "The Avenue" as I hear it called, Pierpont, Fairgrounds, the Harbor are all fairly major landmarks here.  Worthy of someone writing an article about them.  At the moment, the paragraph I questioned is not exactly Chamber of Commerce material and is currently unsourced, but looks like it can be sourced if you want to. Trackinfo (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So sorry, I posted twice
I've never done one of these before. Sorry. Lightbreather (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Federal Assault Weapons Ban article title
The Wikipedia article currently titled Federal Assault Weapons Ban was created in January 2003 as "Assault weapons ban". After that it was redirected/renamed five times (as far as I can tell) until October 2006, when it was capitalized, without discussion that I can find. Why this decision was made and why it has stayed under the radar for so long is a mystery. A preponderence of reliable, verifiable sources use the term "federal assault weapons ban" in sentence case in running text. Many use it lowercase in titles and headers, too. I have found no evidence that the WP:TITLE policy and the WP:NCCAPS guideline should be an exception for this article. Ignoring widely-used conventions for this article in Wikipedia reflects poorly on its credibility.

I haven't mastered WP coding, so pardon me if I format these links clumsily, but here are some:
 * Associated Press
 * Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
 * Senator Dianne Feinstein's official website
 * Fox News
 * Los Angeles Times
 * NRA Institute for Legislative Action
 * The New York Times
 * U.S. Government Printing Office
 * USA Today
 * The Wall Street Journal

I think this article would be improved by restoring its title to sentence case format. Based on the sources, to use title case seems WP:OR.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Many use it lowercase in titles and headers, too.". And many use Title case in titles and headers, thus for running text in the article, 'federal assault weapons ban' is appropriate, but for the title of the aforementioned article, Title case is neither right nor wrong, since there is no definitive answer on whether it's become a proper noun at this point. I don't see how the article is improved by this change, which is neither supported nor rejected by a preponderance of sources. Anastrophe (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with original research, nor has any complaint of original research been raised until after this discussion was opened on this notice board. It was just dropped in out-of-the-blue, as can be seen on the original talkpage. This has already been discussed at length on the talk board of the article in question. This is being driven by a single editor who, for some unknown reason (forum shopping?), has re-created the discussion here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion was closed by one editor in the middle of a reasoned, civil exchange between two other editors. The issue had been discussed at some length, but no consensus had been reached. A request to reopen the discussion was denied by the closer, who said there was an “overwhelming” consensus of opposition to the question. A request to show this overwhelming consensus went unanswered. (The discussion and vote shows three opposed, two supported, two neutral or unstated.) Because the discussion was closed midstream, not all relevant arguments – including WP:OR – had been explicitly introduced. That is the reason this discussion was started. Lightbreather (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The WP:NPOV policy says especial care should be taken when choosing a name for an article title. The WP:TITLE policy and WP:NCCAPS naming-convention guideline tells us to use lowercase for article titles, except for proper nouns. NCCAPS also says that because credibility is a primary objective for Wikipedia, adherence to conventions widely used in the reference-work genre is critically important.
 * Wikipedia says editors’ personal experiences, interpretations, and opinions do not belong; they're WP:OR.
 * The original article title was published in January 2003 in agreement with current WP policy. It was renamed in October 2006 without explanation – and contrary to current policy. Now that we are aware of the issue, we should not leave the title in caps unless we can WP:VERIFY with accuracy that a preponderance of authoritative, reliable sources do so as well.
 * No preponderance of authoritative, reliable sources capitalize “federal assault weapons ban” in running text. Therefore, we cannot verify with accuracy its use as a proper noun.
 * If, despite the NPOV and VERIFY policies, we continue to capitalize this article, then we are publishing – whether it was originally intended or not – original research. Wikilinks and outside links to this article propagate its OR.
 * I propose we restore the article title to "Federal assault weapons ban", in agreement with current WP policy and cited sources, but add a section about the variety of the names and abbreviations used by reliable sources. Lightbreather (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Further, there are 37 numbered items in the References section of the article. (Some are duplicates.) Of these, 26 use "assault weapons ban" in running text. Of these, not one uses "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" in running text, though five (5) use "Assault Weapons Ban" (without "Federal"), or "1994 Assault Weapons Ban," or "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994." Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

SSL
A user has alleged that the following wikitext on the genesis and characteristics of the Somali Sign Language (SSL) is inconsistent with the sources presented. As discussed here, much of the material is drawn from The beginning and growth of a new language - Somali Sign Language by Doreen E. Woodford of the Deaf Africa Fund :

"Development Somali Sign Language was originally developed by a Somali man educated in a Somali deaf school in Wajir, Kenya. In 1997, he used his knowledge of English and Kenyan Sign Language (KSL) to establish the first school for the deaf in the city of Borama, situated in northwestern Somalia. He had originally proposed the idea as far back as 1977. One of the teachers at Borama soon founded a deaf school in Djibouti. With a bit more difficulty, another was established in Hargeisa, the capital of the autonomous Somaliland region in northwestern Somalia. Through the years, the Djibouti school's sign language system has remained the Somali Sign Language. It has, however, followed a different developmental path."

