Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 33

Walashma dynasty
I added the origins of the Walashma dynasty using reliable sources that state they are Argobba. p.174 &  p.175. The editors removed it and in the Talk:Walashma dynasty, they are using original research and synthesis of original material in an attempt to come up with their own conclusion that Walashma were Somali. Is this what im seeing or not? Zekenyan (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not what your seeing. It has already been proven by multiple users that the claims by Braukämper are fringe. You, on th other hand, don't care. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AcidSnow (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I had requested counter sources countless times. Instead I get wp:SYNTH sources. Zekenyan (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * *Sigh*, we did provide countless sources against yours but you still don't listen. All of these state the same thing without us needing to combine anything. This is the same issue that got you blocked just a few days ago and you still haven't learned from it. AcidSnow (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stay off wikipedia if all your going to do is insert original research into articles. Zekenyan (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop with your baseless accusations. If not, then you risk being blocked per WP:NPA. I would also like for you to read all the other policies that were requested for you. AcidSnow (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC
 * You yourself risk being banned. Watch it. Zekenyan (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For what exactly? AcidSnow (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Supporting original research. Zekenyan (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * *Sigh*, none of us has supported orginal research. You should know this by now since it was already stated numerous of times already. So please stop with your baseless accusations. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AcidSnow (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your using the policies incorrectly. IDONTLIKEIT policy is for content removal because the editor feels he simply doenst like the content. Im adding content with reliable sources while you and other editors are removing it based on your wpsnyth and original research. Zekenyan (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not actually. Instead of providing academic sources you instead choose to provide blantly fringe sources in an attempt to remove a historical fact. None of us have engaged in Original Research, let alone WP:SNYTH. So please kindly cease your baseless accusations. AcidSnow (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll end this quick, I'm not interested in playing games with Zekenyan as he just wants to make baseless claims that a dynasty was of a certain ethnicity using sources everyone explained to him were fringe. Not one editor on that page will ever claim they were Argobba people. All I did was explain to him that the dynasty's genealogies are Somali/ tied to Somali patriarchs like Isma'il Al-Jaberti (father of the Darod founder and a claimed clan ancestor)& a Somali saint (and shared sources as Acidsnow or any other member will testify) but somehow he thought this wasn't adequate proof that they were Somali and called it "Original research" and then I showed him sources saying the dynasty is referred to as Somalized Arab or Arabized Somali (here is a source again: [- ]). All legitimate historical work on this dynasty implies that they are either Arab or Somali or somehow both at the same time which is why one editor I believe even tried to refer to them as "Multi-ethnic" (Harar234). I didn't do "original research" and just shared sources with Zekenyan he was apparently unhappy with, that is not my problem. Despite all that and his sources being shown to him to be fringe, he decided to keep edit warring and edited the page to say they were of the ethnicity he keeps arguing they were of using fringe sources. Now, we've all reached a comfortable consensus back on the page where we removed the old text "Somali Muslim dynasty" and simply hit a compromise of "Muslim Dynasty", no other editor seems remotely bothered by this clear compromise from the rest of us (those who believe them to be "Arab" & those who believe them to be "Somali") except Zekenyan who seems hellbent on saying they were Argobba people. Zekenyan has also done this before where he reported Acidsnow for apparently being "uncooperative" when instead he's the one who's always uncooperative by ignoring anything and everything that's said to him in talk/discussion pages. That's all this is and have a nice day, Zekenyan. Do everyone a favor and refrain from edit warring or vandalizing that page. Take care, Awale-Abdi (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see his block log as well for the reasons why he was blocked: "Disruptive editing: continued edit warring on multiple articles, accusations of bad faith, refusal to listen to other editors, stirring up drama at ANI". As anyone can see, he has clearly learned nothing from it. AcidSnow (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Awale your sources dont mention Walashma and the ones that do dont mention Somali. Im not denying that Somalis were in the region. My point is your combining sources and using arguments to come up with your own conclusion and your friends here are backing you up. It seems more like a conflict of interest now WP:COI. Here is another source from the university of norway that says the leadership was mostly Argobba and Harari. Page 14 footnotes Zekenyan (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you reading anything that is said here and shown to you Zekenyan? The book literally mentions both the Walashma and the Somalis. Why do you need to deny this? It's quite clearly that you simply WP:DONTLIKEIT. By the way, that document you know mention is not from the University of Norway but rather Kassaye Begashaw. Ironically, he too takes his work from Braukamper whose work has already been proven fringe. So please come up with a better tactic instead of just covering your eye and ears. AcidSnow (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I am and I quote Awale Abdi "You are wasting your time if you are trying to find sources that state somali". Zekenyan (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's highly doubtful that you did. Anyways, that's not what Abdi said exactly. He said you would find few sources that state "Somali" since they called ethnic Somalis "Berbers/Barbaris" or by their clan name. But that's not necessarily true since the Futuhs chronicler, Shihāb al-Dīn, states this: "Then he [the imam] tied a red standard to a spear and entrusted it to his brother-in-law Mattan bin 'Utman bin Kaled, the Somali, their chieftain, their knight, and the most courageous, the bravest of them all. There rallied to him one-hundred-and-ten knights and three-thousand infantry, along with the tribe of Harti, the tribe of Jairan and the tribe of Mazra, all of whom were Somalis'". Ironically, you claim to have read the "entire" book as well has having done "countless research on the horn of africa". AcidSnow (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The british had Indian soldiers. It doesn't mean the British empire was Indian. Also the book mentions many other tribes but you conveniently left them out. Thats cherrypicking. Not only that but now you have completely changed the discussion from Walasma to Adal soldiers. Zekenyan (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I left no one out, let alone was I cherry picking. You attributed a comment by Abdi as something different completely which I saw and corrected. AcidSnow (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI the Imam had brother in laws from various tribes. Zekenyan (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source instead of just saying that. Seeing how he married a Somali, as did his sister, it seems highly doubtful. AcidSnow (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Its off topic as we are discussing a different issue here but if your interested we can continue that on my talk page. Zekenyan (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, I asked you to provide a source early, but you still have yet to provide one. Why is that? All it does it further diminish the value of your claim. You have now also decided to dodge the request once again. Nonetheless, you're right this is off topic. So let us continue on you're talk page. AcidSnow (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with my dispute that is why I didnt respond to you. Zekenyan (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why mention it? Anyways, I messaged you on your talk page. AcidSnow (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

