Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 32

Mexicans of European Descent
There are many elements of this article which contain WP:Synth and WP:OR

Let's start with the introduction.

"Another group in Mexico, the "mestizos", also include people with varying amounts of European ancestry, with some having a European admixture higher than 90%" If you look at the source for this claim, suggesting mestizos do be counted as a separate group from 'mexicans of european descent', that is in fact false as per the source, as the source explicitly states that no ethnic identification was used in the study, it's simply a geographic survey of the mexican population, this needs to be corrected.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000037

"The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."

then you have this line ' because the Mexican government defines ethnicy on cultural standards as opposed to racial ones', yet the source here makes no mention of the mexican government defining anything:

http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/105/10503808.pdf

Then we go down to this line 'While in the United States the criteria has become less strict: there is self-identified white people that has an amount of non-European admixture that would be equivalent to around 1/4', yet the actual source specifically makes mention that self-identifed hispanics were misclassified at the rate of 1/4-1/3rd, not self-identified whites.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/12/28

"Three of these clusters are well delineated, but 30% of the self-reported Hispanic-Americans are misclassified." Alon12 (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would suggest to any editor interested in this issue to read the talk page for Mexicans of European descent, particulary this sections:


 * Here we discuss Alon12 first point, in short he claims that a study that explicitly states to be done in mestizos is not valid to talk about mestizos, he says that isn't situable to make any statements because thre was not  self-identification survey, however, in the Mexican ethnic census there is no classification for mestizos either, and mestizos in Mexico can be anyhing, just like that study states.


 * For his second point Alon12 claims that there is no source on the Mexican government using cultural standards as opposed to racial ones, when the source is right there, and there are many more, and has been mentioned that the Mexican governemnt does so by Alon12 himself in the talk page before. I'm not sure why he comes here saying that there is no source when he is aware that it works that way already


 * Here the affair regarding Alon12's third point has been discussed exhaustively, and his argument has been completely dismantled (He claimed that self-identified Hispanics were mislbaled as Whites Americans even though the study does not say that, and if a self-identified Hispanic labeled itself as a White American then it wouldn't be a self-identified Hispanic to begin with.


 * He tends to extensively discuss the same things and even things that aren't related to the article and aren't written there at all and goes on for hours, then starts discussions in the talk pages of other editors or in noticeboards and tends to make too many assumptions that he can't prove. Expect him moving to another board once he don't gets it's way here. Aergas (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * With regards to all this, indeed this has been discussed extensively, and despite this conversation, no sources were found to substantiate the actual WP:Synth, and WP:OR, even in the comments section, you see this. For instance, as explained, the study is explicitly not on mestizos on any cultural or ethnic level. Mestizo was used purely as a geographical term for various latin american regions, while the article implies, that it refers to some unique mestizo ethnic or cultural classification, when it does not. Furthermore, the study makes no ethnic classifcations, on the various other latin american countries also studied, despite those countries, having modern censuses, in which self-identified 'white' and 'indigenous', etc. populations exist. So, the fact that a census is not taken, does not show that ethnic identities do not exist, or that they all most be one singular ethnicity. On the second point, as stated, the source does not make mention of the Mexican government making any such official statements either. With regards to the 3rd issue, it is an article which explicitly claims 'hispanics' as being misclassified, and at the highest rates at 30%, which is self-evident, it does not say that '30%' for self-identified whites. You can see this for yourself from the actual sources, and it's nice to see the other user continue to make personal attacks and ad hominems as his argument. Alon12 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What you say deviates from reality, we have discussed these two affairs to death, and you don't want to understand, the study is about mestizos, refers to the population diractly as mestizos, and uses the word mestizo more than 60 times, you can't shield your accusation on "no ethnic survey being one" because they are never done on studies about Mexicans, and Mexico does not have a racial census. You are misinterpreting the study about Hispanics too, and you are ignoring the extremely long and pointless discussion we had today on the talk page where your argument was completely dismantled, you are arguing that "Hispanics were mis-clasified" but what you don't want to see is that a self-identified Hispanic in this study can identify as Black Hispanic, Asian Hispanic or White Hispanic, that's what the mis-labeled claim is about, on the study, a self-identified Hispanic could have labeled himself as Black, White etc. but the person was still considered Hispanic, mislabeled or not it was given the color asignated for Hispanics (the color black), if it wasn't this way they wouldn't have been called "self-identified Hispanics" and since Hispanic is not a race, there wouldn't be a way to find out if someone mislabeled itself or not, because as the study shows, Hispanics are located everywhere in the graph, from the core of the White American cluster, the the core of the African cluster. You are complaining about something that didn't happen. White Americans (red dots) and Hispanics (black dots) are different things, we are talking about the red dots here. Aergas (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a very simple concept, for sources to be provided which provide evidence for these claims, but they do not. Again, the study, specifically refers to various latin american countries as mestizos in a geographic sense. This includes Latin American countries with modern censuses, in which a sizable number still identify as 'white'. So, the very absence of a census, does not imply that all members of a region are of a single ethnicity. Even in prior censues on Mexico, which were conducted, not all europeans and indigeneous identified as mestizos, so again, that is a conflation of the issue. With regards to the 'hispanics'. It shows 4 groups, including one generic hispanic american group, one white, one chinese, one black, it states specifically that hispanics are the most mis-classified ethnicity as a result, at up to 30%, it does not say that for other ethnicities. In fact, this is even explicitly stated, even in the abstract of the article. So, to extend that to other ethnicities, is literal WP:Synth. Speaking of people, misinterpreting studies is quite entertaining, coming from someone, who could not even understand mere abbreviations in a genetic study even a couple of days ago, you can see my talk page for this. Alon12 (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You talk as if a modern racial census of Mexico existed, but it doesn't, I'm getting tired of trying to explain to you why your argument regarding the Biomed study is wrong, because that's on what I've spend the entire day and looks like you have no plans of understanding anytime soon. And, just letting you know, in this noticeboard, you are supposed to wait until other editors reply instead of creating yet another side-discussion on Wikipedia. Aergas (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And again, just because a census does not exist in a region, does not mean that ethnicities do not exist, there are other parts of the world with no census too, that does not mean the entire population of a region consists of a single ethnicity. That is original research, and again the article suggests that mis-classificaiton for hispanics, not 'whites'. You started your comments with slandering me as an individual, direct personal attacks, and I responded with the data. I just find it funny how you follow me around in every thread, even unrelated to a certain subject and try to derail a subject from that point. Alon12 (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have discussed these two issues with you in the talk page of "Mexicans of European descent" extensively, and again, you are supposed to wait for other editors to arrive. Aergas (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You conflate many issues, such as cherrypicking statistical outliers, for 'americans', but then comparing general admixture for spaniards. Yet if you look at general admixture for white americans it is around ~90%. While, for spaniards, for outliers, like you were talking about 'dots' on a charts, is comparable as seen in figure s10, you see individual spaniards, scoring up to 30-40% north african admixture. So, even when you try to play this misleading wording, it does not work, because Spaniards have extremely highly admixed outliers as well. So, compare spaniards to americans in terms of aggregate population admixture in general admixture, and what happens? Spaniards are less homogenous. I am indeed calling for general admixture to be compared between americans and spaniards, you are picking up statistical outliers, and when you do, guess what? Spaniards also have statistical outliers scoring 30-40% north african ancestry as well. Alon12 (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The pdf textually says that the African ancestry ranges from 5% to 14%, this might be surprising for you, but in genetic studies and charts, not every different color means "non-white" genes. Aergas (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You can see figure s3, it is explicitly shown that spaniards have around 20-30% combined near eastern + north african admixture. Meanwhile, the other source you gave, shows 'white amreicans' to have only ~1/10th non-european ancestry. Alon12 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Spaniards (Spa) that present the highest Near East and North African admixtures are in the 80% mark, not 60%, anyone with good sight can tell this. Some other points: Sub-Saharan African admixture (light blue color) is non-existant in the Spaniards of this study while is notable in the White Americans of the study at hand (not to mention Amerindian), and the other point is that White Americans weren't tested with markers that allow to calculate Near East admixture, while you are making the summatory of Near East + North African admixtures to claim that Spaniards are less white. Aergas (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a different group of Spaniards.[GAL] for Galician, and [AND] for Andalusian who are also ethnic spaniards were also selected from groups. So, it shows there that it shows level of admixture up to 30-40%. In addition BAS is for Basque, and CAN is for Canarians. The actual paper focuses on north african ancestry here, then near eastern ancestry, not so much on sub-saharan african ancestry, which is why it references other papers on that particular issue. With regards to sub-saharan african admixture, the paper cites  this which shows 2.4% sub-saharan admixture, which is greater than the amount present in 'white americans'. Furthermore, it is indeed relevant for Spaniards and 'white americans' to be compared directly, it is explicitly stated that Spaniards are less homogenous, and you can see in this graphic that in a comparison of all global ancestry, spaniards maintain more admixture  than 'white americans'. Alon12 (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Spaniards in general are preferable here, did they test White Americans in that study? Aergas (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They are all ethnic spaniards, so since you tried to cherrypick with red dots, it shows that in ethnic spaniard groups, can also maintain more 30-40% north african admixture at the individual level, also, still 20-30% on average, greater than the admixture found in white americans. Furthermore, 'spa' does not mean spaniards in general, it is from 'Genes mirror geography within Europe'/POPRES, spaniards from a central geographic location in spain. Here is more clarification on this paper . Spa is for Spaniards from the madrid area only, not spaniards in general. When you go to table s1 it mentions [6] as a reference for the Spanish population. Here is what reference 6 is, and here reference 6 mentions POPRES as the source for their data on european populations. And here you see the part of the POPRES project, which focuses on european genetics , it is explained that the data takes the central point of the country as a reference only. "Geographic locations associated with each country were assigned using the central point of the geographic area of the country". While here, it is explicitly stated that Spaniards, in general, are less homogenous , Alon12 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing that you wrote concerns our argument here, and if the study didn't tested White Americans with these markers you can't make a comparison. You said it, all Spaniards are Spain, why do you focus on Andalucia? The "non-white" admixtures found in Spaniards and White Americans are far from being the same or comparable, Spain has Near East and North African, White Americans Sub-Saharan African and Amerindian. Aergas (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Andalusians are ethnic spaniards. Spa in the chart, like I showed you, is for spaniards from madrid only, so, both populations represent different regions of Spain. First of all, you were talking about 'red dots', representing admixtures at levels of 70% according to your theory, based on statistical outliers, despite the very source claiming 90% aggregate admixture. Yet, if you want to talk about statistical outliers found in spaniards, again, you also see north african admixture reaching 30-40%. In figure s10. . This is why when you look at studies directly comparing 'white americans' and spaniards, spaniards in general show more admixture, and this is a global chart, containing all estimated admixture from all sources, spaniards are much higher . Alon12 (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the source you cite, even, which states 11% 'non-european admixture' is inaccurate, it is actually 3% european admixture, according to more specific studies on the same data-set, in reality. Here is more details on the famous study called 'Comparing self-reported ethnicity to genetic background measures in the context of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis' (MESA)' If you look at this study. This study only conducts research on a subset of the cited MESA population set. Those who were effected with LVH, and it is proven that blacks and hispanics were over TWICE as likely to have LVH than 'white americans'. "We used ancestry informative markers (AIMs) and phenotypic data on left-ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) collected in the context of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) to address two related questions: ".

The funny thing is that LVH is specifically associated more with Hispanic Americans and African Americans, from the same MESA group of studies. 

You can see the graphic here, blacks and mexicans and caribbean hispanics are twice as likely to have this condition as 'whites': 

"All Hispanic subgroups also had a higher prevalence of concentric and eccentric hypertrophy compared to non-Hispanic whites (P<0.001)."

" In age-sex adjusted models, Caribbean-origin Hispanics and Mexican-origin Hispanics had twice the odds of having LVH as non-Hispanic whites."

Another study showing similar LVH liklihood being higher for african-americans:

 "). African Americans and males had significantly greater left ventricular mass (P�0.001) than did European Americans and females, respectively"

Even comparing the african-american population you see greater admixture, of the african element, despite most studies demonstrating african-americans to have 79% african admixture, not 84%., this study, for instance, also shows 79% african ancestry when measured in the general population , here is yet another study:



'Self-identified African Americans, on average, had a mean African ancestry of 76%, only 21% were derived from white ancestry, and <3% were derived from Native American populations. '

yet another NEWER article, from the same author of the one who also published 86%:



Even the author now claims 79-80% is more accurate for the general popultion:

" The average proportion of genome-wide African ancestry in the combined sample was 80% (SD 11.5%). When the sample was split based on a CAC cutpoint of 10 H.U., the average proportion of African ancestry was 79% for individuals with CAC ≥10 and 81% for CAC <10 (p-value=0.002). "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3361899/ "Among African Americans, mean±SD ancestry was estimated as 79.9% "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795643/ African ancestry was 79.9%±15.9%

I will talk more about these other last 2 next, so you see out of all studies, this is the only only which shows african americans to have 84%, not 79% ancestry, even when measured against studies that take the genetic population and do not measure a particular medical condition, specifically significantly more prevalent in hispanics and blacks.

This is the original study on the entire subject, you see many factors contained as being measured:



"Examples of these measures are echocardiographically measured left ventricular mass and carotid ultrasonographic measurement of arterial wall thickness, which have been used in the Framingham Study (1), the Cardiovascular Health Study (2), and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (3) to detect underlying subclinical disease and predict clinical CVD (4). Recent developments in the measurement of cardiovascular structure and function make imaging of other aspects of subclinical disease and measuring functional aspects of the vasculature in population-based studies feasible and accurate, providing specific, detailed information that relates more directly to pathology. Coronary calcium is a specific marker of atherosclerosis (5) that has been included in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study (6) and in subgroups in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study and the Cardiovascular Health Study (7). " " Roles have been suggested for a host of other factors in the etiology of atherosclerosis and of clinical events (34), including hemostatic factors"

Here is the genetic admixture data on the same data-set with more balanced data. This is ancestry estimated using both coronary artery calcium and common and internal carotid intima media thickness.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795643/

" In general, Caucasians of Northern European descent such as those in MESA and Chinese groups show very little admixture (<5%) with other populations,"

". It was also confirmed that the MESA Caucasians had greater than 97% European ancestry on average, and thus were acceptable for use as a pseudo-ancestral group. Supplemental Table 2 contains further details."

Here is another study confirming the correlations between the 2 methods used in the above study in the context of race, showing it to have an offsetting relationship, thus balancing out racial biases, for more accurate estimates:[PEA = predominant european ancestry]

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/130/Suppl_2/A16724.abstract

"Participants with low PEA (≤7%) had lower CAC prevalence [PR = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.80)] and those with high PEA (≥ 30%) had lower cCIMT [mean difference = -0.035 (95% CI:-0.06, -0.01)] compared to those with the median PEA. "

Here is the data on another factor, in which 'white americans' showed very little admixture, less than 5%, despite hemostatic factors actually being higher in those with more african ancestry:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3361899/

"Greater African ancestry among African Americans and Hispanics was associated with higher levels of several hemostatic factors, notably fibrinogen"

" In general, Chinese groups and Caucasians of Northern European descent, such as those in MESA, show very little admixture with other populations (<5%); "

Even when compared with the black and hispanic biased LVH dataset, (thus more likely to pick up inviduals with higher admixture than the typical admixture found in the general population) which is specifically 50% in higher liklihood for blacks and hispanics, the african ancestry at max is 0.02, which is still less than that of spaniards. So, the admixture for 'white americans' is actually far less than 11%, it is 3%, while 'white americans' otherwise maintain 97% european admixture, while Spaniards alone maintain 2.4% sub-saharan african ancestry, and 20-30% north african + near eastern ancestry.