"SSL's growth has been both consistent and quick. The first graduating class at the Borama school all passed with high marks. Alongside written Somali and English in Somalia and Somali and French in Djibouti, pupils in all the deaf schools have used SSL, which still shows its KSL influences."

"In addition, there are plans to establish a new SSL-based deaf school in the northeastern city of Bosaso, the commercial capital of Somalia's autonomous Puntland region. The Somali National Association for the Deaf (SNAD), Deaf Unity and other leaders in Somalia's deaf community are also working together to build more deaf schools in the country, where the Somali Sign Language is to be taught."

"Characteristics Unlike many other new sign language systems, the Somali Sign Language is not based on a foreign culture and language. It is instead centered on the Somali culture and Somali language (Af-Somali). As such, SSL's growth has been affected by a sense of shared nationhood between ethnic Somalis inhabiting both Somalia proper and other areas in or near the Horn of Africa. The Somali Sign language is also different from KSL and most other sign languages on the continent in that it was started by a deaf person, while the majority of the first deaf schools elsewhere were established by hearing people. Additionally, SSL's creator himself already had sign language skills. This is often not the case with other sign languages, whose hearing inventors not seldom lack sign language skills and come from environments where sign communication is regarded as counterproductive to language development. Research has likewise shown that when deaf sign language users establish a country's education programs for deaf children, a national sign language develops more quickly."

Please point out which if any of the hatnoted sentences above are problematic, and how to go about fixing that phrase(s). Middayexpress (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

European English
Please see the debate at Talk:European English. An editor is insistent that the concept exists, but I can find no verifiable references that support the assertion. The editor has added a substantial amount of unreferenced material to the article, all of which appears to be OR. I won't revert again - I had originally set the page as a redirect to British English some time ago. Please have a look, thanks. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it original research for the lead of Abraham to point out that there is a dispute about Abraham's historicity.
See Talk:Abraham - perhaps we need a source saying specifically that the dispute exists, but I don't see the statement as OR. (Nor do I think we need a 'who' tag when the sources are in the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * it would not be OR to state that there are multiple theories - thats a simple matter of counting multiple theories in the article. but to classify it as a "controversy" would need a source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I too believe that "to classify it as a "controversy" would need a source" which is, of course, why my objection to a claim that lacked the proper sourcing. Mercy11 (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * and sourcing the the statement so there is no doubt of original research would appear to be very easy to do --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's the sort of thing that I'd normally just fix if I saw a problem - not a good idea to tag stuff easily fixed. And of course it's just a coincidence that an editor who has recently posted to my talk page criticizing me and has never edited this article before shows up to make these tags to a line I added in trying to deal with a NPOV issue. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks RedPenOfDoom. But I guess some editors just like the extra work that sourcing requires - if every editor thought like you do, we wouldn't need to be discussing this "lacking proper sources" issue here. Mercy11 (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The objection is shown HERE, and it reads as follows

""Just citing sources pointing to individual's works, individials that happen to disagree with the historicity of the biblical account (biblical in this case, but the WP policy involved applies to anything out there) is not enough. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information and, per WP:RS, we must cite sources that -actually- support added text exactly. Adding citations - as it is the case here - of dissenters is not sufficient (or even relevant). The only valid citations are those that -actually- lend support to the claim in question. That is, someone needs to find a citation that actually says something like "Academics debate the historicity of the biblical account of Abraham's life." Sources from dissenters who disagree with the biblical account - One reliable source or a million reliable sources - are not enough. This is explained in WP:OR and WP:SYN. A WP editor is not allowed to draw conclusions. There are sources FROM dissenters and there are sources from others reporting ABOUT such dissenters. The only valid sources here would be the second type. There is an enormous difference between the two.""