More sources "Only a few groups of Argobba, one of the oldest surviving Semitic peoples in Ethiopia, still survive between the Harar and the lfat. Starting in the 13th century, they gave the Adal kingdom its oldest dynasty, the Walasma. . and also Zekenyan (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Their both based off the work of Braukämper (see here and here). Are you thoroughly reading these before you present them? If so, then can you please stop with the fringe work by Braukämper? AcidSnow (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not taken from ulrich its was taken from "Tradition & Transformation of Argobba" by abebe kifleysus. . Fringe theories dont appear on multiple academic books. Zekenyan (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What? I just linked you to the book by Braukämper, see here and here. AcidSnow (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My first source was published in 1978. So how can it be based off of Ulrich's book which was published in the 2000's? My 2nd source is on page 119. Argobba walasma's are mentioned in depth by Abebe and i even linked you the book. Aethiopica is a reliable source. Its an encylopedia. "Argobba ethno-history is thus very much tied to the history of the sultanate of yefat and its control by members of the Walasma dynasty or the Argobba ruling families".  Zekenyan (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, Tradition and Transformation: The Argobba of Ethiopia isn't mentioned anywhere in CNRS (see here) rather only in the Encycolpedia of Aethipica (see here). Judging by how CRS mentions the work and a book by Braukämper (see here), it seems that it wasn't published in 1978 but later. More importantly, Kifleysus takes his own work from none other than Braukämper (see here). So it seems that you're not thoroughly reading these. Nonetheless, I will still give you the benefit of doubt. AcidSnow (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop with the bickering and the insults. You both are wasting our time. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Zekenyan (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did I insult him as I am unable to find anything close to it? AcidSnow (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. My feeling when I wrote the comment was something like: When you preface a remark with "Sigh," well, that is insulting, as if to say, "You, sir, are a ninny, and I am fed up with catering to your imbecility." I would hope you not "Sigh" through your keyboard anymore. Were one to sigh with exasperation in my direction, I would be mightily offended. This is what I was feeling and, come to think of it, still feel. But the conversation has tapered off, and that is a Good Thing. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what your trying to say but I wasn't trying to offended him. I used the two "sighs" to express my tiredness to this discussion as it hasn't gone anywhere but in a circle. But thank you for your input. Anyways, it hasn't ended as he is still fourmshopping. AcidSnow (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hague Convention synthesis
An anonymous editor has been adding unpublished synthesis about the Hague Convention of 1907 to a variety of articles about naval operations that happen to involve naval mining. While there might be some relevance, the editor has never cited a secondary source, or reliable source, that supports the relevance of the Convention to the discussion of the articles. He's been reverted several times, but keeps coming back to push the same original research.