(I have to give big explanations, since you don't even seem to understand very basic abbreviations) Alon12 (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find ironic that you are trying to suggest and compare the admixture of White Americans with Spaniards doing a massive amount of non-accepted synthesis yet at the same time you contest a study that directly compares Spaniards with Mexicans and have found them to be similar. Your argument is flawled to the root: White Americans weren't tested with the same markers than Spaniards so the Near East admixture isn't considered, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Additionaly the non-white admixture of White Americans is Sub-Saharan African and Amerindian, product of recent admixing, while the admixture from the Near East and North Africa can be traced back to the neolithic, and on top of this, North Africans and Arabs are considered white in the census of the United States per the White American article. Aergas (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * But the studies, that directly compare 'white americans' with spaniards, on a global plot, also show the same results, that 'white americans' are more homogenous. And you are the one performing said synthesis, since the newest genetic studies, show Mexicans to be more indigenous. Furthermore, what is classified as 'white' in america is irrelevant is irrelevant to what is classified as european in spain, which despite its historical racial caste system, shows higher admixture, than 'white americans', so spain is less genetically european. Alon12 (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * COMMENT - May I suggest that you both stop trying to convince each other. The point of this noticeboard is to get input from other editors. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I've told him that several times but he don't listens, he keeps talking about things that were largely addressed in the talk page for the article already as if nothing have happened. Hes is doing the same thing at ANI . Aergas (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You see, I would like to do that, but Aergas keeps making personal insults like the above against me, in literally every single response he makes. With regards to the talk page, as a result of issues, this was a better recommended forum for dispute by a third party who had handled a previous DRN, but aergas keeps trying to derail this with personal attacks again. I would like nothing more than to talk about pure content alone, rather than individual users, but he won't allow pure content discussion, and prefers to talk about users. Now, with his obsession on personal attacks and me in particular, he is apparently calling other people who are opposed to him on the talk page as sockpuppets of me as well, which is insane. Alon12 (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me give an example. This study, which makes this claim '"The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."', is used to substantiate this statement. "Another group in Mexico, the "mestizos", also include people with varying amounts of European ancestry, with some having a European admixture higher than 90%.[12] " Is this factually true or false, does the study make the cited claim for a specific group of people identified as 'mestizos' who were determined to be in another group explicitly separate from 'white mexicans' or any other group as implied in the statement? ::: Questions like that would be much easier, and would allow third parties to comment, instead, aergas can't do that, and has to go on about WP:Synth, probably because he knows that to show the data on pure content alone, would readily reveal him as false, so he needs to provide synth to help manipulate opinions, as they can't be substantiated per source. I think it would be best to simply provide sources, and then quotes from said sources, with zero opinion from either of us, for example. That would be a much more productive conversation than for aergas to simply claim whoever opposes his viewpoint as a 'sockpuppet' and other equally juvenile ad hominems. Trust me, I would like nothing more than to discuss pure content alone. Alon12 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how I'm "insulting" you to be honest, and it would be better if you waited for third editors to appear, don't make this another talk page, specially when all your concerns were repeatedly addressed there. Aergas (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You miss my point... STOP responding to each other for a while... let other editors look into the issue... let them comment. If someone asks a question, respond directly to that question (and not to each other). Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Are these topics encyclopedic?
I think some topics like the following are not encyclopedic per WP:NOT: They can at most be used as sub-sections of related articles. Mhhossein (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Media coverage of the Iraq War
 * Media representation of Hugo Chávez
 * Media coverage of the Gulf War
 * Media coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting
 * Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict
 * They all could be if you establish that there are secondary sources that write about them. You cannot for example put together an article based on Fox, CNN etc. reports about the war in Iraq and how you compare and contrast them, but if you have articles or books about the coverage then it could be used to prepare an article.  TFD (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that I think these are not free of wp:or. Mhhossein (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the articles rather than the topics? TFD (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we have to discuss them case by case. Mhhossein (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I may easily be wrong but on a quick look though I think they all seem to have significant secondary sources discussing the media coverage, so if there are OR issues they would be within the articles themselves rather than just the topics. Dmcq (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There's some context behind this question. The issue originally came up in discussion of a recently created article on Portrayal of ISIS in American Media. The discussion can be found at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant (the issue has also been raised at Talk:Portrayal_of_ISIS_in_American_Media). EastTN (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They should be merged to original pages.(e.g. Media representation of Hugo Chávez to Hugo Chávez). Bladesmulti (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In some cases there may be a size issue. For instance, the articles on the Virginia Tech shooting and the Gulf War are both fairly lengthy. Splitting out subarticles on Media coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting and Media coverage of the Gulf War helps control the length of the primary articles. EastTN (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally think all of the above are reasonable Wikipedia subpages, but you are certainly free to list up one or all at AfD to get broader opinion. Carrite (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Extrapolation of information in source
As per this discussion here, I have concerns that a particular statement in the article is not clearly supported by the source. It seems to have originally been added by someone unfamiliar with the terminology who has misinterpreted the source's use of similar terms. I claim that as the source does not clearly state what is stated in the article then this is original research (and also probably factually incorrect). My main argument though is that as original research, it cannot be included. Another editor claims that it is possible (or even probable) that it is correct and should therefore be included. They don't appear to recognise that such a claim is original research, or that this is grounds for exclusion from an article.

I was wondering if someone could weigh in on the discussion and clarify if this is original research and therefore whether or not it should be removed.

129.96.83.65 (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I still need some assistance with this. The other editor is firmly convinced original research is acceptable and nothing I can say can convince them otherwise. Can someone independent please weigh in on this debate? 121.45.16.201 (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to summarise the issue:

The article is about the Splashed White marking in horses. The disputed statement says "In the Gypsy horse, [the pattern Splashed White] is called blagdon". What the source actually says is: "The acceptable descriptive terms for the coat colors of the Gypsy Vanner horse are: [...] Blagdon* – Solid color with white splashed up from underneath".

I believe this is original research because Splashed White is not mentioned at all in the source. The source merely describes what the pattern 'blagdon' looks like. It does not state that 'blagdon' is the same as Splashed White. The disputed statement seems to "reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Furthermore, no other evidence to support this conclusion can be found, which is saying something as genetic tests exist for all three Splashed White genes, yet no gypsy vanner has tested positive for any of them. 121.45.16.201 (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I advise reviewers to look at the entire paragraph in context. I updated some sources.  The pattern has been visually identified in Gypsy horses and this is verified in genetics textbooks and the article only states what can be verified. What probably has this anon IP editor upset is that the splash gene is occasionally linked to deafness in a few horses, and people get all panicky if their breed is in danger of carrying something bad.  But deafness is rare even in splashed white horses (it's a complicated issue, but basically the pattern has to include the ears, and even then it doesn't always cause deafness)  Montanabw (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is simply not correct. My issue is that no proof has been provided for any of these statements, and the article sometimes makes claims which are not actually stated in the given source. I have never mentioned deafness at all, and frankly consider it irrelevant to the argument. Please do not put words in my mouth. Your implication that I have a vested interest in the content of this article is simply incorrect and a distraction from the real issue: this is a matter of fact verification only. 14.2.24.179 (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I made a few changes in the wake of your original post and today reviewed the paragraph again, updating some material and updating sources. But the sentence you find so objectionable stands.  Go read the whole paragraph and look at the sources, you may find your objections are no longer needed.  Montanabw (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel at this point I am just repeating myself. The source does not support the conclusions in the statement under debate. It is an extrapolation and a hypothesis, and I maintain this is therefore original research. We are unable to reach an agreement, and so I am asking for someone independent to look into it and make a judgement on whether this is original research, and therefore whether it needs to be removed. 14.2.24.179 (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I also agree we are repeating ourselves. You clearly haven't even re-read the section where the sentence occurs in its entirety. You started with a complaint about the lead, I removed the material in the lead.  You claimed a color pattern was something called "Sabino 2", and I explained that it genetically does not exist (at least,not at present).  Then you claim that the splash pattern doesn't exist in Gypsy horses, when one of the leading equine coat color geneticists in the world, one who specializes in white patterns associated with the KIT gene, says that it does.  The article correctly notes that apparently the Gypsy horse has yet to be tested for the SW-1 gene, but the breed standard clearly says that "blagdon" is a pattern "splashed" up from underneath.  The article only quotes the breed standard, there is no SYNTH.  So, yes, yo just keep going on and on about OR and SYNTH, when I have clarified the issue for you over and over again, plus went out and did some updating of the article to reflect recent research. You are here seeking third party input.  Frankly, so am I. Is anyone out there?   Montanabw (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We are here... but we tend to avoid commenting when all we see is a continuation of the debate from the talk page ... it is hard to get a word in edgewise when the original combatants are dominating the conversation. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. I'd say we've each made our case.   Montanabw (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As I understand, from what is written on WP, "Splashed White" is a pattern linked to a specific genotype. Saying a horse is a "Splashed White" is to say it has a specific genotype that gives it a particular, defined, coat pattern. There is no source cited that says a Gypsy with "Blagdon" markings will have one of the recognized genotypes whose expression in another breed is called "Splashed White". A Gypsy Vanner may have a marking that looks as if "white is splashed on" but that does not mean that it has the specifically defined genotype that breeders call "Splashed White". To represent that the Gypsy Vanner has a particular arrangement of genes just because it *looks* like it does is OR.

TL;DR "Splashed White" is a phenotype of known and defined genotype. "Blagdon" is a phenotype of unknown genotype. To say one is the other is not only OR but factually unsupportable. Jbhunley (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost, but not quite. "Splashed white" as a concept existed long before the genetic test.  You are right that "blagdon" is a mere phenotype.  But read the article where it is defined by one of the breed associations, and note exactly how it is stated in the article. Please read just Splashed_white.  The controversial bit is in paragraph 4 but the little bit preceding it should give you the context.  I think the concerns are addressed.     Montanabw (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I missed this comment and did an edit on the article page and left a note on the talk. I apologize for not responding here first. Anyway, I did read the section you mentioned. I also read the other related sources and picked up a horse genetics book to review. The issue is that there seem to be, by my reading, several genotypes that can give the 'Blagdon' patterned coat and that there exist many horses that are 'Blagdons' that do not have any SW genes. (This is from searching the web and finding discussions where people had tested their Blagdon marked Gypseys and and they were negative for SW). To say Blagdon == Splashed White. On the whole I would suggest looking at allow the breeds listed as "Color patterns describes as splashed white but not yet identified by genetic testing.." to make sure they are actually identified as 'Splashed White'. In the case of the Gypsy Vanner breed description "...white splashed up from underneath." describes a pattern that could easily be Sabino or something else. The American Paint Horse Guide to Color Coat Genetics describes 'Splashed White' as "usually makes the horse look as though it has been dipped in white paint. The legs are usually white, as are the bottom portions of the body. The head is also usually white and the eyes are frequently blue". Very different from what Blagdons look like. There might be something out there that says that some Blagdon Gypsy Vanners are may in fact be Splashed Whites but I have only seen that on discussion boards not in any RS. I would suggest for accuracy's sake that you take a look at the other "suspected" Splashed White breeds listed to make sure that the sources say "Splashed White". Inferring equality based upon common adjectives used in a description is OR on WP. You may or may not be right but it is for that very reason that it should not be in WP. JBH (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC) (JBH == jbhunley)


 * I reverted that edit and have given a longer answer at article talk. If you read the sources (I made some changes to update the article since this has been raised), you will see that there are yet to be ANY Gypsy horses DNA tested for the Splash genes, we only have WP:RS scientific sources saying that the phenotype has been identified.  The article does NOT state (now, nor did it really in the earlier version either) that "blagdon" IS splashed white, but merely that the definition of blagdon given in one of the Gypsy horse breed standards contains the "splashed" language.  I was very careful in doing the article update to avoid OR or SYNTH.  I have been involved in the writing of nearly all the equine coat color articles on WP, and am trying to keep them up to date. I am willing to discuss this further at the article talk page, as I think everyone here who wanted to comment has.   Montanabw (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Can someone close this discussion? It's gone back to the article talk page and I think it is resolved there. Montanabw (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bastard Operator from Hell
In the article Bastard Operator from Hell the "Characteristics of the BOFH" section has been tagged as original research. However, I find this content to be mainly description of the cited (primary) sources. Any help with this would be most appreciated. eeeeeta (η) (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The entire article raises issues of WP:OR and WP:NOTE. The only secondary source is The New Hacker's Dictionary, which appears only to be used to define the term BOFH. Unless there are some other secondary sources, it seems like this topic lacks notability (WP:NOTE) and does not belong in an encyclopedia. If it is a notable topic, then most of the article needs to seriously be rewritten based on secondary sources. Currently, essentially the entire article is an interpretation of the primary source: Travaglia's BOFH stories. This is an inappropriate use of primary sources and constitutes original research. See WP:PRIMARY. --Onefireuser (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And the sections were using same article tags, I have removed one of them from the section. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BOFH is a notable element of hacker's lore, as several secondary sources attest. However its literary merits were not scholarly analyzed; it is just one long running joke, IMO overexploited by the author today: IT professionals no longer have the power vested onto big iron operators. -M.Altenmann >t 06:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting that the big iron page you linked to also appears to contain mostly OR. --Onefireuser (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Newport Beach California Temple
A statement is made in the Newport Beach California Temple article that "The temple is located at what was once the entrance of the Coyote Canyon Landfill". The references used to support this statement are 1, 2, 3 and 4. None of these references even mention the temple building. Additional original research used to support the statement is found on the talk page is the statement "As a kid growing up here, we would be tasked, by the courts for minor violations (speeding on our mini bikes and the like) to "pick up trash, at the dump", I was one of those kids. :)" ( here is the entire diff.) Another editor has put this to a RfC, but this noticeobard may be a better (or additional) venue for resolution. All I am looking for is a published statement from a reliable source that the Newport Beach California Temple is located across the street from a former dump. The statement appears to be supported by original research to me, but would like further input from this noticeboard. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that number 4, CLEARLY SHOW THE TEMPLE (using the "zoom feature") as well as the landfill and its proximity to each other, contrary to the representations made in the above statement... talk→   WPPilot   17:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I clearly state that my own memory of this place does not carry any weight with regard to the facts. 5 links were provided that each show this area was the Coyote Canyon Dump. The above user mentioned a month ago that if this is true, it is notable and should be included. The same user was also dead set on inserting this temple into the Also See section of the Newport Beach webpage: results here I was flying over it 2 weeks ago and even took a picture to support the 5 citations the talk page has listed upon it. The conversation has been on the talk page for a month now and previously user Bahooka went through this with the Newport Beach page, asserting that this temple was notable enough to provide "more information" about Newport Beach. Original Research (OR) on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Here we have 5 notable/state websites/publications, as well as a photo that show this is reclaimed land. If we discredit all 5 of those links, and disregard the maps that each provide the prerequisite citations for this fact it is delusional. "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. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.) Using this link: (#4 above) http://www.yourmapper.com/details/176/110043787774/coyote-canyon-sanitary-landfill.htm#location a editor can zoom into the north end of the "green toxic zone" and you can read, "The Church of Jesus Crist of the Latter..... is on the other side of the street from the toxic zone. Also note this link http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/coyote-canyon-landfill predates the temple altogether in some cases but it provides 15 refs that could be used to support this as well. talk→   WPPilot   16:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The assertion is obviously not true. The spot indicated in reference 4 is southeast of the location of the temple; if you look around in GMaps you can see that Mariner's Church is east of the temple and north of the spot indicated as the address of the landfill. Map reading is always borderline if not outright OR, but if there is a plain discrepancy a citation is absolutely needed. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So you look t the map(s) (4 are presented) along with the 15 stories in the Register link. It was never said this place was built on a landfill, the fact is the building sits on the entrance to it. Sure 1 map may be hard to read, but 5 maps and 15 stories about it are something totally different. I can tell you that, (this IS personal observation, no one that grew up here would ever live near this place, as it has a long standing reputation of health issues, as mentioned in the register for people near it) The address used on Newport Dr. is the south end of the location, we are talking about the north end. Using the photo to confirm, (photos do not lie) you can see the "toxic area" is across the street from the temple. talk→   WPPilot   19:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

http://www.ocweekly.com/2012-03-15/news/moxley-confidential-anna-d-steiner-newport-coast-social-services-agency/ talk→   WPPilot   19:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the word "on" means something different to you, but I see nothing which suggests that the temple was even adjacent to the landfill. In fact the main entrance is opposite Prairie Road, which connects to Ford Road, which ends at the driveway to the San Joaquin Reservoir. The whole Rivage development lies between this and the landfill (it's mentioned in some of the LA Times articles about methane seepage). Even if you can get a citation that the entrance was on Ford Road (which seems unlikely considering that everyone gives an address on an entirely different road) that's not going to be enough.


 * You say the photos do not lie. Well, they say something different to me than what they apparently say to you, indicating that there are issues of interpretation here. Interpretation is the original research that's being complained about. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the interest of finding out, unconditionally I did some ORIGINAL research.. (took a photo while also flying an airplane) You are correct, in that the landfill is really about 100 feet away from the temple, according to the maps, and other then the map that shows the area extending to the other side of the road, nothing says and no one including myself has claimed that it is on the dump, but that it is near, what was once a landfill. There are a LOT of nice places, that are built near landfills so its proximity really is not of concern to the comment. This was a continuation of a conversation regarding notability of the building. talk→   WPPilot   21:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

St. John's Park
St. John's Park contains original research, specifically SYNTHESIS, since it does not accurately cite reliable, published sources directly related to the topic and directly support the material being presented. The article contradicts itself:

lead
"St. John's Park is a plot of land owned in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place."

subsection
"The inner portion of the plaza, inside the rotary, is still referred to as "St. John's Park" and appears on Google Maps as such, but it is not legally accessible to pedestrians."

In the first sentence of the article (which should clearly define what the article is about) one sees a claim that the "plot" known as St. John's Park as being the entire city block which is the site of the rotary mentioned in the subsection. The phrase in the subsection clearly states that the "plot" is bounded by the rotary itself. The descriptions are contradictions. The "plot" is bounded by an interstate highway roadway, not the streets mentioned in the lead. (The situation is correctly described in that article.)

Ives Architecture reference
The Ives Architecture Studio reference, a map, shows the block bounded Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Ericsson Place to be named the Holland Tunnel Rotary, and makes absolutely no reference to St.John's Park.

NYC Maps reference
The NYC Dept of Transportation reference in the first sentence of the article serve only to clarify that Ericsson Place is the the name of the block along the street otherwise known as Beach Street and makes absolutely no reference to St. John's Park.

AIA reference
The AIA reference is the only one in the entire article that supports the whole premise & first sentence of the article and the only truly reliable one to support the the claim that "St John's Park is a plot of land". It states: '''"The circular wasteland within the Holland Tunnel Exit Rotary is still called "St. John's Park"'''.

Google Maps reference
While the Google Maps reference does label the nearly circular plot of land within the rotary St. John's Park, it unfortunately, and confusedly, describes it as an "outdoor sports & play plus rec center" which is direct contradiction to the claim that it is inaccessible, as claimed in Wikimedia Commons reference. (The use of "legally inaccessible" is not at issue here and has more or less been resolved at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, though specific appropriate language has not been decided upon.)

Djflem (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Google Maps, this has already been discussed on the talk page. It's a bit confusing, because Google Maps contains both reliable content, such as place names, and user generated content, such as descriptions and reviews. The description ("outdoor sports & play plus rec center") is user generated content, and is not being cited by the article. The "St. John's Park" label is not user-generated, and should be considered to be reliable. Pburka (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For something to be synthesis there must be a conclusion drawn that is not supported by a source. I understand the conflict seems to be about the physical boundaries of St. John's Park, but can you clarify exactly what claim has been synthesized? Rhoark (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

U.S. college and university admissions
In Rankings of universities in the United States there is a section titled "Acceptance Rate (Selectivity)." Is this section, which includes a list of colleges and universities based solely on this source, original research?