 * The text fails to "cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." (The emphasis comes from the policy.) This drawn conclusion is in violation of the WP:SYN policy. We can't, based on such observational first hand sources, draw a conclusion and publish such conclusion in Wikipedia. As WP:OR says, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves."  The text was in violation of that policy.  Mercy11 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any dispute about it at all, as "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein says "the search for the historical patriarchs was ultimately unsuccessful". The stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., are not historical, that is not disputed any more by anyone except biblical literalists. Smeat75 (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but no one is objecting to statements to the effect that the narratives about the historical patriarchs have failed to be verified by independent sources. What is being argued is whether or not Wikipedia editors have the freedom, under WP:OR, to Draw a universal conclusion about all academics based on the opinion of an isolated author that was cherry-picked as a source and then extrapolating such opinion to all academics. Mercy11 (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What text are we talking about, exactly? There's nothing in the lead of Abraham right now saying there's a dispute about historicity. There is a sentence from an RS saying that the Genesis story of Abraham can't be related to known history, which I guess is close to saying "is unhistorical." It also says that "most" biblical histories these days don't begin with the Patriarchal period (i.e., with Abraham/Isaac/Jacob). There are also sourced statements further down in the body of the article saying that scholars mostly don't regard Abraham's story as historical. Given that, I don't see any need for a sentence in the lead about a dispute that doesn't seem to exist. (As Mercy11 says, we don't need either to mention the few individuals dissenters from the general view).PiCo (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mercy11 ought to read What_SYNTH_is_not. We do not have to replicate the exact words of a scholar or "cite sources that - actually - support added text exactly", whatever that may mean. if sources assert that thery doubt Abraham's historicity then it is not SYN to say so. This is a typical exacmple of the total misrepresentation of the intent of WP:SYN, which is to stop people creating "original" conclusions, not stating what actual conclusions have in fact been reached. Paul B (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer to follow Policy over some other editor's Essay that just cannot stand up to actual policy. You are free to go ahead and fill yourself up with Essays like that one. No serious Wikipedia editor would bring essays to bear upon a discussion like this one here; Essays are not even Wikipedia guidelines. People that are into essays can also read Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy and Essays are not policy. The statement "if sources assert that they doubt Abraham's historicity, then it is not SYN to say so" is shortsighted because it fails to realize that the issue here is not one of "Was such and such written by an academic and can it be sourced", but one of "Was such and such written by an academic and extrapolated by a Wikipedian to give the impression that all academics also says so."  Mercy11 (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Serious Wikipedia essays regularly bring essays to bear in discussions. Perhaps you have not been around long enough to know that. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, nor is it about legalisms. The intent of the policy is what matters, not a "fundamentalst" approach to OR, which if taken seriously would actually destroy Wikipedia, because it would mean we could never write anything at all. Inevitably, there are extrapolations from the literal wording of sources. All reading and summarising involves interpretation. Your last sentence is utterly nonsensical, since Dougweller asked wherther it could legitimately be said that "there is a dispute about Abraham's historicity". No-one has said that it is legitimate to to extrapolate from one statement by an academic "to give the impression that all academics also says so." Of course one statement may well be sufficient if there is no academic dispute about the matter. If there is dispute then we have to interpret the sources to assess the significance of the dispute. There's no getting away from that. Calling all such interpretation "OR" makes a nonsense of other policies and an absurdity of WP:NOR. All statements are inevitably made by individual authors (or at most in individual publications). We have to assess what mainstream and and marginal views are in order to follow the rules regarding, for example, undue weight. That requires an understanding that comes from looking at the literature as a whole. Sure, we might be able to find direct statements that include utterences like "most academics believe x". But again, that would be one author's view of what most scholars think. It could be an idiosyncratic view, but we can only judge that by assessing the scholar, finding other examples of the same or similar statements, etc. All this requires judgement by editors. There's no getting away from that. Your position is fundamentally incoherent. You want to insist on a source for the actual statement that his existence is disputed, but when that is (easily) found you want to deny the legitimacy of individual scholars to say what the consensus of scholars is! At least that's how I interpret your comment on Talk:Abraham that "McNutt can say 'generally recognised' all she wants but note she doesn't source that with a cite to verify it as she does the rest of her work." We don't expect scholars to "cite" statements about what is "generally recognised" in their field. They know that from experience. Anyway, the only way that statement could be "cited" would be to quote another scholar or scholars saying the same thing, which itself would not be "cited", so they would have to cite others saying the same thing... and so on ad infinitum. Paul B (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My objection is not whether Abraham existed or not; I am not sure how you jumped to that. The objection here is whether you can use Paula M. McNutt's view and claim that it is the view of all academics. It is always self-serving for a person to claim that others agree with him/her ("it is generally recognised...") What I am saying is not that I do not agree that such thing is generally recognized; what I am saying is let's find an independent source (e.g., TIME, Newsweek, anyone who is not a party to their alleged dispute) and use that as a source for "Academics debate the historicity of the biblical account of Abraham's life". Anything less is bound to lead to problems. Mercy11 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What an odd objection. Mercy11, if you are going to insist on such a literal-minded interpretation of WP:OR, you should realize that Paula McNutt's view that it's generally recognized that the biblical account of Abraham is ahistorical comes from a reliable source, and it's OR on your part to claim that she's wrong. Or perhaps you have a source that counters McNutt? I doubt you do. As several editors have already told you, no serious scholar thinks that the Bible's stories about Abraham are historical (biblical literalists are not serious scholars, at least not of history). --Akhilleus (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What I wrote was clearly not original research. And although mainstream biblical scholars seem to be in agreement, there are still a large number of biblical literalists who disagree. Last time I checked, that means that the issue is disputed. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My thanks is not to Mercy11 but to Paul Barlow - Mercy11 posted after me but above me. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems like an odd discussion to me because the statement we are discussing whether it is OR or not "Academics debate the historicity of the biblical account of Abraham's life" is not even in the article Abraham. Was it there and someone took it out? I object to that sentence not because it is OR but because the only dispute is between people who hold a religious belief ("everything the Bible says is literally true") and everybody else. It is just as wrong to say there is a "dispute between academics" on the historicity of Abraham as it would be to say "there is a dispute between academics as to whether Noah got two of every living creature into the Ark." Smeat75 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Smeat75 for reminding us what the topic is. I'm guilty myself of muddying the waters and I apologise for that - McNutt isn't the issue, the issue is whether it's OR to state that academics debate the historicity of the Biblical account of Abraham, as Dougweller says. My opinion is that it generally would be permissible to say this, based on one's reading in the subject, but that if the statement is challenged it needs a source, just like any other statement. In this particular case I'd certainly challenge. I don't see any sign of a debate over the historicity of the Book of Genesis. Yes, you have a few outliers like Kitchen arguing that Abraham was real, but you also have people who believe that Genesis 1 (Genesis creation narrative is real. In the mainstream, there's no debate (see Peter Enns, p.26 for a very explicit statement that the "overwhelming majority" of scholars believe the Pentateuch comes from the post-Exilic period). And if there's no debate, then there's no room for a sentence saying there is one. PiCo (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it OR to correct a photo caption that incorrectly states the contents of the picture in question?
This concerns a correction I made to the the article Six Day War. There are 2 photos in the article that make statements to the effect of they containing "Israeli children" when the photos also contain adult men and women (which I believe the average person will safely assume the adults there to be Israelies as well). As such, I made THIS edit correction, with an explanatory summary statement and left a message in the article's talk page HERE as well. My edit was reverted HERE by User:Irondome with the comment "Thats called OR. And you spelled "Israeli" incorrectly" (I don't really care how he wants to spell Israeli; that's not what I am objecting to here). The comment the editor left at the Talk Page can be seen HERE. And the 2 photos in question with their current (and objectionable) captions are these:

<<< "Israeli women and children in a bomb shelter at Kfar Maimon near the Egyptian border" The above, I maintain, should read "Israelis in a bomb shelter at Kfar Maimon near the Egyptian border" (there is also an adult man in this photo)

<<< "Israeli children in a bomb shelter at Kibbutz Dan during the war." The above, in my opinion, should read "Israelis in a bomb shelter at Kibbutz Dan during the war." (there are in fact at least 5 adults in this photo)

Now, I am perfectly aware the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a touchy issue for many. However, I bring no agenda here (as the reverting editor might be assuming) as I am neither Israeli nor Arab nor Palentinian nor Jew, nor from any other nation that supports either side. The one agenda I bring here is the Wikipedia agenda: WP:COMMON SENSE. So I ask, (1) did I err in correcting what appears to be an error clearer than the noonday sun, and (2) is it WP:OR (and how is it WP:OR?) to have made the change as the other editor has claimed? Mercy11 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The captions are on the original photographs, but you appear to insist on modifying them for whatever facile reasoning you appear to be deploying. The context and subject matter of the pics are entirely clear. The subject matter is primarily children, and this was the intention of the original photographer. That there is a blokes head in the second picture is profoundly lame. I find it odd you bring it here without even bothering to inform me or discussing on the relevant talk page. Your attempted edits appear to be subtly attempting to change the contemporary reality of the photographs. You do not even use the term "civilians". I find that slightly troubling. Irondome (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me start by giving the Wikilawyer reply ... It would, technically, be OR to amend the captions. We don't actually know if the man in the first photo is an Israeli, or if the adults in the second photo are Israelis.  Yes, it is highly likely that they are Israeli... but we don't actually know.  If it is even remotely possible that they are non-Israelis (Americans?, Frenchmen?, Greeks?), who just happened to be in the shelters when the photo's were taken, then it would be OR for us to say that everyone in the photos are Israeli.  We should not write text based on an assumption.  All we know for sure is what the original source actually says... that the women and children in the first photo, and the children in the second photo are Israeli.
 * Now for the non-Wikilawyer reply... is it really necessary to amend the caption? Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, User:Blueboar, that it is OR for the caption to include "Israeli" unless we know these people to be Israelis. I would also agree that that it is necessary to amend the existing caption because it is in violation of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. Mercy11 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Inferring the intent of the photographer is highly problematic. Stating what is visible in a primary source does not ". A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". It is a straightforward descriptive statement that anyone can be verified by any educated person that the photos contain more than children.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And the original captions merely confirm that. The original captions are perfectly accurate and discriptive. Irondome (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, for the quote which I had almost forgetten about. The application here is unequivocal: These photo are primary sources (per WP:OR, Notes, Bullet 1) and as such only verifiable descriptive statements of facts can be drawn from them. Taking advantage of captions to distort the reality, such as calling the people in the pictures Israeli women and children when there are also men in those pictures, and calling the people in the pictures children when there are also adults in them is a violation of WP:OR via WP:PSTS. Mercy11 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you looking at different photos than I am? The photos I am looking at clearly contain male adults and not just children or just women and children as the original captions state. The deliberate elimination of a number of the individuals in the images to emphasize that we must "think of the children" is "descriptive" only in a POV manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we probably are, in the sense of our perception of them differs. I see mostly women and kids, with a few female and 2 male adults. Now I do not think I need a caption to guide me through that intellectual challenge. It is 2 pics of mostly women and children. No pov, just a reality. Also they are not "eliminated". Are they airbrushed over? Its blindingly bloody obvious. It is a picture, not a chapter of analysis. I do not see many edit wars over these captions. A stable consensus has been reached by the community, obviously in the captioning of these pics. Irondome (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * what is " blindingly bloody obvious" is that there is a POV push going on to paint pictures via captions that are not fully representative of what is objectively seen in those pictures. I dont see why we shouldnt put "Defenseless little babies cowering from the marauding hordes" as the caption. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that last remark speaks volumes for your obvious POV and mindset here. A gross distortion of the original captions. An attempt to rewrite the history of the photos and their context is seriously POV. Would you now like to rearrange the captions of any air raid shelter pics on WP now? Irondome (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not the one who is being a denialist about what is observably visible in those pictures. Go take em and crop out the men and then your captions of "women and children" will be what is visibly observable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should drop the stick frankly. They are not "my" captions. They are the consensual captions of a highly contentious and well watched article. Do you not think that the experts -who reflect all POVs, yet work together- who helped create the article and are watching it would have pointed this up years ago if it was a real issue? At the moment the actual long term editors are arguing over the origins of the 6 day war, not this. It is trivial and you are being painfully literal about this. Actually quite anal. I suggest we continue this tomorrow, at the actual article talk page thread. In that way, experienced editors who have input into the article can contribute. Irondome (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, there is no requirement whatsoever within Wikipedia guidelines or policies to use the same caption for an image as it was originally published with. Clearly, any caption must be NPOV, and not misleading, but beyond that, the exact wording is no more laid down by policy than any other article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:AndyTheGrump, I have not come across specific policy that head on addresses image caption either, which is probably why some editors feel free to write in whatever they desire (Please see my exposé further down dated 04:24, 3 October 2013) - even if it violates WP:NPOV. And this is precisely the reason we are here: because some editors seem to think that image captions are not "text", nor even an "extension" of text, and thus not subject to NPOV or OR policies. Mercy11 (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Irondome's position in this dispute defies common sense. If the image has an adult in it, plainly visible, I see nothing wrong with pointing that out in the caption. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please re read the entire thread. I have no issue with an expanded desciption. I never have. What I object to is the bald term "Israelis", where there is a high probability (the kibbutz pic) of these being global Kibbutz volunteers. Many stayed on. That in itself would be innacurate. "Children and civilians In an Israeli air raid shelter" would suit me fine. "Israelis" would not. Anyway consensus on the talk page is what counts, where we can get a judgement from the most active editors on the article. Too much of a rush to the boards in this case methinks Irondome (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you know the men are not in the military? claiming them to be "Civilians" is problematic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Someguy1221: yes, it does defy common sense. It is clearer than the noonday sun that there adults in the pictures, so I see there are only 2 reasonable options for the captions: we either say "children and adult Israelis" or we just say "Israelis" (Of course, I am assuming their nationalities can be WP:RS-verified) A non-sensical option is to cherry-pick and say "Israeli women and children" and "Israeli children" which is what Irondome is for whatever reason attempting to push for here. Mercy11 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

, I don't know where you are coming from, but no matter how much I can AGF, your arguments are close to trolling. The one who should drop the stick is you. It is obvious that saying women and children in a picture that has women,children and male adults not only is inaccurate, but it is also subtle emotional POV. Calling it An attempt to rewrite the history of the photos and their context is even weirder. If the problem is "Israelis" vs "kibbutz volunteers" or whatever, let's just write "People in a bomb shelter...": singling out women,children and men is after all useless and this way we avoid pigeonholing them as civilians/Israelis/whatever. -- cyclopia speak! 11:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is actually only one "man" in the kibbutz picture. There appears to be two adolescent males, one in each pic. The vast majority of the subjects are children and women. In that sense the captions are essentially accurate. I find your allegations of trolling seriously OTT and bizarre. Obviously the captions are cunning Zionist propaganda, actually daring to take pics of kids and what appear to be carers in a bomb shelter and labelling them as such. It is my AGF capacities that are being strained here. However, I would accept "people" or "civilians". The IDF were not inducting 4 year olds in 1967 as far as I am aware. Irondome (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Cyclopia, I agree with you they are people and most reasonable editors would also judge they are in some sort of an underground shelter. That's where that needs to left at, instead of going thru a pick-and-choose of gender, ages, nationalities etc, none of which are entirely clear from the pics themselves anyway. Mercy11 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need pointing out whether the photos contain men, women or children. That's pretty self-evident. Can't we just go with "people in an Israeli bomb shelter at Kfar Maimon"? Barnabypage (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that. Irondome (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Barnabypage, I agree with you the first photo should read, "people in an Israeli bomb shelter at Kfar Maimon". How about the second photo, perhaps likewise "people in a bomb shelter at Kibbutz Dan"? Mercy11 (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While the consensus appears to be leaning to captions that read "People in a bomb shelter..." etc. (leaving out the nationality, gender, age group, and description of those in the pictures (civilians, military, kibbutz, etc)) I want to point out that this is not the first time this sort of situation has surface at Wikipedia, but the case does exemplify an ongoing problem at Wikipedia with photos, their filenames and their captions, and the problem hasn't gone away. As Wikipedia editors we cannot always go by what an image filename says or claims; in some cases WP:V is of far greater value than the fear of WP:OR.