The articles in question: There is also questionable editing at:
 * Corfu Channel case
 * Operation Starvation
 * Gaza flotilla raid
 * Kiryat Gat

I'm at a loss for how to handle it at this point because the editor seems unwilling or unable to understand how Wikipedia policy works. I'd appreciate any input the participants here can provide. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussions are at Talk:Operation_Starvation and Talk:Corfu_Channel_case. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP editor appears to have no understanding that Wikipedia articles should only contain summaries of published thought, rather than contain new thoughts assembled from disparate sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Republished paper
See

The editor of this article,, says he is an academic that wants to republish his paper here in WP. See thread at User talk:William McDougall. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this a functioning noticeboard?
Is this a functioning noticeboard? I as because there is no point adding new sections to this page as I did above if none but those already discussing the issue elsewhere contribute. The whole point of noticeboards is that others with an interest in the subject (in this case NOR) contribute to the discussions. -- PBS (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please follow the instructions at the top of the page. This board is not for suited for providing general ruling on an editor's comment in an RfC. But yes, if there are no reliable sources that describe something as genocide (or a synonym of genocide), then we shouldn't either. - MrX 11:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Interviews?
Hello there. I have a question in regard to original research. If I was editing a biography and I sent a set of questions to said person and they replied with answers and information, would that be "original research" even if the person themselves is stating this information? Leorion PO (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Reegardless of whether answers to your questions were considered original research (which I suspect might depend on context), they would be unpublished, and accordingly unverifiable. Wikipedia requires sources to be published. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Undead and Ezekiel

 * Undead
 * Talk:Undead
 * Last revision with portion as of this post

While that section (and the article) needs a lot of work, the area in particular that I contend is original research is the portion about Ezekiel. The verses in question do not state that the individuals are undead.

1) The Ezekiel quote needs a non-primary source
 * 1a) Including the Ezekiel quote asserts an undead interpretation: To (as User:A_Georgian put it) "include the quote" obviously asserts an interpretation that the bodies described are undead, otherwise the quote is pointlessly irrelevant and utterly out of context.
 * 1b) A non-primary source is needed for any interpretation: Per WP:PSTS, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

2) The interpretation that they are undead is opposed by the interpretation that they are resurrected
 * 2a) "Undead" and "resurrected" are distinct concepts: undead specifies that the undead, though animate, are by some measure dead; while fully returning to life is resurrection. Thus they are not compatible interpretations, but competing ones.  While I am aware that this would be original research if used in an article, it is reasonable for a Wikipedia: or Talk: page for determining article content.
 * 2b) The undead interpretation should only be given due weight: Per WP:DUE, we should weigh the non-primary sources that support the each interpretation, and determine article content accordingly.