My primary concern is that this section is based on only two news articles that describes or lists a handful of colleges and universities but the section presents this as a full-fledged ranking system comparable to all of the other rankings in the article e.g., U.S. News & World Report College and University rankings, United States National Research Council Rankings, Washington Monthly national universities rankings. Additionally, the source used for the listing in the article explicitly described as (a) preliminary and (b) very incomplete as it is only "drawn from the top 20 schools on each of two sets of the U.S. News & World Report rankings, for liberal arts colleges and national universities." ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For it to be original research, it would have to be information or a conclusion not found in any reliable source. The problem you have identified is "cherrypicking" Where there is qualifying or contradictory information about the claims in the source, that information should be included along with the claim. I believe this is fulfilled where the article notes the list is drawn from "some" of the most selective colleges. If there are particular colleges you think need to be included, and can separately find reliable sourcing for their acceptance rate, it would not be original research to include them in the same table. Rhoark (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your suggestion that we can simply integrate material from disparate sources. But that isn't happening so it's a non-issue.  What is an issue is classifying this listing published in one newspaper article as a full-fledged ranking system in contradiction to the description in the lead of this very article.  This may be useful and interesting information in an article about college admissions (although I still contend that it's too limited even for that use) but it's a problem than a Wikipedia editor has made a leap to classify this list as a ranking system. ElKevbo (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Synthesis requires that some new thesis or idea be presented. Collecting bits of information into a table, from one or multiple sources, is not synthesis. See These_are_not_original_research. If I am to understand correctly, its the word "ranking" that you object to? The use of the sorting widgets on the table makes it a ranking, and is not original research. No implication is made that it is an important metric for judging one college against another. If you feel it is important to note that the source did not present them as an ordered list, I don't suppose that would be harmful, but seems unnecessary. The irregularities in how different colleges calculate admission percentages, however, does seem like important qualifying information. Rhoark (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input but it's not clear to me that you've carefully read the article in question. The lead gives a decent definition of a ranking and nearly all of the examples listed in the article fit that definition and are good examples of rankings.  However, this particular one stands out as it clearly doesn't use any "combination of various contributing factors."  It's one very incomplete list published once by a reporter and it's incredibly misleading for Wikipedia authors to present it as a full-fledged ranking system comparable to the others ones included in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see where in the article a source is provided for the claim that a ranking must use more than one factor. A lede should reflect the content of the body, so if we have a ranking based on a single factor, the lede should be updated to reflect that a ranking can be based on a single factor. Rhoark (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Mexicans of European Descent
For the article Mexicans of European descent, this line in the lede does not substantiate its claim.

The line: "Another group in Mexico, the "mestizos", also include people with varying amounts of European ancestry, with some having a European admixture higher than 90%."

The source: "Geographic Patterns of Genome Admixture in Latin American Mestizos">FIG.No.4: Large differences in the variation of individual admixture estimates were seen across populations, with the variance in Native American ancestry between individuals ranging from 0.005 in Quetalmahue to 0.07 in Mexico City.

The reference here does not substantiate the line in question. The reference specifically states 'The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection', so it simply referred to the entire region as 'mestizo', it does not make sense to refer 'another group', as independent from 'mexicans of european descent', unlike what the line implies, since data was collected on a regional rather than ethnic basis. Alon12 (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why the sentence where that source is cited mentions that the definition of mestizo might vary from study to study. Aergas (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The definition of 'mestizo' here is purely on a geographical basis, it has nothing to do with any specific group. So, it does not measure mestizos on a per country basis, per whatever national definition of mestizo, it does not specifically measure mestizos at all, it simply measures all the inhabitants of a region known for being admixed. Alon12 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what the sentence that states "definition of mestizo might vary from study to study" is there for. What's confusing you? Aergas (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ""definition of mestizo might vary from study to study"" That line does not exist in the particular paper. This does: 'The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection'. Therefore, you cannot use this link as a reference for that claim. Alon12 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a source that mentions that the definition of mestizo is extremely wide and vague, it can be added that way, although in the end it means the same thing. And I've told you before: You are supposed to wait for third editors to appear Aergas (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You cannot use another source to make a claim that another states. My original post was very clear with references exclusively from the source, there was no need for you to make a response in the first place. Alon12 (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"Original research problem--blogger quoting himself on Wikipedia"

 * The following popped up on my user talk page;,, . I think that this is a more appropriate venue for it. bd2412  T 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to take this issue. I've just become aware of it. User:BillJamesMN apparently does some blogging and has over the years created several Wikipedia pages that contain primarily original research This includes Disposable_energy which quotes his own articles. Divided Sovereignty is not much better as the cite for its definition doesn't show the relevant portions (only a few words of the article are accessible at present.) The material in it is mostly quoting of the Federalist papers and the editor's own opinion of primary sources. I'm not wanting to remove material if it is actually properly supported as relevant and adequately citing secondary sources, but these two articles strike me as improper uses of Wikipedia. Red Harvest (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like it might be more serious than just that. He's also author of JPods.  On their site he is listed as "Bill James: Founder, CEO, Director. BS-West Point. Logistics implementation in the Army, manufacturing experience at Honeywell, and computational background creating statistical process control and process management software has prepared James to lead the realization of solar powered mobility. He also holds the patent to JPods’ framework technology" Red Harvest (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the Constitution's Preamble, Federalist #45, #51, #17, Amendments 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson's "Divide It Among the Many" letter to Joseph C. Cabell underscores the importance of Divided Sovereignty.

"No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.

Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.

What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate. And I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that man shall never be free, (and it is a blasphemy to believe it,) that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence by a synthetical process, to higher and higher orders of functionaries, so as to trust fewer and fewer powers in proportion as the trustees become more and more oligarchical.

The elementary republics of the wards, the county republics, the State republics, and the republic of the Union, would form a gradation of authorities, standing each on the basis of law, holding every one its delegated share of powers, and constituting truly a system of fundamental balances and checks for the government. Where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward-republic, or of some of the higher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day; when there shall not be a man in the State who will not be a member of some one of its councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner than his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or a Bonaparte. How powerfully did we feel the energy of this organization in the case of embargo? I felt the foundations of the government shaken under my feet by the New England townships. There was not an individual in their States whose body was not thrown with all its momentum into action; and although the whole of the other States were known to be in favor of the measure, yet the organization of this little selfish minority enabled it to overrule the Union. What would the unwieldy counties of the Middle, the South, and the West do? Call a county meeting, and the drunken loungers at and about the courthouses would have collected, the distances being too great for the good people and the industrious generally to attend. The character of those who really met would have been the measure of the weight they would have had in the scale of public opinion. As Cato, then, concluded every speech with the words, "Carthago delenda est," so do I every opinion, with the injunction, "divide the counties into wards." Begin them only for a single purpose; they will soon show for what others they are the best instruments. God bless you, and all our rulers, and give them the wisdom, as I am sure they have the will, to fortify us against the degeneracy of our government, and the concentration of all its powers in the hands of the one, the few, the well-born or the many." BillJamesMN (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All of this does seem awfully WP:SYNTH-y, and the "divided sovereignty" concept offers nothing that is not already covered by Federalism in the United States, except for excessively lengthy block quotations on the subject. bd2412  T 15:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Frogmen
This is a situation that has been ongoing since June 2012. The Frogmen is a fictional Hollywood film from 1951, about a group of UDT divers in World War II. It had an "Errata" section that talked about how the types of scuba gear the actors used in the movie were inaccurate and anachronistic because they would not have had that type of equipment back then, it wasn't invented until after the war, etc. I deleted it per WP:FILMHIST and WP:OR on June 27, 2012, and provided explanation, citing policy, on the talk page. Anthony Appleyard restored it that same day, I deleted again the next day, reemphasizing the reason, we went back and forth on the Talk page, his general argument was that the "mistakes" made by the film makers might be misleading to people interested in the history of scuba diving.
 * Anthony Appleyard restored the section on October 26, 2012, this time renaming it "Plot Faults", with the edit summary "Restore, or please discuss.", as if it had not already been thoroughly discussed. I redeleted November 19, 2012, pointing out in edit summary and on Talk page that renaming the section "Plot Faults" did not address the violation of WP:FILMHIST and WP:OR.
 * He restored it again on January 16, 2013, with the edit summary "This is relevant to some; or please discuss", again seeming to pretend that this had not already been discussed. I redeleted on April 18, 2014, again emphasizing in my edit summary adherence to relevant policy.
 * He readded on August 28, 2014, with his edit summary saying "This info is relevant to many scuba divers who watch this movie, and there is an external reference." WP:FILMHIST states that sections on historical inaccuracies in fictional films can only be incorporated "if ample coverage from secondary sources exist about a film's historical or scientific accuracy." Anthony Appleyard's external reference is a post by "conradb212" on a scuba diving internet discussion board. This source does not meet Wikipedia standards per WP:USERG which states "...For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Though this guideline goes on to states "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications," neither condition is the case for the source Anthony Appleyard is trying to use.

Given that Anthony Appleyard has restored this information that violates WP:FILMHIST four times already despite thorough explanation of the policy, I have little doubt that he will restore it again now that I have redeleted it, (his MO has increasingly become to wait a few months), so I would like to ask for outside input on this issue. Thank you.Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, OK, point taken. I realize the situation. Re "He readded on August 28, 2014,": I got the impression then that that matter was deleted only as not notable. Sorry. Re "It had an "Errata" section that talked about how the types of scuba gear the actors used in the movie were inaccurate and anachronistic ... ": I had been into scuba diving since the 1960's and I remember much of those old times. The intervals between the 4 above incidents are about 4 months and 3 months and 19 months, and the last was nearly 6 months ago. Sorry. I realize. This discussion also seems to be touching on whether fiction film plot and production faults are noteworthy. I realize. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks, I appreciate your reconsidering. Since this is resolved, a volunteer can close this, or I will do it myself tonight when I'm on my computer.Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC related to the setting of a motion picture
I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film is set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City"). Another editor claims that only secondary sources should be cited.

In this particular case, all of the elements in the film itself clearly and overwhelmingly indicate New York City as the setting (see the RfC for details). However, the secondary sources (mostly film commentaries) are more confused. Some secondary sources mention off-hand that the film was set in New York; while others mention Chicago as the setting. The confusion is perhaps understandable, since the original Broadway play of Glengarry Glen Ross was set in Chicago.

I believe that in this context, direct reference to the primary source (the film) to settle the argument is allowable because the primary source is being used to cite a "straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The other editor disagrees, claiming that this would be original research and insists on using only the secondary sources. We have gotten to the point where we are arguing about the qualifications of the commentators in the secondary sources. To me it feels like we are arguing about whether it is raining outside, when we could just go and look out the window. Comments welcome. Xanthis (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Primary doesn't mean unreliable. Rhoark (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Susan Crean
Hi,

(Couldn't find a WIKIPEDIA/SYNTH Noticeboard - I hope I'm in the right place ...?)

Article: Men's Rights

Source: Crean, Susan M. (1988). In the name of the fathers: the story behind child custody. Toronto: Amanita. pp. 107–108. ISBN 978-0-921299-04-2.

Article section: // Child custody

Family law is an area of deep concern among men's rights groups. Men's rights activists argue that the legal system and family courts discriminate against men, especially in regards to child custody after divorce.[64][65][66] They believe that men do not have the same contact rights or equitable shared parenting rights as their ex-spouse and use statistics on custody awards as evidence of judicial bias against men.[67] /..../

Critics argue that empirical research does not support the notion of judicial bias against men[64] and that men's rights advocates interpret statistics in a way that ignores the fact that the majority of men do not contest custody and *** do not seem to want it.[67] ***" //

Problem:
 * It is the *** starry, starry *** sentence at the end of the quote that poses a problem.

Crean's book covers issues surrounding the introduction of new family law in Canada in 1988. However accurate Crean's description of the issues, events and attitudes one could observe in Ontario more than 25 years ago, it can provide only scant justification for a blanket statement that fathers today - everyone of them, everywhere - generally do not want custody of their children.

Proposed Edit
 * My opinion is that since the claim is unsupported, the claim must go; but perhaps there are other suggestions as to how one would best amend the article.

Desired feedback:
 * If there is a consensus that Crean's 1988 local investigation - however true it may be - is not a reliable source for a universal claim that fathers do not want custody of their children, there are two options: to be bold, and edit,

or to propose a change on the talk pages. I favour the latter, but it would be nice to hear an outside opinion on whether Crean, for the purposes of the _article claim_ (not the content of the book itself), can be considered a RS or not, whether the claim is SYNTH/OR or not - the mood at Men's Rights can easily degenerate into the partisan, so it won't do to fan any flames.

Previous discussion
 * I aired this on the talk pages in November 2013 (archive page 22, "On Fathers' Rights"), and I think that by now I have left ample time for disagreements to be voiced, of which there have been none since my last edit in that section on that topic.

T  88.89.217.109 (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The operative question is whether the claim is in the source. If not, it should be removed entirely and immediately. If it is in the source, it is not original research. There may be other reasons to remove it, and it almost certainly should be qualified as an opinion of a particular person in a particular time and place. Rhoark (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thx for answering, and pls forgive me for claiming more attention, but could it be specified what "the claim" is? As per above, there are two claims: A) A majority of men in Ontario in 1988 did not want child custody, according to Crean; and B) A majority of men in general do not want child custody, according to editor interpretation of Crean on the Men's rights page. I do not contest A, but I do contest that A can reasonably be used as evidence for the much wider-in-scope claim B.
 * I would also feel fairly confident that even if Crean proposes B, that a claim about the state of affairs in Ontario 27 years ago is not sufficient support for the truth of that assertion today. The difference would be that if Crean does not state B, the entire claim can be removed; if Crean does state B, the section could be expanded to reflect the qualifications listed in the response above.
 * T 88.91.200.83 (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "if Crean does not state B, the entire claim can be removed; if Crean does state B, the section could be expanded to reflect the qualifications" - all there is to it Rhoark (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. T 2001:4610:A:5E:0:0:0:16E1 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that "T" has been trying to get RS removed since 2013. The perfectly reliable Crean source supports the statement 100 percent. The full quote is: The men's rights movement, which has taken up joint custody as the rallying cry for fathers of all persuasions. Taking the statistics on custody awards as incontrovertible evidence of judicial bias against men, they pay no heed to the fact that the vast majority of men do not contest custody and do not seem to want it. "T" needs to accept consensus and drop the stick. "T" is welcome to provide RS about the MRM that are more in line with his perceptions of the MRM. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Eliza Jane Scovill
Eliza Jane Scovill was a child who died of AIDS-like symptoms. The mother, who's an AIDS denialist, hired Mohammed Al Bayati to perform an autopsy. Al Bayati concluded that Eliza didn't die of AIDS, but something else. The dispute arises over whether Al Bayati's qualifications should be listed in the article. I think it violates OR, specifically Synthesis. In particular the qualifications being on the page implies that Al Bayati is not qualified to do the autopsy. Either the sources linked made this assertion (Al Bayati not qualified to do the autopsy) or they did not. If the sources did make the assertion, then the text is imperfect since it does not explicitly make the statement. If the sources did not make this assertion, then the text constitutes Synthesis. Against that Yobol thinks it provides vital context and should be included, and that there is nothing wrong with providing the facts for the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

Need help on this one. We've come to rather a dead end on the talk page. Banedon (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Assuming you have sources that are individually reliable for claims A and B
 * Synthesis:


 * A, therefore B.
 * A because B.
 * A; however, B.
 * Not synthesis:


 * A. B.
 * A and B.
 * Rhoark (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that's the textbook definition. Yobol and I clearly disagree with that definition as applied to the article, which is why there's a dispute. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the material in question falls under the "Not Synthesis" rubric above, it is clear that it is in fact not synthesis. Yobol (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted an RfC for this topic. Please see Talk:Eliza_Jane_Scovill. Banedon (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Did the homelessness cause the deaths?
There is a dispute in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict regarding the issue of people (including babies) dying in the cold. We have discussed at the talk page but as we are stuck, I am asking here for comments. This is what I first inserted:


 * "As of 1 February 2015, only US$125 million of the $2.7 billion had been paid out, leaving tens of thousands of Gazans still homeless. At least four people (including three babies) were frozen to death in the cold."

It was sourced to this article in Swedish by Helsingborgs Dagblad. The following is a translation made by me about the two sentences regarding homeless Gazans and people dying in the cold:


 * This means that tens of thousands Gazans are still homeless, and at least four people, whereof three babies, have been frozen to death during the last month's winter cold.

UNRWA have also said this:


 * "This is a tremendous achievement; it is also wholly insufficient. It is easy to look at these numbers and lose sight of the fact that we are talking about thousands of families who continue to suffer through this cold winter with inadequate shelter. People are literally sleeping amongst the rubble, children have died of hypothermia," Turner added."

and have said that the claim is not supported by the source, with the first one saying "Neither of those quotes says what WarKosign has pointed out ("an infant died of cold after their house was damaged/destroyed in the recent conflict") so it's still OR" and the second one saying, amongst other things, "As far as I can tell no source explicitly connects the freezing to death to the buildings being damaged in the fighting. They mention the damage and that some families remained homeless so is a very reasonable conclusion that a reader can draw, but I don't think it was ever stated explicitly that "an infant died of cold after their house was damaged/destroyed in the recent conflict". They even mention infants dying in Lebanon, certainly it was not connected to the conflict".

I and have said that the claim is supported by the source. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For the Nth time, I do not say that it's OR or SYNTH and do not object to including it.
 * I pointed that the source does not explicitly say that homelessness caused hypothermia, it is implied by the grouping of the sentences. The phrase that you added to the article does the same, so it is OK. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it was the best available venue to write in.