 * Take, for example, THIS photo featured in Wikipedia's Sky article. The filename of the photo HERE states and claims it is a picture of the "Sky over Washington Monument". However, the photo does not contain the Washington monument at all to validate the photographer's/uploaders's filename claim. As such THIS edit was clearly necessary.


 * As a second example, check this situation: Suppose someone took a photo of a Rose, uploaded it using the description "A yellow daisy in springttime" in its filename and added it to the Daisy article with the caption A yellow daisy in the springttime. What are we reasonable editors to do? Now, it is obvious from my example that I am exaggerating for effect, since we all know the difference between a Rose and a Daisy, but when you consider that there are millions of plant species on Earth, it is then easy to see how some one photographer/uploader (either with good intentions or with malice) could shoot and upload a photo of a given plant species, use a filename description stating it is a picture of a different species, upload it with the incorrect filename and description information, and then add the picture with the misleading filename into an article to support an equally misleading caption. Again I ask, What are we reasonable editors to do? Well, the answer is: we correct the erroneous information. And we do that because WP:V is of far greater value that the fear of WP:OR. (BTW, this plant specie photographs issue has been a constant problem in the past and can be read more about HERE.)


 * So, reasonable editors just cannot blindly accept image filename entries --and oftentimes not even image description entries-- at face value; a certain amount of judgement has to be exercised before captions can be composed. Personally, the filename of a pic is only one of various leads I use to determine what a caption should read like. Other leads being the pic itself, its description, the date taken, the source of the photo, etc. A photo description, for example, is oftentimes only as credible as its source. In the case of these photos, they were apparently released by "Israel Defense Forces".


 * Yes, it is true that someone could consider it OR for another editor to state (in ref to the 2nd photo above) "Israelis in a bomb shelter at Kibbutz Dan during the war" if the filename reads "File:PikiWiki Israel 7250 Kids in the shelter kibbutz Dan.JPG", However, it would be equally OR (and doubly so) to claim it is "Israeli children in a bomb shelter at Kibbutz Dan during the war" when it is clearer than the noonday sun that such just isn't the case in that photo. Furthermore, it really isn't Wikipedia's problem that the photographer and/or uploader was sloppy in his choice of description and/or filename. Sloppiness of this type is just another manifestation of a WP:V violation.


 * Photo #1's caption above ("Israeli women and children in a bomb shelter at Kfar Maimon near the Egyptian border") also posed a problem. That caption was equally incorrect because it clearly contains a man. In fact, if anything, it was the original caption (and not my edit) that had an OR problem due to the way the caption read because it either (a)pretended for readers to believe there are no males in the picture (clearly insane), or (b)pretended readers to accept that somehow only the women and the children in the photo are Israelis but the man is not - something either (i)a case of "subtle emotional POV", as someone said above or (ii) a highly dubious claim (after all, what is a non-Israeli man doing in a shelter with Israeli women and children, and -more dubious yet- what is such non-Israeli man doing holding a -presumably- Israeli child?). And both of these pretentiousness are violations of policy. Perhaps something can be done in the future in a more global scale.


 * IAE and BTW, if consensus has indeed been reached, would a third party other than User:Irondome or myself go in the article and make the necessary edit changes. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A thoughtful and detailed response. I myself was thinking of collecting the numerous examples on display on WP at this moment which are far worse than this. I share your concerns regarding photographic material on WP in this respect. However, I still do not see an issue with the captions. You still appear to be intimating it is unintentional POV (I am assuming GF here obviously). However, out of over perhaps 20 individuals, only 3 appear to be male. And at least one barely at puberty, and only one can be reasonably described as a man. It is hardly misleading to any reasonable viwer. If there was a picture of Charles DeGaulle with the Eiffel tower behind, would you say that it was in fact a picture of the Eiffel tower, just because 2 subjectas are in the picture? I would prefer "Women, children, and a man in an Israeli..." etc. Lets describe everything, within reason. It would fit. I am still unsure about this, and my stated preference now would be to take this to the talk page of 6 day war. This caption issue that you have raised appears not to have been picked up by the reg eds there. Therefore they do not see it as an issue, logically. I would feel more comfortable if we took this to talk, and engaged regular article eds for their input. I would prefer this process before agreeing to consensus here and now. It may take a week, but we will get a rounder consensus. we can arrange to move this thread to the 6DW talk page. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I can't see that a caption must be exhaustively descriptive. To take an even more extreme example, if the picture depicted the Washington Monument with a blue sky behind, would we have to caption it "the Washington Monument and the sky"? The question is one of emphasis. In an article on Women and children in Israel or somesuch topic, it would be quite reasonable not to reference the few men in the caption, given that they don't dominate the picture. However, in a topic that's not specific to women and children, there is some implicit editorialising in focusing on their presence. Barnabypage (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Barnabypage, thanks for laying it out that way. This article is about the Six-Day War, and not about, say, Israeli women and children. As such, any captions that include gender, age, and nationality, etc, are not only WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:V, but also utterly distracting, wordy and unencyclopedic. Mercy11 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