3) No non-primary sources support the undead interpretation, only the resurrection interpretation
 * 3a) The Ezekiel quote is not mentioned in any of the other cited sources: As shown at Talk:Undead.
 * 3b) Secondary sources support the resurrected interpretation, none support the undead interpretation: non-primary sources support the concept of resurrection. I tried searching in Google books for "ezekiel undead" and only pulled up horror fiction and pop-theology that recommends using zombie walks to get kids to come to church (not exactly academic sources).

While I've personally used that portion in Ezekiel to argue that the Dungeons & Dragons spells Animate Dead and Create Undead should be an option by good-aligned clerics, the undead interpretation of Ezekiel has no place on Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All I want is a non-primary reliable source that we can use to give the quote some context and not leave the reader wondering why it's stuck in there. I believe Ian is after the same thing. --Neil N  talk to me 19:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Were there good sources for it, I'd be fine including it (save me time breaking in new Dungeon Masters). There aren't, so I'm not.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with the interpretation that Ezekiel 31 has nothing to do with the undead because it is about true resurrection. While the skeletons are symbolic, a vision, rather than specific dead people, the vision is clearly that God, through Ezekiel, is raising them to full life.  In Christian usage, this chapter is treated as prefiguring the resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus, and the New Testament is very clear that they were alive after their resurrection.  (If a reliable Jewish resource provides a different interpretation, I have not seen it.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If one wants a valid Biblical example of the undead, it would be the Witch of Endor being asked by Saul to summon the ghost of Samuel. While interpretations disagree as to whether the ghost was indeed that of the prophet Samuel, it is clear that the witch or medium was summoning some sort of incorporeal undead spirit.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of book as source for it not mentioning something
User:Valerius_Tygart has repeatedly added "(This was the Stargate Project, although Ronson never refers to it by name.)" to his synopsis of the book The Men Who Stare at Goats. He states on his talk page that " We clearly differ in our interpretation of WP:NOR, and you have not made a case that seems at all convincing to me. The statement is not my "personal observation and opinion". And it is not OR. It is a fact that I have included in the synopsis of the book. What is my source for the statement that the Stargate Project is not mentioned by name in the book? It is the book, The Men Who Stare at Goats, passim. Put the reference in yourself if you like." Unless something has changed, both the statement that it isn't referred to by name, and that the thing being discussed was the Stargate Project, are original research. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any interpretations, inferences, or perceived allusions must come from secondary sources. Pretty simple. --Neil N  talk to me 20:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The lack of mention by name can surely be sourced to the book. Not quite, but in the spirit of, WP:BLUE and WP:When to cite.  (It presumably is not complicated to verify by reading the book, and I presume it is trivial to verify in a Kindle edition.)  That the name is the topic of the book would normally have to come from secondary sources. Choor monster (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any discussions here that have agreed that you can use the original source to claim it doesn't mention something. But the editor isn't interested in policy so far as I can tell and has replaced the text that has been removed by several editors (and again edited my comments on his talk page, or rather moved them around and added their own section headings. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The lack of a mention needs to be cited to a secondary source to show its relevance. Otherwise we'll get stupid stuff like, "Obama never stated he was not beholden to the Chicago unions in his autobiography". The material in question has been re-added (twice) by User:Valerius_Tygart. The first time I reverted as a self-published source was used. The second time, a book by a seemingly independent publisher was added along with the self-published source. I don't have access to the book so I cannot verify what is actually stated. --Neil N  talk to me 15:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He reinstated the sources. I've removed the text and sources because, as you say, the first is self-published. The second is by a martial arts expert who almost immediately after the mention of Ronson in a footnote writes "According to at least one knowledgeable source, an accomplished Japanese psychic in the employ of Japanese intelligence (or, some maintain, a remnant of the Black Dragon Society) caused Bush to become ill by using an ancient ninja mind control influencing technique known as ki-doll." Pretty clearly fringe and in any case a search of the Amazon book, where I found the quote, doesn't say the book doesn't mention Stargate. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that User:Dougweller has (apparently) accepted the identification of the unit as Stargate, there remains only the issue of whether the absence of mention by name in the book is "relevant". User:NeilN states that "The lack of a mention needs to be cited to a secondary source to show its relevance." I would disagree, asserting that its relevance is obvious to (almost) everyone in context. The author, Ronson, spent many months interviewing Stargate participants, and writing up his findings for his best-selling book, then failed to mention anywhere between the covers the actual name of the unit. (Don't ask me why.) The material on Stargate occupies something like a third of the book. The name of the unit is clearly relevant to a synopsis of the book, and the absence of the name is also relevant, as a reader of the synopsis who then proceeds on to the book itself, will naturally be confused by not finding it there. Valerius Tygart (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I reiterate that I consider the book itself an acceptable source for the lack of mention of of some detail. I add that if the book spends a significant part on something it is worth informing our readers of what that something is called.  The stupid stuff concern is a non-starter.
 * It's easier to think with an actual example. I faced the above issue in an article I created a month ago.  The book Ohio Town is all about Xenia, Ohio once upon a time.  Remarkably, the main text does not mention the name of the town once!  The first edition did not even name the town on the dustjacket, with location information about the author omitted.  I put the main text lack of mention in the article, I can assert its truth having read the book (with foreknowledge that the name was not mentioned).  As a point of fact, at least one review noted this lack and interpreted it as a sign of the book's greater significance, all about "Everytown, USA", so to speak.  However, I have not bothered to reread the reviews to find this comment.  As such, I restricted what I put in the article to the bare fact about the omission (since I consider the text to be a valid source).  Any mention of the significance of the omission, no matter how "obvious" it is, would need to be cited.
 * I will point out that all the reviews referred to Xenia by name, so the problem of sourcing the name did not exist in my case. I have absolutely no opinion or interest whether the name "Project Stargate" is properly sourced or not. Choor monster (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Once it has been established that the unit described in Ronson's book is Stargate (& I think that surely has been establshed by now) nothing could make more sense than Choor monster's statement that "I consider the book itself an acceptable source for the lack of mention of of some detail".... The book is, of course, the DEFINITIVE source as to what is, or is not, in it. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If i t isn't mentioned in the book but is mentioned in reviews I think it would be okay to say 'according to reviewers this was the Stargate Project' rather than stating that it actually is. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Stating that "according to reviewers this was the Stargate Project" would seem to imply that there is some doubt or debate about it. But there is none. No one has claimed (Wikipedia editors or otherwise) that the Stargate Project is not the one in the book except User:Dougweller, and even he has recently given up on that.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, since I have no idea why Ronson neglected to mention the name I would not include any speculation about that or about the "significance" of the omission, in the article. And I have not tried to. (I will speculate here: Surely he did know the name, having done extensive research & interviews, so I suspect he left it out to heighten the mystery or mystique of the group, or to exaggerate the government's desire to hide it.... But this is mere surmise...) Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any more discussion on this?? If not, I propose adding the phrase "... which the book never mentions by name" after the existing link to Stargate Project. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As there have been no objections in 3 days, I will restore this edit. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeframe of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Over at Talk:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn there is a discussion going on regarding the propriety of including specific dates to establish the timeframe of the story. Some months ago specific dates (1835-1845) were removed from the article as unsourced and possibly anachronistic; I happened upon this comment and thinking it fair removed similarly unsourced dates from a related article (Huckleberry Finn).