 * The source does say it's because the homelessness. It is not something I am interpreting myself but what they are stating. If you are not against the wording I used, that's good. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your translation is a compound sentence that consists of two independent clauses: "This means that tens of thousands Gazans are still homeless." and "At least four people, whereof three babies, have been frozen to death during the last month's winter cold."
 * Turner's quote does the same: "People are literally sleeping amongst the rubble, children have died of hypothermia" - it is implied that the first part causes the second, but it is never stated explicitly. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's clear that they connect it to the homelessness and destruction of homes. Here is a statement by one from UNICEF: "Four infants died from complications caused by the bitter cold in Gaza in January: four-month-old Rahaf, one-month-old Adel, three-month-old Salma and 18-month-old Fadi. All were from families whose houses were destroyed during the last conflict and were living in extremely dire conditions". --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's another example of the same - this source does not say explicitly that the destruction of the houses was the reason they died, it lets the reader draw this conclusion. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can have a look here, compare Compounding Sentences ("one thing simply comes after another and the logical relationship between the ideas is not always evident or important") and Subordinating One Clause to Another ("subordinating one clause to another establishes a more complex relationship between ideas, showing that one idea depends on another in some way: a chronological development, a cause-and-effect relationship, a conditional relationship, etc."). &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @WarKosign. Does your comment above mean you're within the consensus that the original content can be re-added? Just want to make clear I haven't misunderstood your statement.TMCk (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not object to including the content above or any other content unless it adds explicit causality not present in the source.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IRISZOOM, you forgot to mention the fact that I objected to quoting the Swedish source on EN Wikipedia but it doesn't matter if you're going to use Al Jazeera English's article. How about writing "In February 2015, Al Jazeera reported that four infants from families living in Gaza whose houses were destroyed during the war died from complications caused by cold whether in January." I think this is NPOV.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, also, I suggest everyone read that article. It's about how children has died because they got burned trying to keep warm (or more likely, since they were infants, someone else accidentally burned them). The objective folks at Al Jazeera sensationalized it by titling the article "Babies die in Gaza due to the resource siege" but no one actually says that and all the article discusses is how children have died from burns that they received as they tried to stay warm.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How dare you say something may not be Israel's fault. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And I have explained to you that it's acceptable to use a Swedish source, Monopoly31121993, so you were wrong on this. I don't know why you keep saying we can use other sources when this one is acceptable.


 * The official from UNICEF does say to Al Jazeera that the destruction of homes led later to complications they later died of. We also got other reports about such complications, such as an official from UNWRA. I repeat, there is no doubt we can use Helsingborgs Dagblad's report and the claim they made does not seem odd considering other reports similiar things. The quote in Al Jazeera can certainly be used but that does not mean we can't use the one from Helsingborgs Dagblad.


 * I see that you now have removed it again and replaced it with the report from AJ. Why did you later remove from your own edit that it was four infants and that complications caused by the cold was the reason? You replaced it with "died from fire accidents caused by improper heating". But UNICEF does not say so. Read the sentence above that quote: "Even as open fires and poor electrics pose a risk for displaced families, icy and damp conditions continue to claim young victims of hypothermia" and the quote by Catherine Weibel from UNICEF. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources in other languages are allowed, but English is preferable so as many editors as possible could review them. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * IRISZOOM, I used the source you gave here. What's the problem? And yes, I changed it after I actually had read it and realized it wasn't saying exactly what you claimed, it was saying something different.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Look carefully, it supports the deaths of hypothermia as well. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you continue say that the claim is not there. Read my last answer here about the quote from a UNICEF official. They do talk about the cold. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this better represents what is in the source. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you google gaza babies dying cold you´ll find lots of sources, including this Ynet article, and this Maan.news: "A Palestinian infant fell ill and died due to severe cold in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip on Friday"  "Her family reportedly continued living in their damaged home despite the destruction. " Huldra (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are many articles on that. I linked to that article by Ynetnews in the talk page. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the ynetnews article carefully. It doesn't imply any connection between damage to the buildings and the hypothermia; it is mentioned but the stated reasons for deaths are the extreme weather and lack of fuel for the power station. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this entire discussion relates to your reading of one edited quote from Al Jazeera I have simply added the exact quote and the name and title of the person who gave it to the article. It reads as follows: In late February 2015, Al Jazeera quoted Catherine Weibel, UNICEF's Communication Chief in Jerusalem, who said "Four infants died from complications caused by the bitter cold in Gaza in January... All were from families whose houses were destroyed during the last conflict and were living in extremely dire conditions." Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WarKosign, yes, some sources does not state it directly but those who have been in the article and others have done it.


 * Monopoly31121993, I think the wording I used match what the article in Al Jazeera says but if you want to use a quote, okay then. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OR policy is not a tool for censorious campaigns against the possibility a reader could draw their own conclusions. All that matters is what the article says, not what the reader might think. Rhoark (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Synthesis" argument used to reject any mention of a common phrase
The dispute is regarding Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178. This is the "survivor's issue" which was (correctly, IMO) retitled to something more neutral.

The problem began with an editor who claims that absolutely no use of the phrase "survivor's issue" is to be permitted. I have pointed out that it has been used by a large number of reputable sources. (This point is not in dispute.) My original edit said "also known as the survivor's issue", but I was and am open to any rephrasing. I don't really care where the mention is in the article. The point is, a lot of people and sources are using this as a alternative title or synonym for issue No. 1178 and so it bears mentioning somewhere.

So, this dispute is NOT about: retitling the article, making any claims about the prevalence of the phrase "survivor's issue", inserting the phrase "survivor's issue" into any particular place or in any particular way, inserting any bias or emotional or original content into the article in any way, a particular fixation on preceding words such as "known as". (If there is a better way of prefacing that phrase--"unofficially known as", "sometimes known as", etc.--that is fine, but other editors involved in the dispute have not proposed any that they would deem acceptable.)

This is simply about being able to use a phrase that many reliable sources use in some fashion. ANY fashion.

The synthesis argument being used to argue against this: apparently, it's like like Simon Says. To use a phrase you have to find a source referring to another source using the phrase--otherwise, it's synthesis. It is not enough that multiple reliable sources are using a particular phrase to identify a particular thing--we must have a reliable source that identifies a reliable source that is identifying a particular thing with a particular phrase. In this particular case, the argument is that I can't say "also known as the survivor's issue" because no source contains that exact quote.

I believe this is absurd on its face.

First off, no one has suggested the need for a source that says the magazine in question "is known as issue No. 1178". Meta-sources are only required for certain things, it seems.

Also, Wikipedia is more than a collection of literally verbatim quotes from other sources. The prohibition on synthesis does not forbid all forms of paraphrasing or editing. If it did, all of the articles on the front page right now would have to be purged of at least 90% of their content.

Analogy: it is akin to removing the phrase "also known as salt" from the top of the sodium chloride page if it turned out all of the sources only directly referred to sodium chloride as salt (or vice versa) and did not contain a literal phrase along the lines of "...known as salt".

Synthesis is not a synonym for paraphrasing or summarizing. Synthesis should not and cannot be used to ban a widely used phrase from an article on the basis that no meta-source can be found that analyzes or comments on other sources' use of that phrase.

Am I wrong?

It only works in practice (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And let's be really, extra clear on something: there's a lot of text on the talk page about "generally" and "widely" that has muddied the issue. That's not the dispute, and that wasn't in my original edit. This is about banning any mention of the phrase "survivor's issue" on the sole basis that the sources don't appear to self-referentially talk about the usage of the term "survivor's issue".  It only works in practice (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is one further point to consider: implicit labeling. If I point at something and say "ball", the very obvious implicit statement I am making is "that thing is known as a ball." Similarly, usage of the phrase "survivor's issue" when clearly referring to Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178 contains a very clear implicit "is known as (at least to me)".


 * However, regardless of this point and regardless of the article in question... I think the broader issue of what synthesis actually is (and isn't) needs to be addressed and clarified. It only works in practice (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there, It only works in practice.  Using the phrase "best known for" is something editors don't like in BLP articles.   It's best to stick to facts.   Provided you word your contribution carefully, you should be all right.   This report from Thursday's "Daily Telegraph", published just across the English Channel from France, may be of interest.

Charlie Hebdo back on the streets

The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo returned to newsstands yesterday with the words "We're back!" and a cartoon depicting the Pope, a jihadist and the French far - right leader Marine Le Pen as a pack of enraged animals.

The magazine took a break from weekly publishing after rushing out a "survivors' issue" a week after the Jan 7 jihadist attack on its Paris office in which 123 people were killed. The new issue is due to have a print run of 2.5 million and will be published as far afield as the United States. Before the attack the normal print run was 60,000. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is paraphrasing or contextualizing - totally standard, benign, and necessary elements of editorial discretion. WP:NOTOR Rhoark (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

AJ Lee
The situation stems on me citing a song AJ Lee used in 2011 for the list of songs the subject used as an "entrance theme", or a song used while the subject walks out to before she performs. reverted my edit and notes that the source I used had the song performed on it, but did not explicitly list the title or artist of the song. If I linked another source that plays the song and states what the artist and title is, would that count as WP:SYNTH? -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 00:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Summarizing, transcribing, translating, or paraphrasing an audio source is a general editorial activity that shouldn't need sourcing unless there's an honest dispute about whether the transformation was inaccurate. Rhoark (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Army Ranger Wing
The Army Ranger Wing is a unit of the Irish military. Myself and User:IrishSpook are in dispute at Talk:Army_Ranger_Wing about the size of the unit. There are presently two sources referring to the size of the unit. One source states "Information on the numerical strength of the Army Ranger Wing and the identity of its personnel is restricted but it's known the unit has a fluctuating strength of about 150.", while the other states "the Army Ranger Wing, has increased in strength by almost one-third ... The 30pc increase in numbers pushes the overall strength of the Wing to well over a hundred". I believe that both estimates should be included, but separately.

IrishSpook wishes to combine the two, stating "the strength of the unit in 2013 was over 150 members, in January 2014 the manpower of the Army Ranger Wing saw an increase of one-third (1/3) or 33.3%. This gives the unit a strength of up to 200 personnel." This reasoning looks like typical synthesis to me. IrishSpook thinks they can sidestep synthesis by simply removing the references, arguing "if all the references are removed it's no longer synthesis" "no longer reffed, can't argue synthesis now mate" "150 or 200 isn't original research it was "synthesis", can't be so if there's no refs" "there is no synthesis if there isn't references" etc. etc. IrishSpook has also that the unit size not being 150 is "something I know personally." We are getting absolutely nowhere talking to each other, and I don't want to get blocked for edit warring with them. Does anyone have any input? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Simple calculation is not original research, so if it were known that the unit were of a particular size at a particular time, it would be alright to multiply by 1.33333... But that isn't known. It could have been anything as it "fluctuated around" 150 before the 1/3 increase, so you can't do the math. Removing references is just vandalism. Rhoark (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The second proposed statement (by IrishSpook) is an assumption and considered synthesis. The claim that it is "something [he] know[s] personally" certainly falls under original research. Include both unit estimates and both references. Meatsgains (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeopardy! episode count
I've found this noticeboard in an effort to resolve issues at the Jeopardy! article relating to the episode count as set forth in the article's infobox. Some editors have apparently contended that it is impossible to accurately and verifiably set forth the number of episodes, and/or that any episode count necessarily involves "original research". Actually, counting episodes is a matter of routine calculation by counting calendar weekdays based on a few simple factual premises. I have written an essay detailing those premises and setting forth the simple calculations necessary to compute episode counts. The episode count currently listed in the article ("6,829 as of June 13, 2014") is factually inaccurate, as it is based on two incorrect assumptions (that Alex Trebek has hosted every episode of the show--he hasn't--and that the episode with which Alex set his record was the same one with which the video footage of the Guinness award presentation aired on June 13, 2014--it wasn't). Although I'm disappointed that the editor who added this incorrect information has declined to remove it, despite extensive discussion, my real concern is that this editor now wants to include a hidden note in the article "warning" future editors that episode counts can never be verifiably sourced. My feeling is that such "information" itself is original research since it has no basis in any evidentiary foundation, and moreover, as shown in my essay, the bases for accurately computing episode counts are well known. Although this problem should seem simple, it seems to have become intractable. In the spirit of furthering the Wikipedia process, I welcome some unbiased third party interest in the issue. Robert K S (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If it takes an essay to explain how the number is arrived at, I can't see how one could describe it as 'routine calculation', as required by WP:CALC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Because some editors denied the concept of counting? I appreciate that perhaps you're trying to be funny, but sincerity is important here. Please read the essay.  To boil it down to one sentence: we know how many Jeopardy! episodes have been produced up to the beginning of the current season (because we know, from authoritative sources, how many episodes are in each season); we know what date the current season started (not least from an official press release); from there, you count calendar weekdays.  Simple.  Even if you don't find it simple, the point is, it doesn't involve original research.  Robert K S (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not 'trying to be funny', and I read your essay before responding. If it takes an essay to explain how the number is arrived at, it isn't 'routine calculation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And if you can explain it in one sentence, as I just did? If a computer program routine is many pages long, is it no longer a routine? Robert K S (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You have not explained how you arrived at the answer in a single sentence - you have instead linked your 3000+ word essay explaining how you arrived at the answer. And please stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you might have missed it in some cross-editing. To boil it down to one sentence: we know how many Jeopardy! episodes have been produced up to the beginning of the current season (because we know, from authoritative sources, how many episodes are in each season); we know what date the current season started (not least from an official press release); from there, you count calendar weekdays. Robert K S (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't a single-sentence explanation of how to arrive at the number - it is a sentence saying that you know how to arrive the number. Your explanation providing the detail needed for someone else to actually come up with the number by doing the calculations themselves is a 3000+ word essay. This is not 'routine calculation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but I disagree. The fact that a calculation may be involve a few different factual predicates does not make it any less routine.  A calculation is routine so long as a known set of steps can be followed to perform it.  (See dictionary definition--"a sequence of actions regularly followed; a fixed program".)  Here the routine is relatively simple, as described in bold above.  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The steps aren't 'known', except in as much as they are laid down in your essay. That is WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My essay shows such steps as "reading a book", "looking at a calendar", and "addition". I didn't realize how novel these steps were! :-)  Seriously, though, there isn't any original research in adding up numbers.  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a simple question for you: would you expect people to consistently arrive at the same number working from the sources provided if they hadn't read your essay? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. All seasons of Jeopardy! have had 230 episodes, except for the first two, which had 195 each.  (See book reference(s).)  Season 31 began last September 15.  (See press release.)  The show airs weekdays.  To get the episode count as of the first episode of Season 31, add up all previous seasons' episodes, and add one for the first episode of Season 31.  For any other episode in Season 31, look to the calendar, count weekdays, and add them. Robert K S (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I asked. Personally, If I was asked to answer the question, I'd have to conclude that there was insufficient information to do so. You say that "All seasons of Jeopardy! have had 230 episodes" but seem to be relying on sources which cannot be used to source that - they clearly can't say how many episodes per season there will be in series after they are published. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Eisenberg reference states that the decision was made to switch to 230-episode seasons in Season 3. That evidence is controlling with respect to the fact that the 230-episode season continues, in absence of evidence to the contrary.  Not only is there no evidence to the contrary, there is not even any reasonable dispute.  Not a single editor is arguing that Jeopardy! no longer has 230-episode seasons.  Even if there was some factual dispute over that one fact (that Jeopardy has a 46-week season and always has since Season 3), I would simply point to the Nerdist podcast with Alex Trebek, published during Season 30, in which he points out that the show still does 46-week seasons, and that would end the dispute.  But I can't agree with the more general proposition that a fact, once established, "expires" and requires constant re-sourcing.  Without getting too hyperbolic, would you argue that it is impermissible to write that the U.S. Constitution is still in effect, without some source stating affirmatively that it wasn't abrogated yesterday?  Robert K S (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Many aspects of television production have changed since 1993. Arguing that something from 22 years ago is still true today without providing reasonable evidence to back that up does not meet WP:V. Also arguing that—because you can provide no evidence to the contrary—the details from a source dated 1993 have not changed also does not meet WP:V.
 * WP:PROVEIT states that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You are arguging that a linked, WP:V source from ABC News is inaccurate, yet cannot provide evidence to verify your claims that the details are incorrect.
 * You link to The Nerdist podcast, but don't provide the timestamp of when the details are discussed. Again, the burden of proof lies upon you to provide this information as the one who is attempting to add the material. The Nerdist podcast discusses the 46-week length of Season 30 (2013-14) at 25:14. That can be referenced using Template:Cite podcast. However, Trebek states at 25:26 that "We've always done 46", and this refutes your claim that seasons 1 and 2 had lower episode counts, and also contradicts the two sources (Richmond and Eisenberg) in your essay, calling into question both the accuracy of the two earlier sources as well as Trebek's recollection of details from 29 years earlier. You can't claim both sources are correct when they contradict each other, and details about television production from a source that is 22 years old can be reasonably questioned because of the changes in overall television production since that time. AldezD (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The editor continues to suggest a manual WP:OR counting method to determine episode count described in his essay, which uses outdated and WP:SELFPUB sources. In addition, the user ignores a WP:V source from ABC News that gives an episode count that has already been added in the article's infobox. When pressed to present further evidence that meets WP:V backing up his own claims, the user again references his own manual counting method and does not participate in the discussion, calling others' statment of facts and . The user also engages in WP:3RR WP:DE behavior  removing WP:COMMENTs that explain why the ABC News source is included and tagged to the data in the infobox.