One might suspect a POV-pushing issue here from the fact that almost all the images in the article except maps are of Israelis, with an emphasis on Israeli civilians. According to the image description page, the image "Israeli women and children in a bomb shelter" is originally "התושבים במקלט במלחמת ששת הימים". My Hebrew ain't great, but I believe התושבים means "residents" not "women and children". There is also extra Hebrew text about women, children and yeshiva students, but it comes from a pikiwiki page and I don't know why that is a reliable source. The propagandistic nature of the images and their description in their Israeli sources is obvious. The rules about OR are not the only applicable rules; NPOV is also highly relevant. Just as we neutralize the language of polemic sources when we summarise them, we should neutralize image descriptions. Putting my wikilawyering hat on: Blueboar is usually right but in this case I think it is not true that strict interpretation of WP:NOR requires us to use the image description of the source. The point is that the source doesn't contain only the description, it also contains the image. Both the image and its description are information provided by the source and our task is to summarize all this information without adding information that is not presented by the source. The source containing the image with the man is providing the information that there was a man there and it is not OR to say so. Zerotalk 10:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Zero0000, you are probably right that some degree of POV-pushing might exist not only regarding these 2 photos that are the subject of this noticeboard debate, but POV-pushing regarding the entire article. The entire article might need to be escalated for closer scrutiny under NPOV. The opposing editor also seems unaware of WP:CONLIMITED. The sources of the images as well as their reliablity as unbiased sources need to be considered in this case. WP:NOR cannot be considered in isolation here. There appear to be multiple violations of multiple policies including WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Mercy11 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a side note... If the original source for a photo (a book, newspaper, museum archive, etc.) has a caption accompanying the photo, it is not OR to repeat that caption in Wikipedia... but, if we do so we need to cite where the caption's text came from. And, if that original caption is biased or controversial, then we should also directly link the caption to the source through attribution in our caption. For example: saying something like: ... "This photograph (from the archives of the Luxembourg Museum of Belgian War Atrocities) is captioned: Innocent Luxembourger women and children cowering in a bomb shelter during the evil Belgian mortar attacks. " would pass WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. While clearly biased, such an attributed caption would indicate that the bias is that of the museum, and not our article. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would in fact suggest that the POV is in the attitudes of a couple of the editors here. I see no evidence of POV in the photographs or indeed the article. It has been worked over and debated enough. In the period leading up to the outbreak of war there were indeed feverish civil defence measures taken in Israel, and the very real fear of massed air attack by the large force of Egyptian TU4 jet bombers. Lurid threats were indeed made by Arab media against Israel, much of it of a repellent racist nature. I would suggest there are no Arab civilian photos simply because there was no existing photos taken. Any idea that women and children photographed in a bomb shelter is somehow propagandistic, while not taking into account the historical reality on the ground, I find disturbing, somewhat. Irondome (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Pictures have to be as neutral (WP:NPOV) as possible. We must also keep cold and avoid pictures that could generate emotions (that could harm WP:NPOV). In the current case : 1) 2 images in the articles about the 6 days wars providing the same information are useless. 1 would be enough 2) the fact that civilian citizens of Israel at the border were in danger need to be sources from WP:RS sources before these pictures are added; 3) I agree that reference of children should be removed in the caption. All the protagonists were at wars and all these nations have children. It is not neutral to make believe that only Israelis had children facing danger. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not ever "correct" sources that have a POV to make them NPOV, we report what the sources say. NPOV means we don't add OUR POV, reliable sources do not need to be neutral. To try and use NPOV in such a manner is OR and is in complete disagreement with Community standards on what NPOV means. And usually is used by those that have a POV in one manner and wishes to "even" the playing field with a POV that is "more popular" with the literature, especially fringe ideas. Also- please note that the 6 Days War was fought in Israel, Egyptian Jordanian, and Syrian children were not in danger as they were not in the warzone. It's like saying American children in Kansas were in danger during WWII so we cant show Japanese hiding during bomb raids in Japan.Camelbinky (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably not a good idea anyone to note that the war was only fought in Israel, that only Israelis were in the war zone and make decisions on that basis.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably not a good idea anyone to not follow our policies on reporting only what our sources say and not to spin or change the wording to be neutral when the original source is not neutral and to try be politically correct and make decisions on that basis.Camelbinky (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Camelbinky : Six Days War was fought in the Sinai, in the Gaza Strip, in the West Bank, in East Jerusalem and in the Golan Heights. There were more than 1 million civilians in these zones. No significant battles took place on the Israeli territory but Israelis were of course threathened too. Your comparison with Kansas and Japan is not appropriate. The choice of the pictures that are chosen to illustrate an article should not hammer the WP:NPOV of these. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Camelbinky, this is a discussion on whether or not "It is OR to correct a photo caption that incorrectly states the contents of the picture in question" and, despite User:Pluto2012's comment above which may have put you in that path, it is not a discussion about "correcting [reliable] sources that have a POV [in them] to make them NPOV" as you are stating.