Another user then came around and pointed out that since Mark Twain described the book as having happened "40 or 50 years ago", this, combined with the fact that the book was published in the mid-1880s, sufficed as a source for the 1835-1845 claim.

I contend that this is OR, specifically SYNTH, on the grounds that Mark Twain intended only to vaguely situate the book at a time similar to his own childhood, sometime before the start of the American Civil War. From a stylistic perspective I don't think "1835-1845" is more descriptive than some variation on "before the Civil War", which is what we had in the article before the dates were reintroduced.

However another editor seems to agree with the first that 1835-1845 is a fair deduction from the established facts, and that as simple arithmetic it shouldn't qualify as OR. I am aware that arithmetic calculations are exempt from OR policy in cases where it is straightforward, but I don't think this qualifies.

As a point of policy, should this or should this not be considered OR? Eniagrom (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's an inappropriate synthesis. It's not simple arithmetic, because the "40 or 50 years ago" is taken from a different source than the date of publication of the book, and because it is necessary to interpret what is meant by "40 or 50 years." (I'm assuming that the source of the "years ago" statement is not signed and dated.)


 * The exception to WP:SYNTH applies if there is only one way to interpret the information available. Here, several assumptions are being made that constitute OR. "Forty or fifty years ago" is an ambiguous expression; it could mean 38 or 53 just as easily as 44 or 45. The statement is also tied to 1885, which is arbitrary since the book was published in 1884. Choosing a time frame where the years end in a 5 is OR, because the editor, and not the source, is doing the rounding.


 * To address the time period of the novel, you could say something like you said above: that Mark Twain described the events as taking place "40 or 50 years ago," and that the book was published in 1884. Going on to say that Twain intended to write about the time period of his own childhood would be OR without a source, although there probably is a source. Roches (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad Elk v. United States
Here is a passage for discussion.

Internet meme and myths
The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State. The most commonly quoted version is:

"'Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.'"

In fact, the opposite is trueall of the cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most of the cases note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