 * When challenged, the user instructs other editors to read his OR essay, where the user's assertions are purported to be supported by Inside "Jeopardy!": What Really Goes on at TV's Top Quiz Show by Harry Eisenberg. However, that source is dated 1993, and does not account for nor verify any changes to production of the show (specifically, episode count) following the publication of that book. This is Jeopardy!: Celebrating America's Favorite Quiz Show, by Ray Richmond, is also used in the user essay as a source, but this source is dated 2004 and does not account for any changes to production following the book's publication. The J! Archive is also listed as a source in the user's essay; however, this link is fan site and falls under WP:SELFPUB since the site was created and is maintained by user himself (see User:Robert K S, bullet #5). Because The J! Archive is not affiliated with production of the show and does not provide third-party validation as to the contents, there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. AldezD (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's just all ad hominem and misdirection. There's no good faith effort to examine the problem.  The sources in the essay aren't "outdated," as the facts therein haven't changed (this isn't even a matter of reasonable dispute).  I guess the complaint is just that one of them dates to 1993 while another dates to 2004.  Well, sorry, but that doesn't make any substantive difference.  No "self-published" source is relied upon.  AldezD raises the existence of the J! Archive again and again, but the J! Archive isn't a source relied upon for the computation.  AldezD says I've "ignore[d]" his link to a news story reporting an award given to Alex Trebek.  Far from ignoring it, I've pointed out the two reasons why it doesn't provide the episode count information AldezD uses it for (Alex Trebek hasn't hosted every episode of the show--Pat Sajak once hosted--and the episode with which Alex set his record wasn't the same one with which the video footage of the Guinness award presentation aired on June 13, 2014--the award states on its face that the record was set April 17, 2014, i.e., the last date of taping of Season 30).  An episode count ending in a 9 as of a Friday is "patently false on its face" since such number would have to be a multiple of 5 (given that Jeopardy! airs every weekday).  Attempting to enforce the inclusion of hidden message in a Wikipedia article stating, without evidentiary basis, that "a truly accurate episode count ... will always lack reliable sourcing" is properly characterized as "insane", since such a warning insists that a Wikipedia article can never be updated with accurate information.  Robert K S (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Robert, your essay and recent edits are filled with condescension, yet when presented with clear WP guidelines and requests for information that meets WP:V that is not based upon counting days in a calendar, you devolve into WP:3RR/WP:DE, then claim others are not acting in good faith. Multiple editors on the talk pages of these articles have requested from you WP:V sources that backup your WP:OR essay, and the discussion here has validated those requests.


 * You claim the facts haven't changed since the source publications in 1993 and 2004, yet cannot provide WP:V evidence that those facts have not changed. You claim The J! Archive is not a source relied upon, yet it is referenced within your essay before the manual calculation method suggested, and even when WP:AGF, is most likely the calendar source you personally are using in your suggested counting method. You claim the ABC News story is false, yet fail to provide sources that meet WP:V and show the source already presented–a national news site–is incorrect. AldezD (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did provide a link to a podcast showing that the 230 episode count has not changed since the sources' dates; even if I hadn't, I don't recall it being the rule that one must prove that sourced facts haven't changed since the date of the source. You must admit you have no reason to believe that the length of the Jeopardy! season has changed since 2004.  It's just your speculation, and it's why I brought this issue here to begin with.  I'm not claiming the news story is false, only that it doesn't state anywhere, explicitly or implicitly, that for which you offer it to show.  The sourced factual premises for the episode number computation are here and the J! Archive is not one of them.  And you might want to check the three-revert rule one more time.  It's not a good idea to accuse others of bright-line misconduct that they haven't committed (my three edits were over three days, March 7 to March 10, not 24 hours). Robert K S (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Recentism
The show is still ongoing. Why are we even bothering to give a current episode count? Mangoe (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A good question. It does seem rather pointless to spend a great deal of time and effort arguing over a number that even if it is correct will only be valid for a short time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I address this issue at the beginning of my essay. Giving a reader a general idea of the episode count is especially significant for long-running programs.  My feeling is that it should be updated enough so as to at least be accurate within a season's worth of shows.  This provides a basis of comparison for Jeopardy! with other long-running programs like soap operas, etc.  Jeopardy! is among the top syndicated shows in terms of longevity--it may even be the longest, by episode count.  By having an accurate episode count in the article, a casual researcher would be able to notice something like that. 184.56.243.93 (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming the IP is User:Robert K S (since the previous edit references "[his] essay"), again you are using sources that conflict each other to determine this episode count, and the calculation steps necessary to arrive at this number fall under WP:OR. The linked source from ABC News already in the infobox is sufficient, "provides the reader a general idea of the episode count", is dated "within a season's worth of shows" (June 2014, less than one year ago), and meets WP:V. AldezD (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There still remains the little problem that the source you insist on citing to does not say that 6,829 episodes of Jeopardy! had aired as of June 13, 2014. Robert K S (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Response to AldezD
(Outdent from argument above) "A lot of things have changed in TV since 2004" (the date of the Richmond reference) is not a reasonable basis for believing that Jeopardy! no longer has a 230-episode season, or hasn't had one at any point since 2004. The reference to Eisenberg satisfies the evidentiary burden that the show switched from the standard 39-week schedule to a longer 46-week schedule in its third season. That burden having been satisfied, it is now to the disputant to show that the show switched to some other schedule. You have not done that. You don't even have a reasonable basis for thinking it could be the case. Instead, you have insisted on including inaccurate information in the article, namely, that 6,829 episodes have aired "as of June 13, 2014". You say that I "cannot provide evidence to verify your claims that the details are incorrect", but you know this very well to be false, because I have provided such evidence to you, more than once. You have offered no responses to any of these points. You have not proposed any reasons for these inconsistencies. Robert K S (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The first piece of evidence that the episode count you claim is incorrect is the text of the news article itself, which does not state that 6,829 episodes of Jeopardy! aired as of June 13, 2014. Rather, it states "[t]he folks at Guinness World Records gave Trebek the award in a show that aired Friday, marking his 6,829th hosting of the show."  This does not mean that the episode aired June 13, 2014 was the 6,829th episode of Jeopardy!  (It does not even mean that the episode aired June 13, 2014 was Alex Trebek's 6,829th time hosting the show.)  So, as I've said before, the article does not support the information you insist on keeping in the article.  When you were asked to please point out where in the article it states that 6,829 was the episode count as of that date, you found yourself unable to do so.
 * The second piece of evidence is basic logic. Jeopardy! airs weekdays, i.e., five times in a Monday-Friday period.  The episode aired June 13, 2014 aired on a Friday.  Thus, the episode number would necessarily have to be a multiple of five, i.e., it would have to end in either a 5 or a 0.  6,829 ends in a 9, not a 5 or 0.  Thus, the number cannot possibly be correct.  (It is actually fairly easy to resolve the real reason why the number ends in a 9, as explained in my essay.)
 * The third piece of evidence is the award itself presented to Alex Trebek, as described in the news article. That award states on its face, "The most gameshow episodes hosted by the same presenter (same program) is 6,829 by Alex Trebek on 'Jeopardy!' in Culver City, California, USA as of 17 April 2014".  You have not been able to resolve the discrepancy between the June 13, 2014 airdate and the April 17, 2014 date on the award.  (I have.  Alex Trebek had hosted 6,829 episodes produced (not aired) as of that date, which was the final tape date of Season 30.  Some time thereafter, Guinness presented Alex with the award, and footage of the presentation was included in the June 13, 2014 show.)


 * A simple question: Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable in published reliable sources: which source(s) are you proposing to cite for your number? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those in my essay. As discussed previously, all that is necessary is Eisenberg and the press release. Robert K S (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Robert, you are using three sources, one of which contradicts the other two. As noted above, Trebek comments in The Nerdist podcast that "We've always done 46 [weeks of shows]", yet you also cite two other sources (Richmond and Eisenberg) in your essay which state the first two seasons consisted of 39 weeks of new shows. These two references contradict Trebek's more-recent comments, calling into question the WP:V of all three sources. As I stated, "If you do not agree with an episode count of 6,829,"—the number featured in the ABC News story—"remove it and the linked source." However, including your own episode count based upon manual calculation and contradictory sources does not meet WP:V. AldezD (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully submit that your too-literal interpretation of Alex Trebek's casual use of the word "always" in the podcast does not contradict Eisenberg when it is clear that Alex Trebek is speaking generally, while Eisenberg presents a detailed, specific account of how the show came to switch from a standard 39-week to 46-week schedule in its third season. (I believe Eisenberg credits Trebek's dislike of reruns for the switch, which corresponds with Alex's statement in the podcast.)  Moreover, assuming that Alex Trebek's "always" should be taken literally (to mean that every season in the Trebek era has had 230 episodes), there would have been 230*30 = 6,900 episodes through the end of Season 30, i.e., through August 1, 2014, which cannot be resolved with the "6,829 as of June 13, 2014" you have insisted on including.  Also, as I've stated before, it is not necessary to rely on the podcast to source the information that Jeopardy! switched from a standard 39-week to 46-week schedule in its third season.  That evidence having been established (by Eisenberg), it must be shown, by more than mere speculation, that the season length has switched again in the time since.  You have offered no such evidence, and indeed have not given any reasonable basis to believe that there has been a schedule change (there hasn't). Robert K S (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't pick and choose what parts of your sources are true and which are factually incorrect. That does not meet WP:V and most certainly falls under WP:OR. References should be interpreted literally, otherwise they should not be used as cited works within an article. You have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that ten and twenty-year-old details about the production of a television show still hold true, especially when a later source (the podcast) refute your assertion that the earlier sources are factually correct. Even when presented with the claim that these sources contradict each other, you are in effect saying "Use only part of this source but ignore the rest because I know it to be incorrect" without providing details beyond a reasonable doubt that your WP:OR is factual. Regarding what I am "insisting on including", I have offered the suggestion multiple times to remove the ABC News story as a reference and the associated episode count if you do not agree with the data in the source. However, replacing a linked, WP:V source with your own manual WP:OR calculation based upon selective referencing and manual calculations does not meet WP:V. AldezD (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the Nerdist podcast, because you find it contradictory with other sources when taken literally, then don't cite to it. I only offered it because you insisted on presenting bogus doubt on the undisputed issue of how many episodes are in a Jeopardy! season.  "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a criminal law standard for conviction, not the Wikipedia standard.  I have provided evidentiary sources, and you have not countered them with any credible evidence.  You have not proposed any sensible theory of episode numbers that adds up.  But I'm not worried about any of that, because I expect those issues will be moot soon when the show promotes its 7,000th episode (see my essay).  The reason why I came here is because you insisted on inclusion of a hidden note in the article stating that episode counts will never be sourceable.  You did so without evidence and accused me of edit warring when I asked you to provide some evidence for such an assertion.  Robert K S (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the editor ...yet the information presented in the podcast confirm my doubts about the validity of the 10 and 20-year old sources you earlier presented. You now say to ignore those details you originally presented as factual and are again picking and choosing the information you deem to be factually correct in your WP:OR calcs. AldezD (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. Picking and choosing parts of a source to support an argument while discounting other parts of it because they don't fit in with your conclusions is WP:OR. And having to cite multiple sources for a single statement which can be found in none of them is synthesis. The simple facts of the matter are that it is impossible to verify the number from any of the sources given - they are contradictory. And no, 'beyond reasonable doubt' isn't the standard we are applying here - the standard is verifiability, and the number (which we have no pressing need to include anyway) cannot be verified without engaging in speculation. I see no point in discussing this further - Robert K S asked for the opinion of an "unbiased third party", and I have given mine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. But as I mentioned, the issue I brought here is not verifiability of the episode count by my computations.  The issue that needs looked at is the verifiability of the statement that AldezD apparently insists on including in the article, stating that "an accurate episode count ... will always lack reliable sourcing".  That is nothing more than blind insistence based on nothing.  As I've pointed out, Jeopardy! will soon be airing its 7,000th, and this landmark is likely to be accompanied by a press release or news story that will both vindicate the computations as I've set them out and provide a handy citable source.  The need for the unbiased eyes is to remark on the propriety, under WP:OR, of an unevidenced claim that episode count sourcing can never exist. Robert K S (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to have put a great deal of time and effort trying to convince us about something you now say isn't the issue. As for hidden notes, they make no difference to the reader, and if and when a reliable source regarding the number of episodes can be found, the article can cite it - whether it verifies your computations or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So your position is that original research can go in an article, as long as it's in a hidden comment? I'm just trying to understand what the rules are, here.  Robert K S (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My position here is that I see no point whatsoever in wasting any more time over this matter - hidden notes have precisely zero bearing on article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They form invisible content of the article. Saying that WP:OR does not apply would seem to leave little reason to dispute any content--even if balderdash--from being added invisibly to an article.  And that's the case here. Robert K S (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Donors Trust and Franklin Center
There is a dispute at Donors Trust. Donors Capital Fund, and Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity over whether this Guardian source can be used to say that DT and DCF granted US$6.3 million to the Franklin Center for a media campaign against wind and solar power and to oppose state-level responses to sea level rise. There is no dispute about the reliability of the source. The question is whether this is an over-interpretation of the source per WP:SYNTH. I'm pinging those who have weighed in:, , and. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The source does not say that $6.3 million was used for an anti-solar/wind media campaign. In fact, closely reading the article gives rise to the obvious conclusion that this was not all used for "a campaign against wind and solar", in fact there is no way in the ref to know how much (if any) way earmarked for such a campaign. This looks like a clear WP:OR problem. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The verbatim lede from the source, included in the ref at Donors Trust for convenience (since deleted): "Conservatives used a pair of secretive trusts to fund a media campaign against windfarms and solar projects, and to block state agencies from planning for future sea-level rise, the Guardian has learned." Hugh (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The title of the source: "Media campaign against windfarms funded by anonymous conservatives." Hugh (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rough paraphrase of the source as used in Donors Trust: "Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund granted US$6.3 million to the Franklin Center for a media campaign against wind and solar power and to oppose state-level responses to sea level rise." Hugh (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Rough paraphrase" is the very problem, i.e. should we be sourcing to "rough paraphrases" or do we require sources to say things explicitly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here the intention was merely to distinguish from close paraphrase. Hugh (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH is a policy on WP editors, not a requirement on the authors and editors of our reliable sources. In this case the author and editor of what is conceded to be a reliable source of the highest rank, writing in plain English, agree on the proposed content. That is what we hope our investigative journalist will do on a good day. Synth if any is in our sources, where it belongs, not a WP editor. This one is easy: no synth, no OR. Hugh (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're missing the other side's argument. The Guardian published X. You want to include in our article Y. The question is whether X and Y are close enough (or whether Y logically follows from X) such that we are allowed to do this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No inference of any kind is necessary to accept this content, just a reading comprehension level sufficient to understand The Guardian, which is pretty middling. The proposed content is a reasonable paraphrase of a very reliable source. No conclusions are drawn. No synth, no OR. Hugh (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insult. You have an interesting approach to consensus building. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel offended. No insult was intended. Hugh (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that, to not-so-roughly paraphrase, you're saying I don't have the reading comprehension level sufficient to understand The Guardian. So now you have insulted and lied to the one editor who gives you any support at all. Keep it up, champ. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about you. Again sorry if you took offense. Hugh (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then who were you talking about? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors who have made substantial edits to Donors Trust:, . Hugh (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors who have made substantial edits to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity:,.
 * Why did you choose those editors? There are many editors who have made larger contributions to those articles than them. Now we have to ping them all to avoid the appearance of canvassing. Sigh.             --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree this is a case of WP:SYNTH. It seems the Guardian author might be implying the Donors Trust money was used to fund this anti-wind energy campaign, however the author does not come right out and say "Money given by Donors Trust to the Franklin Center was used for this campaign..." If the author had felt strongly enough that there was causal evidence for this assertion, maybe they would have written this. But they didn't. So it's inappropriate for us, as summarizers of sources, to put such a conclusion in our article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "...the author does not come right out and say "Money given by Donors Trust to the Franklin Center was used for this campaign..." EXACTLY what the author says in the LEDE SENTENCE of the reliable source is the grants to FC from DT & DTF were used for a 1. campaign against wind & solar and 2. to block sea level response, and that's ALL the proposed paraphrase says. This could not possibly be more clear. 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the lede of the article says "Conservatives used a pair of secretive trusts to fund a media campaign against windfarms and solar projects, and to block state agencies from planning for future sea-level rise, the Guardian has learned." That is different from saying "Donors Trust gave money to the Franklin Center for a campaign against wind energy." Do you see why we are having this discussion? You are substituting in the names of the organizations where you believe they belong, but that's not what the source, in fact, says. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hugh, your pinging of other editors is quite creative, taking a rather selective view of the article's edit history. Please read Canvassing. Fred Bauder and Cwoebeel have each made exactly two edits to the article. I ran a contributor analysis and found 14 other editors--not bots, and not editors currently named here--who've made more. Sigh. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources appear to say that $6.3 million was given to the trust, and that the trust was used to oppose wind and solar energy. These claims are in the clear. That the money was given to oppose wind and solar cannot be said unless the sources say so explicitly, which does not appear to be the case. Rhoark (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The quote: "Conservatives used a pair of secretive trusts to fund a media campaign against windfarms and solar projects, and to block state agencies from planning for future sea-level rise, the Guardian has learned." This quote does not support the edit. This does specifically not say that $6.3 million was donated to fund an anti-wind/anti-solar campaign. Nothing in the article specifies how much (if any) was earmarked for anti-wind/anti-solar "campaigns". Capitalismojo (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worse than I thought; the article says that $6.3 million was donated by Donors Trust to Franklin, and that (unnamed people) used "a pair of secretive trusts" (well, actually, they aren't "trust"s) to support those specific projects (at Franklin). We know what those "trust"s are, but they weren't explicitly identified in the article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I was wondering how long it would take and who would be 1st to try an litigate that maybe the "pair of secretive trust" of the lede are not Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. After all, how do we KNOW? Hugh (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Arthur, come on, that's taking things too far. "The two funds" refers to the only thing it could, "the trusts, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund" that are described 3 sentences earlier. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The source could not be more clear: the funds were used for 1. a media campaign against wind & solar and 2. block planning for sea level. That is what the source says, in plain English. And that is ALL the proposed parphrase says. The source does not use the term "earmark" but neither does the proposed paraphrase. Please help us all focus on the proposed paraphrase. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It could indeed be more clear. Lets take the sea level bit, for example. That is apparently a project of the John Locke Foundation not the Franklin Center which received the "trusts' money". It seems highly doubtful that it took the "trusts" money, and there is no indication in the article that it did. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree. There is one grant described in the source, the $6m DT/DCF to FC (another dollar amount in the source is an aggregate of all DT/DCF spending offered on background). FC is identified with the media campaign and the sea level bit with other. so...
 * Revised paraphrase of the source: "Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund granted US$6.3 million to the Franklin Center for a media campaign against wind and solar power." Hugh (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the source does not say that. It just doesn't. We can't read our surmises or theories into the text. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe some sentence diagramming will help? "Conservatives used a pair of secretive trusts (Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund) to fund a media campaign against windfarms and solar projects (Franklin), and to block state agencies from planning for future sea-level rise (Jon Locke and others)" Is this not our mutual understanding of the source if not the lede? Our paraphrase of a source in WP may take into account the whole source, are we now focusing too much on the lede? Hugh (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you are inserting your own words into a quote? Really? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that was not proposed content, that was to see if you & I have the same understanding of the source and its lede. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * More insight: John Locke is, according to the wikipedia article, apparently entirely self funded. Donors Trust and DCF 990s list all their donations. In what is not a surprise, there are no contributions from DT/DCF to Locke, ever. Since the article doesn't say it explicitly, and since Guidestar shows it is actually untrue, we had best not put it in an article. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We agree, no one is proposing we mention Locke or sea level in DT, DCF, or FC. Hugh (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In an effort to advance the discussion a bit, it's clear to me the source does imply the proposed content. However it does not expressly state it, and for that reason I don't think we should can include it. It's quite unfortunate that a highly reputable news outlet would publish a piece with unstated implications, thereby confusing the reader. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It could not possibly be more clear that the source explicitly supports the proposed content, "Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund granted US$6.3 million to the Franklin Center for a media campaign against wind and solar power." No profound leap of logic is required. Hugh (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If what you're saying is true then why has no one agreed with you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Brandi Love
Is this edit OR? It was removed here stating it is, but I added it to the Lead as a simple observation of the award categories that this person has won or been nominated for. It does not even seem like a "stretch" or exaggeration to make the statement, its just a summary of a significant part of the article. Am I wrong or missing some other aspect of OR? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable summary of the awards section. Not OR. Rhoark (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Interaction of WP:OR and WP:Cherrypicking
I have posted a question at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research regarding the intersection of WP:Cherrypicking and WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Comments are appreciated. Rhoark (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Goes Before Optics
There is an article on Theatrical Lighting Equipment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobo_(lighting)

It is about a Gobo. The current article states: "A gobo (or GOBO) derived from "Go Between" or "Goes Before Optics" is a physical stencil or template..."