 * As for your "please note that the 6 Days War was fought in Israel;[sic] Egyptian,[sic] Jordanian, and Syrian children were not in danger as they were not in the warzone", what User:Zero0000 is saying above is that the POV-pushing in the entire Six-Day War article is also evident from the fact that all (18 or so) images included in the article are Israeli images. I have to agree that the entire article can be more even-sided imagewise since, it could include a more diverse group of images depicting, say, Jordanian commanders discussing plans for the war, Syrian military attacking Israel, Egyptian leaders signing a peace agreement, etc. To have only pictures depicting the Israeli side and then crowning that with pictures of Israeli children whose Wikipedia editor-chosen captions have been distorted to exclude the reality shown by the presence of adults in the pictures or distorted by changing what is in fact already included in the filename and description of the pictures in English (which in themsleves -at least in 1 of the 2 pictures in question- had already also been distorted (by the Wikipedia uploader) from what the original Hebrew said) are violations of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V. Compare the non even-side collection of pictures included in this article with the much even-side collection of pictures included in Vietnam War and Falklands War, for example.  It is not up to the (reliable) sources used to ensure that the article adheres to WP:NPOV; it is up to us Wikipedia editors. And that's why we are here discussing these picture captions.  Mercy11 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And Pluto demonstrates the POV-pushing that is behind this idea of wanting to change the captions that COME WITH THE PHOTO BY THE PERSON WHO DID THE PHOTO, which is a source just as any other source, be it a book or not. Pluto- the "Gaza Strip" and Judaea and Samaria (or "West Bank" as you use in your POV-pushing language) ARE Israeli territory, regardless of who held the land illegally at the time. Those territories were awarded for the use of being a Jewish state by the League of Nations and the UN and the British govt when they divided the original Palestinian mandate in two, Transjordan for Arabs and the rest for Jews. The Arab nations conquered those territories in 1948. So having the war in those areas means the war was STILL in Israeli territory, the Sinai is the only place that was truly Egyptian (the Golan Heights didn't have any really permanent population). I have my POV, and you have yours. At least acknowledge yours. As for the photos- they are a source, the caption on them says one thing, it is not up to us to change the caption to be "neutral" or be less sympathetic to Israelis. And Mercy11, learn to use [sic] correctly, or else learn the English language, since Egyptian and Israel are not misspelled nor grammatically incorrect. Everyone- history is written by the victors, the sources used for any article are going to represent that if they are truly written from a NPOV Wikipedian point of view; the sources we use do not have to be NPOV nor do we have to give each "side" equal weight, if history represents itself one way, we dont "correct" it.Camelbinky (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think your comments serve any useful purpose. Rational editors who understand policy can of course decide whether a caption used by the IDF, Hamas, any source, needs to be amended. Editors could also use an original caption with attribution. It's up to editors to decide how best to reflect the information sources contain and comply with policy/guidelines. You aren't dealing with mindless nationalist drones and your assumption that the editors you are dealing with don't understand NPOV is misplaced and counterproductive.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, Sean.hoyland. I won't speak for others but I think most editors here would agree with Camelbinky in that "We do not ever 'correct' sources that have a POV to make them NPOV, we report what the sources say"; that "NPOV means we don't add OUR POV, reliable sources do not need to be neutral", and that "To try and use NPOV in such a manner is OR and is in complete disagreement with Community standards on what NPOV means." But the above incursion regarding "Those territories were awarded for the use of being a Jewish state by the League of Nations..." is a history lesson that is outside the scope of this discussion - let's not politicize this discussion: this discussion has nothing to do with politics but with whether or not "it is OR to correct a photo caption that incorrectly states the contents of the picture in question". If there is evidence the photo caption came from the title or description of the photo, then that is within scope, but flying off into tangent political or nationalistic issues can mostly serve to flare up emotions and is not conductive to reaching resolution relative to the issue under discussion here. Mercy11 (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * it is not up to us to change the caption to be "neutral" or be less sympathetic to Israelis - Yes, it is. We can use a photo and add our own caption -indeed, that's what we almost always do on WP. And that is what it should be done here. A photo is a thing, the caption is another thing, we are not required (AFAIK) to use them together. And if we were to use the original caption, it should be clearly put between quotes and indicated as such, e.g. Original caption: "..." -- cyclopia speak! 16:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)