This has no citation, and is incorrect. I have attempted to update this by citing the history of the word itself from an older dictionary to demonstrate its correct history. I did so using this source:

(Merriam Webster New Collegiate Dictionary. G & C  Merriam  Company, Springfield Mass 1979  ISBN 0-87779-358-1) Gobo pl. gobos, also goboes [origin unknown] 1: a darkstrip  (as of wallboard) to shield a motion-picture or television camera from light. 2: A device to shield a microphone from sound.

A dictionary is absolutely the correct publication to cite the history of a word, and by demonstrating a different definition than is stated, and by doing so from a dictionary published in an era before these items were commonly employed, I believe I have conformed to the strictures of Wikipedia.

However, my corrections were discarded, and the erroneous "Goes Before Optics" item is back in place, without a cited source of any kind.

I am a Professor of Lighting Design at an accredited university. I am open to seeing any argument about this, provided that it is cited. However, it is highly improper for my cited argument to be dismissed in favor of an uncited conjecture.

Thank you for your consideration.

Matt Kizer


 * There does not seem to be a verifiable scholarly etymology, but it is often treated as an acronym in actual parlance. Both aspects should be reported. Rhoark (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It has no citation and I have removed it. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Calendar synthesis?
In this edit User:156.61.250.250 cites some early 20th century news stories and concludes "This is a paradox, since a church or country cannot change to the Gregorian calendar twice (unless it has stopped using it in the intervening period)." The editor also concludes "Where a source says that a church or country adopted a certain calendar it is not necessarily correct." I suggest these conclusions constitute synthesis. Furthermore, the sources are inappropriate; news stories are known to often be inaccurate and Wikipedia article should rely on secondary sources for events long past. Finally, instruction in how to use sources is not suitable material for a Wikipedia article, even if the instructions were correct. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is nothing to do with synthesis, which is conflating statements to make a claim which neither of the statements makes.  Jc3s5h says we should use secondary sources - which newspapers are.   Since he says newspapers are inaccurate, it is appropriate to use the primary sources.   WP:RS says that "the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors" and that the more checking is done of what is reported in secondary sources the better it will be.   I have explained this in

For 12 years from 1700 Sweden used a modified Julian calendar, and adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1753.

The only way to confirm information regarding a change of calendar is to examine the relevant legislation. (See Gregorian calendar). An authoritative source states that Russia changed on 31 January/14 February 1918 and Greece on 10/24 March 1924.

Areas of Russia not under Bolshevik control at the start of 1918 changed on different dates. The date given for Greece is actually the date that the Greek Orthodox Church adopted the Revised Julian calendar. For civil purposes, Greece changed on 15 February/1 March 1923.

In the twentieth century the Roman Breviary, the most authoritative source apart from the Papal Bull, stated that if the Epact is 25 and the Sunday Letter is C Easter Sunday is 25 April. It may still say that, and it is wrong. Some calendars are so alike that it is difficult to tell them apart. The Gregorian and Revised Julian dates are currently identical. For Muslims, the dates in the Turkish Islamic calendar, Umm - al - Qura calendar of Saudi Arabia and tabular Islamic calendar may be the same but they have different rules. There are a number of variations of the tabular calendar.

and Jc3s5h has raised no objection. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Jc3s5h has tried this trick before. I removed a quote from an authoritative source that he had inserted into Gregorian calendar because mathematically the information could not be correct. Jc3s5h restored it because in his view if it was in a reliable source it should be included. I then had to ferret round for a source which said the information was incorrect before I could remove it again. That's the old "Verifiability not truth" canard which was thrown out years ago. To preserve our reputation we can and must warn readers that authoritative sources cannot be relied upon if that is the case. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's true that the disputed section "Adoption paradox" is not synthesis, but at the same time it's not really about the Gregorian calendar either - rather, the section discusses the accuracy of sources, an issue which is not limited to calendars. As such, it is not suitable for the article in question. Arcorann (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a sub - set of the whole.  By definition, what is relevant to the whole is relevant to the sub - set also. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * After rereading the disputed section, I retract my statement about the section not being synthesis. Arcorann (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's obviously synthesis, because it is based upon a particular interpretation laid upon a set of newspaper reports. Simply from the excerpts provided it is unclear exactly what happened other than that the Turks went off the Islamic calendar and (eventually, perhaps immediately) adopted the Gregorian. After all that the point being argued is unclear. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph is absolutely synthesis - your definition is flawed. If reliable sources come to the same conclusion you do in that last paragraph, then cite them. Otherwise, the text is original research. In addition, you either or unknowledgable or wikilawyering when you stated in this diff that "The majority of editors have not said this is synthesis". Consensus is not based on vote counts, and no one supports your edit except you. Finally, I know you are evading, and you know you are evading. That you are obsessed with these articles is OK, if only you could follow WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:OR, and WP:RS. You are heading down the rabbit hole again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Evading?  You seem to make a habit of casting unfounded aspersions  and editing the SPI archive, something which is not done.   Stop leaving stupid messages on my talk page.   At least you accept the section is kosher (oksher?) apart from the last paragraph, which you are arguing about.   I was unaware of Mangoe’s post when I made the change.


 * The last paragraph contains five sentences:

This is a paradox, since a church or country cannot change to the Gregorian calendar twice (unless it has stopped using it in the intervening period).

A self – evident truth.

Words mean different things to different people.

I don’t think anyone would dispute that. The word rapariga in European Portuguese means simply a girl. In Brazilian Portuguese it has a pejorative meaning.

Some legislation is clarification of previous legislation after people have been arguing about what it means.

A good example is the Calendar (New Style) Act (1751), which clarified the Calendar (New Style) Act (1750).

You can verify that by reading the statutes (or get a Turkish speaker to do it for you)

What I don’t understand about Wikipedia is why some editors like to make readers jump through hoops to get information – a quick journey to the law library and the job is done, but some editors insist that readers must wade through stacks of books in the hope of finding one that contains the information they seek.

Where a source says that a church or country adopted a certain calendar it is not necessarily correct.

Another self – evident truth. Wikipedia guidelines point out that there is no such thing as an infallible source. There is one possible exception (not mentioned in Wikipedia guidelines), the Pope speaking ‘’ex cathedra’’, but that does not apply here.

Replying to Mangoe, the statement does not rely on any interpretation of news reports. As I say above, it is a self – evident truth. It’s like saying “If you pour water into a bucket which has a hole in it the water will flow out”. No source is required to demonstrate the truth of that. The sequence of events is


 * 1. A reliable source reports that the Turkish parliament has approved legislation introducing the Gregorian calendar.
 * 2. The legislation passes.
 * 3. A reliable source (nine years later) reports that the Turkish parliament has approved legislation introducing the Gregorian calendar.

The point of the section is to alert readers to the fact that secondary sources can and do give misinformation on calendar issues, and it is for that reason that some people (Jc3s5h for example) like to cover their backs by getting it straight from the horse’s mouth. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's the problem... If you want to alert readers to the fact that secondary sources can and do give misinformation on calendar issues, you need to find a source that directly notes this fact. Without such a source, stating that fact is Original Research.  Furthermore, the concision that the sequence of events create a paradox is OR... it is based on your own analysis of the sources. In order to avoid OR, you need a source that takes the same sequence of events, and reaches the same conclusion (that they create a paradox).  It does not matter whether the logic of your analysis is accurate or not.  Our policy is that you can't take bits of information and state a conclusion... unless a source has taken those same bits of information and stated the same conclusion first.  It does not matter how "self-evident" the conclusion is... if a source does not state it, we can't state it in Wikipedia... even if the conclusion is absolutely accurate and true.
 * (By the way... if you poor water into a bucket which has a hole in it, the water may not actually flow out... It will only do so if the hole is below the level of the water.  A bucket with a hole near it's rim will hold water quite well.) Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The highlighted edit is an unacceptable violation of WP:NOR. Whether it is SYNTH or not, I don't think matters. The editor in question has noticed what he/she thinks is a contradiction between sources and wants to write about it in the article. However, it is only that editor's opinion that there is a contradiction. The history of Turkey between 1917 and 1925, that included a war, a revolution, and the declaration of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, makes it perfectly possible that a decision made by one government in 1925 could be similar to one made by a totally different government in 1917. As well as that, the sources do not clearly indicate that the decision was the same; there is talk in the sources of replacing the Muslim calendar by the Gregorian one, as well as changing the date of Easter from the Julian to the Gregorian calendars, and The Times (of London), Oct 26, 1925, said that in finance the Gregorian calendar would replace a solar calendar whose dates were not aligned with either the Julian or Gregorian calendars. The full story is obviously quite complex, which is exactly why we need a source written by someone who has examined the evidence properly. Finally, advice like "Where a source says that a church or country adopted a certain calendar it is not necessarily correct." is true but doesn't belong in an article; put it on the talk page. Zerotalk 01:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no original research.  Everything in the section is reported in the sources.   It is clear that a decision made by one government can be similar to a decision made by another government. However, once a law is passed it remains in force until it is repealed.   That is so elementary that no law book would bother to mention it - same as no editor is required to source the statement "the earth goes round the sun."


 * If there is an objection to stating the obvious, then the article can simply quote the sources.  I think that would be a  pity, because it leaves it to the reader to pick up the inconsistency, which he or she may fail to do.


 * The question of changing the date of Easter is nothing to do with it.  By 1917 the Ottoman Empire had broken up, or was in the process of doing so.   Under the millet system the various minorities (such as the Christians) had autonomy of religion.   It's more than "talk in the sources of replacing the Muslim calendar by the Gregorian one".   They say it was done, on two separate occasions nine years apart, which is legally impossible.


 * From the beginning of Islam there was a solar calendar which ran concurrently with the lunar one.  The epoch was AD 632, and all years had 365 days (no leap years).


 * For the benefit of editors who might want to weigh in, here are the sources:

The Times, 5 January 1916, p. 7

The Turkish Government has prepared a Bill introducing the Gregorian calendar for the civil year. The financial year will begin on March 14. The ecclesiastical year will remain lunar.

The Times, 22 March 1916, p. 7

It is reported from Constantinople that the Bill providing for the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in the Ottoman Empire cannot come into force in the present financial year.

The Times, 23 March 1916, p. 7

The Turkish Parliament not having approved the project, the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar has been postponed sine die.

The Times, 29 March 1916, p. 7


 * GREGORIAN CALENDAR FOR BULGARIA
 * (FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT IN THE BALKAN PENINSULA.)
 * MARCH 26

The substitution of the Gregorian or Western Calendar for the Julian or Eastern has been voted by the Bulgarian Chamber. The adoption of this change, which has long been delayed on account of the opposition of the Russian Hierarchy, is naturally a demonstration against Russia, and will be generally attributed to a desire to widen the chasm separating the two States.

It is true that, some years ago, shortly before the difference between the calendars had increased from 12 to 13 days, a movement was set on foot in Bulgaria and elsewhere for a change from the Old Style to the New, and the Russophil Stoiloff Cabinet favoured it. But the Russian Holy Synod, under the influence of M. Pobiedonostzeff, then refused to countenance the idea and none of the Balkan States ventured to adopt the reform. A little later the Holy Synod relented so far as to announce the forthcoming issue of a new calendar of its own preparation.

New York Times, 31 January 1917

TURKEY CHANGES CALENDAR

Mohammedan Form Officially Replaced by the Gregorian.
 * AMSTERDAM, Jan. 30, (via London.)
 * -A Constantinople dispatch to Reuter's says that the Turkish Parliament, on the recommendation of the Government, has formally adopted the Gregorian calendar.

The Mohammedan calendar, used up to the present in Turkey, was based on the changes of the moon and consisted of twelve lunar months commencing in the Gregorian July.

The Times, 26 October 1925, p. 13


 * THE CALENDAR IN TURKEY
 * (FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
 * CONSTANTINOPLE, OCT. 25

The Commission for the reform of the calendar has decided in favour of the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar, and a Bill for the adoption of the Christian Era will shortly be laid before the Grand National Assembly.


 * Hitherto the Moslem Calendar, which is lunar, has been in force in Turkey except for purposes of finance, for which a solar year with an official date which corresponded neither with the Gregorian, Julian, nor Moslem Era was adopted some years ago.

New York Times, 26 October 1925

WESTERN TIME FOR TURKEY
 * Angora Commission Adopts Gregorian Calendar and 24 - Hour Clock.
 * ANGORA, Turkey, Oct. 25 (AP) - Another step toward Western ideas was taken today when a special Government commission decided in favour of the adoption of the Gregorian calendar.  The twenty four hour clock will also be introduced.

New York Times, December 6, 1925

Turkey Plans Soon to Adopt Calendar of Christian Era
 * ANGORA, Dec. 5 (AP). - Following the lead of Rumania, Bulgaria and other Balkan countries, Turkey probably will soon adopt the Christian era and the Gregorian calendar as mediums for measuring time.

A special Parliamentary commission has made a study of the Gregorian calendar with a view to fitting it to Turkish history and current events, and has unanimously recommended its adoption to the National Assembly.

If the Assembly ratifies it immediately, next year will be 1926 instead of 1342. The present Turkish calendar dates from the first day of the month preceding the flight of Mahomet from Mecca to Medina, which would correspond to July 15, 622 A.D.

EASTER DATE CHANGE AROUSES RUMANIANS; People Disobey Orthodox Synod's Decree Throughout Country .. Twelve Hurt in Riot.

March 30 .. The peace of Easter time is lacking in Rumania this year. The decision of the Synod of the Rumanian Orthodox Church to celebrate Easter on March 31, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar has caused the ...
 * March 31, 1929 - Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Article - Print Headline: EASTER DATE CHANGE AROUSES RUMANIANS; People Disobey Orthodox Synod's Decree Throughout Country - Twelve Hurt in Riot."

FIGHT FOR OLD EASTERTIDE

The disturbances which took place when Easter celebrated in Rumania according to the Gregorian calendar were repeated today when the peasants in many districts persisted in || observing the ' according to the Julian
 * April 29, 1929 - Wireless to the NEW YORK TIMES. - Article - Print Headline: "FIGHT FOR OLD EASTERTIDE."


 * It is an essential editorial function to raise suspicion that a source is inaccurate. It's not original research to use outside knowledge and reasoning to reach the conclusion that there's an accuracy problem. When sources disagree on facts, editors should do some digging on whether one of the sources has a reputation for inaccuracy, and whether the consensus of scholarship might have changed between the times of the two publications. If the conflict can't be resolved, the article should report that the conflict exists. It would be original research to anoint one source as more likely to be true within the article itself. It's within editorial discretion to leave out a source entirely if there's consensus that it's flawed. It would require a tertiary source to call out a flawed source in the article, but no sourcing is required to support an editorial consensus. Rhoark (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To put that more bluntly... This is one of the reasons why we allow a limited degree of Original Research in talk page discussions, but not in article text. Reaching the conclusion (based on OR) that there is an accuracy problem with a source, and bringing that conclusion to the attention of your fellow editors on the talk page is fine.  Reaching the conclusion (based on OR) that there is an accuracy problem, and stating that conclusion in the text of the article is not.  Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The text was also employing original research by the statement "The Turkish legislation of 1917 and 1925 does not mention the Gregorian calendar", without saying what compilation of legislation is being referred to and how one goes about checking that it does not contain something. Complaining that anyone can go to the library and check is not enough. This source (whose reliability I don't comment on) says "Turkey has been following the Gregorian calendar according to law #698 passed in December 26, 1925." I'll also repeat that there is no contradiction in passing similar-looking laws twice. It is even common; see the "terrorism legislation" passed by many countries recently that makes illegal many things that were illegal already. There are reasons why governments do such things. A simple explanation of why this "paradox" wasn't a paradox at all appears in this paper. Zerotalk 14:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This work that I don't have electronic access should be worth consulting too. Zerotalk 14:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon to restate legislation.  But this case is somewhat different.   A Turkish lawyer could go to the 1917 statute book, look up the law and quote its number.   In the same way, as Great Britain started using the Gregorian calendar on 14 September 1752, newspapers would, from a certain date specified in the legislation, start showing the Gregorian date and the nation would use the Gregorian date.   With the Gregorian calendar already being in use, why would the Assembly set up another commission in 1925 to look at the issue afresh?   As your second link put it, "It is a solar calendar, first put into use in AD 1676, and adopted by more areas of trade and administration until it became the official standard calendar of the empire in AD 1839.   The supremacy of SM usage then lasted until AD 1917, when it was first modified to accord with Gregorian NS reckoning over Julian OS."   (My emphasis).   You doubt the reliability of your first link, which is at variance with the second link, but why don't you doubt the reliability of the second link as well?   Your third link splits the difference and says that the Hijri calendar was used till 1923. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The entire section added by the IP editor was clearly inappropriate.  First, there is no adoption "paradox."  There is simply a conflict between different sources as to when an event occurred.  As User Zero pointed out, "The history of Turkey between 1917 and 1925, that included a war, a revolution, and the declaration of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, makes it perfectly possible that a decision made by one government in 1925 could be similar to one made by a totally different government in 1917."   This is an encyclopedia: there are conflicting sources on every single subject contained in the encyclopedia (for example, the famous front page news story which mistakenly announced the defeat of Harry Truman in the presidential election) []


 * If, for each and every subject, the encyclopedia quoted two conflicting sources and claimed a "paradox," then each and every article would contain such a statement. That would be fatuous.  Our job is to find the best possible sources and cite to them.  If there is a conflict even among the highest-quality sources, then we don't pick sides but note the conflict in the article without unnecessary commentary.


 * I am certain that Turkey did adopt the Gregorian calendar at some point. Our job is to find the reliable sources that tell us when.  Clearly, newspaper clippings aren't cutting it: we'll need to dig deeper and research more thoroughly.


 * In any case, an entire section jawboning about exactly when Turkey or Russia adopted the new calendar is probably not appropriate for this article -- it is a distraction from the main thrust of the article. -Xanthis (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely.  In fact I modified the article on these lines some time ago. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reiki

 * Article: Reiki
 * Source:
 * Source language: "In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven."
 * Proposed content: "Used as a medical treatment, reiki is ineffective."

Is this an over-reading of the source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good paraphrase (full disclosure: it's mine). We need to summarize the whole source faithfully and it finds that reiki is an ineffecive treatment (beyond placebo) which in the context of evidence-based medicine makes it an ineffective treatment; this we need to relay in lay terms for the general reader. One of the source authors has blogged about the paper which gives us a lay summary; he writes "Those [studies] that are rigorous show quite clearly that Reiki is a placebo. Our own review therefore concluded that 'the evidence is insufficient to suggest that Reiki is an effective treatment for any condition… the value of Reiki remains unproven.'". Since this is a question of how medical-speak is translated into general text input from WT:MED may be helpful. The proposed alternatives at Talk:Reiki like "studies to date have not shown any medical benefit", as well as not accurately accounting for any placebo effect, are holding the door open to later research coming good for reiki, a fringe practice, and this is a game we shouldn't play. Alexbrn talk 07:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "We need to summarize the whole source faithfully and it finds that reiki is an ineffecive treatment (beyond placebo)..." I think what you're saying here is there's other language in the source that supports the content. Please provide the relevant language.
 * "One of the source authors has blogged about the paper which gives us a lay summary.." Different source. If we're relying on it it must be cited per WP:V, and it wouldn't survive WP:MEDRS.
 * "The proposed alternatives...are holding the door open to later research coming good for reiki, a fringe practice, and this is a game we shouldn't play." Total misapplication of WP:CBALL, but regardless, if there's a problem with my proposed alternative then you're free to suggest another, but we can't have contested content that fails verification. That's a bedrock principle here. If we can't find appropriate language then the source shouldn't be cited at all (an outcome neither of us wants). (Work with me. Put down the battle axe.)
 * --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur with in this matter, and oppose any language in our article that hints at possible different future results. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  07:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the paraphrase goes too far. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'd prefer to report what was said as precisely that: "there is no evidence to suggest that reiki is effective'. Banedon (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The paraphrase is a bit bold. No responsible researcher would make such a sweeping and absolute conclusion from their own literature review, which is no doubt why such strong language does not appear in the original source.  What can we say?  It depends, as Dr. Fleischman correctly notes, on what else the source says.  Taken by itself the sentence above only says that "reiki is unproven", and as Banedon points out, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  However, it seems likely that the clinical trials reviewed in the source were designed to detect any difference in clinical outcome between the placebo group and the experimental (reiki) group.  If the trials showed no difference in outcome then it is not merely absence of evidence: it would be positive evidence of absence, and it would not be inaccurate to say "there is substantial evidence that reiki is ineffective."
 * Still, even if all the trials reviewed by Dr. Lee showed no benefit, it would be quite a leap to such an absolute statement as, "reiki is [always] ineffective, period." There might be questions as to the particular method that Dr. Lee and his team used to conduct the review (was it a meta-analysis?  Was it a simple literature review?  How many studies were reviewed, and what were the criteria for including/excluding individual studies?  What method was used to select reiki practitioners in the underlying trials?).  Dr. Lee, who is no doubt aware of these variables, does not claim that his review is the final word that can ever be uttered on the subject - therefore neither should we.  But I also agree that we shouldn't understate the evidence, nor should we hint at possibly different future results if no such results are on the horizon.
 * Based on the source given here, I would recommend something like, "There is substantial evidence that reiki is not effective. Numerous experiments have failed to show any benefit." -Xanthis (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

GENEALOGIE,Gerard bronsard, 2001.
To whom it concern,

You are using datas of my book GENEALOGY, GERARD BRONSARD, 2001, given as a gift to the Church of Later Day Saints of Utah.

Don't panic I won't sue you ! I just ask that you mention the source and the author when you do so. This is to allow the researchers

to reach me when needed because there is a lot of new informations founded since the edition of 2001.

You have my permission to submit my email address in reference when you cite my book.

Many thanks, Gerard Bronsard.24.202.21.240 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC) : Propos sur les BRUNSEREYTE,BRUNJEWERTE,BRUNSARTSKY,BRUNSERT,BRONSERT,BRUNSART,BRONSART von BRONSART,BRONSARDT,BRONSACK,BRONSOR,BRUNSARD,BRONSARD,BRONSART von Schellendorff, BRONSARD dit l'angevin, certains LANGEVIN. généalogie, Gérard BRONSARD, 2001.

GENEALOGIE,Gerard bronsard, 2001.
To whom it concern,

You are using datas of my book GENEALOGY, GERARD BRONSARD, 2001, given as a gift to the Church of Later Day Saints of Utah.

Don't panic I won't sue you ! I just ask that you mention the source and the author when you do so. This is to allow the researchers

to reach me when needed because there is a lot of new informations founded since the edition of 2001.

You have my permission to submit my email address in reference when you cite my book.

Many thanks, Gerard Bronsard.24.202.21.240 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC) : Propos sur les BRUNSEREYTE,BRUNJEWERTE,BRUNSARTSKY,BRUNSERT,BRONSERT,BRUNSART,BRONSART von BRONSART,BRONSARDT,BRONSACK,BRONSOR,BRUNSARD,BRONSARD,BRONSART von Schellendorff, BRONSARD dit l'angevin, certains LANGEVIN. généalogie, Gérard BRONSARD, 2001. gerardbronsard@gmail.com

All dictionaries say
We have a dispute at Celibacy that ought to be pretty easy to solve.


 * Background
 * Celibacy is a word derived from the Latin word for "marriage", and used to mean (only and exactly) that you weren't married. Since approximately the Sexual Revolution, when sexual activity and marriage got divorced, it has developed a secondary meaning of not engaging in sexual activity as well as not being married.  It has also developed stronger religious tones.
 * And there are some internet groups and a couple of authors pushing the idea of "involuntary celibacy", by which they mean that some people have a hard time forming and sustaining romantic and sexual relationships. Most of us here know how easily new-ish ideas on the internet can degenerate into POV pushing on Wikipedia.
 * But there are other people that say that not being successful at relationships has nothing at all to do with celibacy, because celibacy, from their POV, is always a voluntary abstention from sexual relationships, and almost always for religious reasons.


 * Small dispute
 * The article asserted "All dictionaries define celibacy as necessarily voluntary". The source was a three-paragraph-long encyclopedia article that didn't say anything at all about any dictionaries.
 * When this was disputed, it was changed to say "all major dictionaries" (I guess the definition of a "major" dictionary is any dictionary that agrees with this claim?), and three more encyclopedias and two actual dictionaries were added as sources.


 * However, once again, none of the cited sources make any assertions at all about what "all dictionaries" or "all major dictionaries" say. Also, none of the dictionaries actually include the word voluntary.  Instead, they refer to "abstaining", which is in turn defined primarily as a voluntary choice to not do something (at least, voluntary within limits; it's not unusual to speak of people with severe food allergies as needing to "abstain" from foods that might kill them).
 * I think this is a straightforward case of failed verification. You can't pick out four encyclopedias that don't mention dictionaries at all, plus two dictionaries that include the word "abstaining", and then declare that "All dictionaries say that this is voluntary".  These sources do not comply with WP:V or WP:SYNTH.  All this sort of sourcing really does is give me an excuse to tell the old joke about proving that all numbers are prime numbers:  "One is prime, two is prime, three is prime—let's publish!"  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * For the talk page discussion regarding this dispute, see this link. As seen there, I share WhatamIdoing's WP:Synthesis viewpoint on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Table-lookup synthesis


A tag for WP:SPEEDY deletion was placed on this article that is clearly an invention of User:Clusternote and is, at best, a WP:CONTENTFORK. The user has immediately removed the deletion tag as if his judgment is all that is needed to end the discussion. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm consulting to administrator about a continuous stalking for over two years by this IP user 65.183.xxx.xxx. (possibly a banned user who have recruited the meat puppets on music-dsp ML) --Clusternote (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Does this summary of press releases count as a "secondary source"?
I would like to confirm if this article by the Anime News Network, which summarizes four press releases, counts as a "secondary source":
 * "Viz Manga/Book News" (Archive). Anime News Network. November 12, 1999.

Here are the Viz press releases for comparison purposes:
 * "Press Releases : November 1999 : Magical Pokémon Journey" (Archive)
 * "Press Releases : November 1999 : New Pokémon Books" (Archive)
 * "Press Releases : November 1999 : Short Program Graphic Novel" (Archive)
 * "Press Releases : November 1999 : Electric Pikachu Boogaloo Graphic Novel" (Archive)

Notice that the texts between the press releases and the article summarizing them are not exactly the same (I do notice possibly a bit of close paraphrasing and sentences that seem the same, but the above article is not the verbatim press releases). WhisperToMe (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, once the press releases go through the editing process, the resulting article "belongs" to the news organization: You count it as one source. My opinion, but based on decades in the news business. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

United States of Europe
United States of Europe, European federation, European state,[1][2] are names given to several similar hypothetical scenarios of the unification of Europe as a single sovereign federation of states, similar to the United States of America, both as projected by writers of speculative fiction and science fiction, and by political scientists, politicians, geographers, historians, and futurologists.

The term United States of Europe, as a direct comparison with the United States of America, would imply that all the European states would be reduced to a status equivalent to that of a US state, losing their national sovereignty in the process and becoming constituent parts of a European federation.


 * This concept was advanced by Winston Churchill as the British view of how to structure Europe. He never implied that Britain would become the analog of a US state, quite the opposite. Raggz (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the question? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Shilluk language
Requesting additional editors to review this article. The three references cited do little to nothing to substantiate the article content, which is evidently original research. recently added maintenance tags, but I am now of the mind that this article should be stubbed and rewritten. Best efforts have been made by myself and one other to engage with, the editor responsible for repeatedly inserting the OR material, but talk page messages have gone ignored. How should we best proceed? Regards, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&action=edit&amp;section=new Yamaguchi先生] 01:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the sources has a list of references. Something there could likely substantiate any claims on the page, which seems un-contentious in the extreme. For the immediate future it would suffice to WP:PRESERVE, provided there is consensus that the claims could in principle be substantiated. Rhoark (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Iraqi chemical weapons program
In 2008, a user uploaded the .gif that appears the upper right-hand corner of Iraqi chemical weapons program stating that he was the copyright holder of the work. It is claimed by the user that this contrasts the pupillary light reflex of an Iranian solider exposed to nerve gas to a nurse that was not exposed. I believe this to be unverifiable, but I thought it best to bring it here for additional opinions. (It appears there are other photographs in the article noted as "own work" which might need to be addressed, too.) - Location (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No proof at all that the image is what the caption says it is, even with WP:Assume good faith. I removed it and will head back there to see the others you are talking about. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at it. Cheers! - Location (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Diapers, masculism and fathers' rights movement
A section about access to diaper changing facilities was recently added to the pages masculism and fathers' rights movement (FRM): and. They were later restored after I removed them. The three sources do not discuss diaper changing facilities in connection to masculism or the FRM, they actually don't mention masculism and the FRM at all. I should probably add that the two pages have a consistent problem of editors adding any disparity between men and women and declaring that disparity a masculist or fathers' rights issue without any support from RS. Can experienced and uninvolved editors weigh in if this is original research/synthesis or not? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not original research, but the connection to the FRM should be clear so it's not out of place. Do FRM groups talk about this issue?  Chrisrus (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How is this not synthesis? Someone cherry-picked a disparity between men and women and decided that it was a masculist and fathers' rights issue. The sources do not support that connection at all. Are you saying that editors can add any random statistic and disparity between men and women to the two pages? Also I would like to have input from uninvolved editors, not the usual MRM and GG stuff. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not an unreasonable synthesis that there being a diaper changing station in the ladies' room but not in the gents' is an issue of parity for fathers, albeit a minor one. Is it really true that no such group has mentioned it? Chrisrus (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not unreasonable to you maybe. Other editors might think that it's not unreasonable to add other stuff they believe is "an issue of parity for fathers" and men in general. For example, how unfair that stores sell more women's clothes than men's! Can I now add an "access to clothing" section to the masculism article? Or how unfair that breast cancer screening is only recommended for women. Where's the parity in that? How about a nice breast cancer section in the two articles? What you're suggesting is that the two articles should become coatracks where any editor so inclined can hang any random "lack of parity" coat, regardless of the sourcing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For there to be original research, there must be a novel claim unsupported by any reliable source. No such claim has been identified. The presence of a claim on the page is not itself a meta-claim. A Wikipedia article is about a topic, not a word. It is part of the role of editors to select and curate a set of claims that pertain to the concept under discussion. Those claims may be about the definition of a word. They may include ideas about the concept that has been defined. They may include reactions, opinions, and applications of the concept. They may include elaboration, interpretation, and contextualization out to several degrees of separation from the lexicography of the article title. The boundaries of relatedness are circumscribed by editorial consensus about due weight. The reasoning applied by editors is not bound by OR or SYNTH. Rhoark (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For there to be synthesis of published material, there must be an attempt to advance a position not supported by the sources. You claim that the disparity in access to diaper changing facilities has something to do with masculism and the FRM. Your position is not supported by the sources which do not mention masculism or the FRM, let alone claim that this is of any relevance to these topics. The FRM has a clearly defined set of issues and "access to diaper changing facilities" isn't one of them, at least not according to any RS. The same goes for masculism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Societal issues faced by fathers are related to masculism and fathers' rights by definition. This is an editorial conclusion that does not require the support of a secondary source. It is not acceptable to create a WP:POVFUNNEL that only permits issues that can be positively linked to people using particular terminology to label themselves. Rhoark (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about "fathers' rights", we are talking about the fathers' rights movement. And if you believe that the disparity in access to diaper changing facilities is an issue relevant to masculism and the fathers' rights movement, you should be able to provide RS that connect the subjects to diaper changing facilities. But you can't. It's not acceptable to start adding everything that you believe is a "societal issue faced by fathers" to the two pages until the pages are nothing more than lists of what you and no RS believe to be relevant. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Without a source that directly connects "access to diaper changing facilities" as an important topic relevant to the movements or whatever, there isn't support for mentioning it in the article. I can see how this might be considered OR because it's individual Wikipedia editors making this connection, and not the sources.  It's probably better characterized as a "coatrack" problem which would technically fall under NPOV and not OR, but either way, its inclusion wouldn't be supported by the sourcing.   23:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Coatrack and PoV funnel are basically two sides of the same coin. Both are instances where material seems outside the scope of where its placed. The question is which should budge, the material or the scope? In this case, its clearly the scope that needs to expand. It would be fine to have a page that is just about a movement, in which case anything on that page should have a paper trail to a person or organization that claims membership in the movement. But what about the rest of the stuff? There is a vast quantity of information about fathers' rights not connected to any group claiming membership in the label.
 * There is information here of encyclopedic interest. Where does it go? "Fathers' rights" redirects to "Fathers' rights movement". The article mostly discusses issues, not specific advocacy groups. This seems to already be the page for fathers' rights issues. Masculism, meaning a concern with mens' rights, is already not conflated with any particular movement but still has a WP:CHIMERA problem to resolve. The issues need a place to be discussed in the clear, and the connections to particular groups can be treated in subsections as necessary. A page move to clarify the scope may be necessary, but in the meantime material that belongs in a final article should be WP:PRESERVEd. As long as its clear material is included on the basis of being an issue of fathers' rights, it should be self-evident that a source discussing the rights of fathers doesn't need a big blinking sign saying "THIS IS A FATHERS' RIGHTS ISSUE". The same applies to masculism and any controversy about discrimination against men. It's simply a matter of paraphrasing and editorial discretion. Rhoark (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles do not simply discuss issues, they discuss what RS identified as FRM and masculist issues. The pages aren't supposed to be laundry lists of gender disparities. For example, you interpret the fact that there are more diaper changing facilities for women as evidence of inequality or discrimination against men and therefore a masculinist or fathers' rights issue. Others might interpret it as a reflection of the cultural expectation that child rearing and changing diapers is still a woman's job and that most primary caregivers still tend to be women. Regardless of your interpretation, there are not RS to support "access to diaper changing facilities" as a masculinist or fathers' rights issue. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are academic sources that cover the article topic but don't include mention of this indicates that trying to include it is problematic and so needs to be removed from the article.  04:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this summary OR?
A summary of the findings of two review articles was inserted here. The summary clearly discusses the strength of the primary articles being reviewed ("there is no strong evidence that it is effective in treating neuropathic pain"), however, neither of the review sources cited discuss the strength of the evidence (primary sources) - they simply state whether the Scrambler system is effective or not. The two sources are - and

In summary, 4 studies have been examined. Three of these (Smith et al. 2010, Sabato et al., 2005, Marineo et al., 2012) recorded a beneficial effect of the Scrambler system. One of these (Campbell et al., 2013) failed to demonstrate a beneficial effect. Is it OR or perhaps WP:Synth or perhaps POV to summarise this as " there is no strong evidence that it is effective in treating neuropathic pain."?

__DrChrissy (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I've dropped notification at the article Talk page and the relevant WikiProject Talk page WT:MED about this discussion.


 * Note – This is being discussed also at WP:AN/I. Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – The wording "there is no strong evidence that it is effective in treating neuropathic pain" is not OR, but a nice paraphrase in line with WP:MEDRS and WP:MOSMED. At the above mentioned ANI posting an even better (IMO) paraphrase was proposed by : "There is insufficient evidence for its use in treating neuropathic pain". Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Assessing material one thing, including your assessment in original language in an article - like characterizing the results of several studies as "no strong evidence" or "insufficient evidence," when no such evaluation exists in any of the sources - is quite another.


 * I am struggling to find how this is "in line" with WP:MEDRS and WP:MOSMED. The most relevant guidance I could find in fact discourages this: MOSMED: Citing sources: "Do not publish your own views about studies." That, in turn points to the No original research policy, which is what I have been referring to from back at Talk:Scrambler therapy where this began.


 * Specifically, in NOR, WP:SYNTHESIS says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." The secondary sources cited do not summarize all of the reviews they discuss, they simply present them, and characterize one subset of controlled trials as delivering "mixed results." So I'm not clear on your rationale. This seems like original research through synthesis of conclusions. --Tsavage (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I keep trying to answer you. I don't know what to say anymore. I will let others try, Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * (This addresses the Jytdog reply just deleted and replaced with the one above.)
 * You are conveniently misinterpreting guidelines. Yes, of course I've read Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) (aka WP:MEDASSESS), which is concise and informative for a non-technical editor, but is not WP:SYNTHESIS. They are complementary, one does not supersede the other.


 * Any editor should assess the quality of the material that is about to be used to create content (using, if appropriate,WP:MEDASSESS), and it is very helpful for the non-medically trained editor to have a quick guide to the various types of medical study. In the area of medicine, this could for example help an unfamiliar editor avoid writing in an article, "Xyz drug was proven 98% effective," based on the glowing results of a single uncontrolled study. It helps avoid poor quality edits that would eventually have to be fixed by more knowledgeable, even "expert," editors.


 * This has nothing to do with evaluating the relative merits of several studies, and forming an original conclusion about the overall body of research, like "no good evidence," for inclusion in an article. How do you find that WP:MEDASSESS gives special dispensation to override WP:NOR and synthesize conclusions?! --Tsavage (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No. It is not original research. It is an entirely proper characterization of the sources, per WP:MEDRS. That has been made perfectly clear on the article talk page and on at least two other discussions.  Drop the stick. This is starting to look like not merely  forum-shopping but a  vendetta. Banks Irk (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to turn a genuine issue (on my part, at least, I have nothing to do with DrCrissy), into a personal one against an editor. See my comment just above: how exactly does WP:MEDRS allow synthesis of conclusions (per WP:SYNTHESIS) by evaluating a collection of medical study results, determining relative weight of individual study types and findings, and coming to an overall conclusion like, "no good evidence"? It is one thing to assess material, it is another to form original conclusions about it that are in no way supported by a proper secondary source and include them in an article - where is the attribution for that conclusion? If I am so wrong, it should be simple to point to the guidance that indicates that: if I can't understand a specific sentence or paragraph or section that clearly supersedes WP:SYNTHESIS, then I am an idiot and will shut up. Thanks. --Tsavage (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No. It's one of the few things in that article that doesn't violate policy. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * no I believe also that it is not original research (there is a difference in what is or is not original research and its important to adequately recognize that difference with logic)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (add)No_original_research this seems to explain--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

comment@Ozzie10aaaa. Thank you for your input. I'm afraid I simply don't understand the logic here - please would you expand.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Note to all This is not simply a vote. The decision will be based on quality of comments. Simply directing people to view a large article is hardly a high quality comment. Let's try harder. __DrChrissy (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's what Pachman 2014 has to say:
 * ABSTRACT: Other nonpharmacologic interventions including acupuncture and Scrambler therapy are supported by positive preliminary data; however, further larger, placebo-controlled trial data are needed to confirm or refute their effectiveness.
 * In the article body under OTHER NONPHARMACOLOGIC INTERVENTIONS:
 * Small trials have investigated Scrambler therapy for the treatment of CIPN. The first study involved 16 patients were treated with Scrambler therapy for 10 60-minute sessions. After 10 days of treatment 15 patients had a 20 % or greater reduction in pain score [66]. The second trial was a small randomized, double-blind study including patients with neuropathic pain for 96 months. There was no difference in pain score in patients who received Scrambler therapy (N equals 7) or placebo (N equals 7), but the author of this trial did not have much experience using this treatment [67]. Another trial investigated the use of Scrambler therapy for the treatment of neuropathic cancer pain (N equals 39), 33 of which had CIPN. There was a reduction in pain scores from baseline to the end of treatment, 6.6 before treatment to 4.5 at 14 days and 4.6, 4.8, and 4.6 at 1, 2, and 3 months, respectively [68]. An additional pilot study included 37 patients with CIPN who were treated with Scrambler therapy. From baseline to the completion of treatment there was a 53 % reduction in pain, 44 % reduction in tingling, and a 37 % reduction in numbness. In addition, this benefit appeared to last throughout 10 weeks of follow-up [69]. Thus, a phase III, placebo-controlled trail is indicated to follow-up on the promising appearing pilot data.
 * Our main job as article editors is to summarize the conclusions of secondary sources. The conclusions this source provides in the abstract, and in the authors' discussion of the sources, are:
 * The data are promising, but also
 * There's not enough good data to make a conclusive recommendation yet--this is exactly what the authors indicate when they say "further larger, placebo-controlled trial data are needed to confirm or refute their effectiveness" and talk about the existing data as being "preliminary" and "pilot". Saying the data are of only "preliminary" and "pilot" quality can also be expressed by saying there is not yet strong enough data to make a conclusion.
 * Summarizing this as "no good/strong evidence" is directly supported by the source.  23:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Zad. I have 2 concerns about your comment.  The first is that this discussion is based on the summary of two secondary sources (Hershman et al, 2014; Rivera, E., & Cianfrocca, M. 2015) - Pachman 2014 is not one of these 2 sources so your comment is largely irrelevant and somewhat distracting.  Second, if by some twist Pachman 2014 is to retrospectively become part of this discussion, we should note that it has already been deleted from the article by a very senior author who labelled it as "unreliable".__DrChrissy (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the purpose of this discussion to resolve collaboratively an article content concern regarding possible OR? I hope so because that's the only goal I'm interested in.  Let's stipulate that Pachman 2014 is an acceptable source to use for this purpose; given that would you still have OR concerns?    12:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this discussion is clearly stated at the top of the thread. It is based on the summary of 2 sources.  Why should other editors now consider a third which has already been labelled as "unreliable". This discussion would then descend into "What about this reference?" "What about that reference".  All this is irrelevant.  I raised the discussion on the basis of the summary of 2 sources - let's deal with those.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bringing in a new source that resolves what's actually important--a question regarding article content --I thought would be seen as helpful. I'm much less interested in getting involved in an academic debate for its own sake, with artificially narrow constraints.    13:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Zad60: I appreciate your thorough reply, and that your intention is only to solve the content problem. In my opinion, this new source STILL does not support "no good evidence" as a useful non-technical summary ("strong" seems better), because it evaluates and characterizes technical aspects, such as relative value of types of testing and their findings. As this noticeboard is about what is original research, I'm still curious to the answer to the original question. Even taking Pachman into account...
 * The original question concerns multiple sources with no summary language, but also applies to Pachman (and please bear with me, because ultimately our measure is comprehension by non-technical readers):
 * Expert: "Ok, no good evidence here." (or even "no strong evidence")
 * Non-technical Reader: "Oh, ok, so I guess write this one off. But hey, what's this stuff over here?"
 * E: "That's weak preliminary evidence, it's not great, from less rigorous experiments."
 * NTR: "Kk... But...how did the weak evidence turn out?"
 * E: "Well, there were some positive results, so you could say there's some promise there. But definitely nothing conclusive."
 * NRT: "Hmmm. So it's, like, 'possibly promising preliminary results, but far from conclusive'? Then why didn't you say that instead of 'no good evidence'?"
 * E: "Because they mean the same thing!"
 * NRT: "Umm, not to me?!"
 * Although perhaps automatic and inadvertent, the expert plain English summary characterizes the topic in a more dismissive, negative way than an incrementally more spelled out summary.
 * Replaced by Pachman, I still don't see how the abstract is equivalent to "no good evidence," as they give (in my opinion) two quite different impressions, the former more tentative and future-looking, the latter more dismissive and negative:
 * "Scrambler therapy [is] supported by positive preliminary data; however, further larger, placebo-controlled trial data are needed to confirm or refute [its] effectiveness." does not give the same impression as "no good evidence."
 * Aren't abstracts intentionally written in accessible summary language in the first place, that could be quoted? Or, a meaningful, understandable summary might be:
 * "Scrambler therapy is supported by positive preliminary data; however, more [comprehensive/rigorous testing] (such as larger-scale randomized controlled trials) is needed to confirm or refute its effectiveness."
 * That summary seems absolutely clear and easily verifiable against the source, whereas "no good/strong evidence" STILL seems to be applying an editor's characterization of the source.
 * If part of the it's-not-OR answer being promoted is, our WP experts are ALSO attempting to cut through the medical doubletalk that is even present in plain English abstracts (like "more research needed") - maybe "positive preliminary data" is euphemistic code for "statistically all-but-meaningless junk data"? - well, that's a great service to our readers, but unfortunately, without sourcing, it's still original research, isn't it?
 * Please let me restate (since there seems to be a degree of going ad hominem on DrChrissy across Talk and noticeboards): A) I don't know and am not jointly pursuing this question with DrChrissy; B) I began as an uninvolved editor, visting Scrambler therapy for the first time via AfD notice; C) personally, I would have remained on the Talk page, as discussion was kinda ongoing there. --Tsavage (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * we never say "more research is needed" because we would have to say that in every single article about anything related to health. there is never enough data. the thing i think you are not wrapping your head around TSavage is that there is:
 * a) either enough data such that reliable secondary sources come out and say "it is safe and effective for X" or "it is not-safe (or not-effective) for X" (and even if we can say one of those based on the source, there are always open questions that more research would clarify)... or
 * b) there is no good data to say anything.   With scramber, if you look at the studies that have been done that are described in the reviews - they are all tiny (so mostly worthless) - only the unblinded ones had positive results and the only DB-RCT had negative results.  So saying "positive preliminary data" is not accurate/oversells.  We could say the "preliminary clinical trial data is mixed", but that leaves the reader hung out to dry.  you are really hanging up on summarizing being OR and I reckon you will never be satisfied with the community practice, but that is what it is.  Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I really love that "E vs. NTR" conversation! It's an excellent and accessible illustration.  "Statistically all-but-meaningless junk data" really is what the sources are trying to convey, and I love your turn of phrase by the way.  Poorly-controlled tiny studies are really worse than meaningless, especially when studying some physical treatment like an electronic machine, and its effect on something subjective like pain, because they're so prone to bias or placebo effect that they can't produce informative results, and only end up causing arguments like this one.   04:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding: Tsavage I actually like the direction you're going in, instead of worrying about trying to convey something that isn't very practical or applicable like "no strong data" maybe it should be summarized with the more consequence-based angle you're bringing, like "Scrambler therapy appears promising, but it has not be studied well enough to know conclusively whether it is effective."  I'd be totally happy with that, even better than "no strong evidence."  What do you think?    04:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * what i am struggling with in TSavage's formulation, is the "they give (in my opinion) two quite different impressions, the former more tentative and future-looking, the latter more dismissive and negative." Our job is not to prettify anything and be "future-looking".  we describe the state of the evidence.  "Supported by positive preliminary data" is not accurate, especially with the negative DB-RCT.  (especially since placebo effects in pain studies are huge, and a small single arm study is no data to speak of.  When experts read about them they think "OK, so they did that single arm pilot study.. nothing to see here, move on".  So I would struggle to agree with "Scambler therapy appears promising" but i can agree to the rest.  (i said "struggle to agree with" on the first part - not "i don't agree with"!)   Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, man, I know... I'm still trying to echo what's in the sources.  Pachman as was pointed out isn't great because it's an opinion and not a regular review, so it gets less weight.  But both Rivera and the ASCO do give a nod to the low quality studies.  I'd be happy to weaken "appears promising".  Of course once there's a real high-power study this all goes away.   05:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Zad68 Yes, from your last two comments, you seem to see what I am saying. I'm shocked! :) Of course, I don't think there is a hard line between summary and synthesis, summary is synthesis, it's a matter of how well and to what degree the source material is literally reflected in the final wording. "It's all crap" is a summary that could be applied to...anything at all, but it reflects nothing of where it comes from and how it was arrived at - perhaps it's simply a personal opinion - and that is essentially what my argument with "no good evidence" is. The more inclusive wording you're discussing allows most any reader to reason between the summary and the cited sources. The less accessible the source material becomes to the non-technical reader, the more important the actual wording and nuance become in the summary, if the goal is to make the content widely verifiable. And I appreciate your content-centered approach here, because IMO it's not really an NOR noticeboard issue, it's a let's collaborate and use common sense issue, which ideally would have been the approach taken on the Talk page. If editors just dig in their heels in Wikipedia, nothing works, and there are no rules that can fix that. Thanks for the input!


 * @Jytdog You say, When experts read about them they think "OK, so they did that single arm pilot study.. nothing to see here, move on" and that's exactly what my E vs NTR exchange above was about. If that's what the experts think, they can write that down and publish it, we can find it, and quote it or paraphrase or reasonably summarize it, and cite the source. If the experts' published expression of that opinion is a succinct "no good evidence," perfect. However, when they don't do that, Wikipedia editors can't step in as the in-house experts and fill in with their own expert conclusions, we may want to, but without a closely similar source to cite, that's OR. (Here, you even want to counter "supported by positive preliminary data" from the source, because you know it actually means, like, the opposite of what it says, yet when I go to check the source, there it will be! Not a solid solution.) The lack of a good source for what you want to conclude is perhaps why you want to eliminate this article via AfD, but that seems extreme, akin to censorship. There are other ways to handle this, like this discussion! The treatment/product exists, it's documented and received some bona fide medical establishment recognition, the rest seems to be a straightforward editorial issue of wording. I humbly submit... --Tsavage (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not OR appropriate summary supported by the sources. A basic editorial assessment of the content of the sources with an eye towards MEDRS clearly supports the summary language. A handful (4) of extremely low quality (n=?, randomization?, etc.) sources (with mixed results) = no strong evidence. This seems beyond obvious. I think it could even be phrased more strongly, "no good evidence". As above "more research needed" is meaningless. "Primary studies show promise" is OR and does not really reflect the sources. There seems to be a battleground/tendentious editing issue going on here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks Mrbill! Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Crimean Karaites
Could we get some moderators over at Crimean Karaites please? I notice also that a lot of the images on related articles have been taken from the International Institute for Crimean Karaites without appropriate accreditation. The story of Crimean Karaites is very simple, but you need to be able to read Russian. Here are three articles for example which sum things up. http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2289873 http://kavpolit.com/iudei-kavkaza/ http://www.proza.ru/2009/10/12/1336 They are descendants of Turkic Church of the East Christians who are thought to have had Jewish (Israelite) origins. They regard themselves as Spiritual Israel just like most Christian denominations, they are Judaizers, but also developed a keen respect for Mohamed. One could never guess this by reading through the article as it is right now. I wrote a rather angry comment in the discussion page here. Would like to see if there are any Russian speaking editors who can look into this please and keep it in check. Many thanks. 79.109.203.252 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I would like to add Todddy1 is a disruptive editor, apparently a sockpuppet or lackey of Nepolkanov. Discussion on what to do about such abuse of editing priviliges are welcome.79.109.203.252 (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I also need to point out now that there is a little tag team (or sock/meat-puppet team) involving Toddy1 and SamuelDay1 removing my comments against Nepolkanov and the Libor Nissim Valko links from the talk pages and notice boards to hide their little enterprise. I see therefore that both Nepolkanov and Libor Nissim Valko have "disciples" here. Please be aware of this. 79.109.203.252 (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)