discussion
This suffers from a whole host of problems.
 * The first paragraph (including the quote) is WP:OR in two ways.  First, with the unsourced claim that the quote is from Plummer and not from Black Elk.   The ref there is to the Plummer case from 1893, so cannot be a source for current internet sites.  A few random websites are presented to justify the claim that is on many websites. Second, the editor who created this went around to various FRINGEy blogs and gathered quotes to present here.   I have looked for secondary sources on this claim that there are a bunch of websites claiming wrong things about resisting arrest.  I didn't find any  law review articles, real law blogs, etc, that discuss this. So the editor who created this decided himself that this is a problem that he should address on Wikipedia.  That is WP:OR.
 * the 2nd paragraph hangs on the first, and without the first, it has no reason to exist. WIthin that paragraph, the sentence "All of the court cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue of defense against unlawful forcenot defense against unlawful arrest, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest" is unsourced WP:OR - neither the Wright source nor the Miller source says this.
 * I tried to delete this policy-violating mess and have been given no answer other than "there is consensus for this". Meh.  So here we are. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog is clearly WP:FORUMSHOPPING because things are not going his way on the reliable sources noticeboard or on the article talk pages, and his attempts to force the content of the page away from the stable, established version into his preferred version while the discussion is ongoing are also not working out well for him. I advise closing this thread and letting the discussion at the RSN run its course. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I am not forum shopping and yelling doesn't make it so. I don't do that. These issues are not being discussed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which is about using google search results as a source (like "there are 10,000 google search results about x")  I tried to discuss the issues I raise above at the article talk page, and the article's creator said "read the sources" (which I had before I edited) and "this is a Good Article and you have no consensus" so I opened a GAR to deal with the Good Article status which is here .  And I opened this, which is a direct continuation of the failed Talk page discussion, per DR.   Claiming at GAR and here that I am forum shopping is just sticking your head in the sand. Please actually deal with the issues here.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC) (remove link to pending-speedy GAR and struck Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC))
 * Only three places? You missed arbcom and Jimbo's talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Failed talk to noticeboard is standard DR. I withdrew the GAR to lower the temperature.  Please deal with the issues.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. What we have here is a single editor who is ignoring the fact that consensus was reached on the articles, particularly Plummer, and demanding answers when told to obtain consensus to remove sourced material. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That is off-point. I am looking for community input on the content issues here. btw there appears to be "consensus" of maybe two editors, and consensus doesn't trump policy violations, in any case. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus can trump policy, it's done so numerous times, see WP:IAR. It is not relevant in this case, as it is neither OR nor outside policy. You can't just come in and change an article against consensus (which was more than two editors, BTW). GregJackP   Boomer!   15:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am looking for community input here. (consensus can change, and it should do here, in my view) If you want to participate please discuss the content and sources please show how the content is supported by the sources.   Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will add here that with regard to the last sentence. Wright at p 388 does not mention Plummer or Bad Elk; instead it reviews the reasons why the right to resist is no longer relevant and provides citations to case law and legislation that took away or diminished the right to resist.  The content at Miller 358 is parallel, doing the same thing, and also does not mention Plummer or Bad Elk.  The statement fails VERIFY and is OR. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to watch the talk page, where there is a discussion on the issue occurring. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggest close. This issue is being addressed in a number of venues. Discussion has progressed on the talk page and the article has been improved in a manner that addresses Jytdog's original concerns. Minor<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Genocides in history
This is an exchange from as section called: Talk:Genocides in history: <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: lightyellow; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * Oppose. The inclusion criteria states that you cannot classify something as genocide unless the source defined the act as genocide, but the term "genocide" wasn't even used until 1944 (see ). Are we going to eliminate every source that was written before that date? GregJackP   Boomer!   03:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @GregJackP The UN convention on genocide (CPPCG) explicitly states in its preamble "Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity". Since 1948, academics and other reliable sources retrospectively categorise historical events as genocide for example see the Whitaker Report (United Nations) published in 1982 that "The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1916, the Ukrainian pogrom of Jews in 1919, the Tutsi massacre of Hutu in Burundi in 1965 and 1972, the Paraguayan massacre of Ache Indians prior to 1974, the Khmer Rouge massacre in Kampuchea between 1975 and 1978, and the contemporary [1985] Iranian killings of Baha'is.". Besides if no reliable sources has stated that an event was a genocide to include one in this article would be a breach of WP:SYN (OR). Please reconsider you opposition. -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . Nope, this makes it way too easy for the genocide deniers to eliminate examples of genocide, and it is not a violation of WP:SYN or WP:OR. See WP:SYNNOT. In addition, you did not address the basic question, of whether pre-1944 sources are now worthless for genocide articles. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pre 1944 articles are useful for stating facts about an event, but they can not be used to establish if there was a genocide, for that you need post 1944 opinion to state it was a genocide. If not how does one assert that it was a genocide, without SYN? This is just as true for post 1944 events as those that pre-date the coining of the word genocide. -- PBS (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pre 1944 articles are useful for stating facts about an event, but they can not be used to establish if there was a genocide, for that you need post 1944 opinion to state it was a genocide." No, you don't. Again, see WP:SYNNOT, especially WP:SYNNOT. If you have a source defining genocide by stating the elements, you can state those elements, cite to the post-1944 source, then cite to the individual facts in pre-1944 sources proving each of the elements. "Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison." It's not WP:OR, therefore it is not SYNTH. All this does is provide support for genocide deniers, and I'm not going to support a proposal that is slanted towards a denialist POV. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many different definitions of genocide and even experts on the subject do not agree in many instance on what constitutes genocide, see for example what the ECHR has to say about how opinion among legal scholars over the interpretation of the CPPCG between early German court judgements and the later ICTY judgements (Bosnian Genocide). There is no single source single stating the elements of genocide, and even if there was Wikipeda editors are not qualified legal or academic scholar who can authoritatively make such an analysis. To do so is OR. You write "Nope, this makes it way too easy for the genocide deniers to eliminate examples of genocide". I have no idea what you mean by that. What is a genocide denier? A genocide denier is someone who denies that a genocide took place when the majority of expert sources have concluded that one took place. A genocide denier is not a Wikipedia editor who requests that another editor--who has alleged that a series of events are a genocide because that editor thinks it fits a pattern of one of the many definitions of genocide--produces reliable sources that state that those events were a genocide. -- PBS (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're wrong on the OR and SYNTH, as well as the ability of WP editors (many of whom are qualified to make a legal or academic analysis without going into OR). There is no point in continuing the discussion, I'm not going to change my position, at least as long as the current criteria is part of the package. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Others thoughts on the points raised in this exchange would be appreciated. To summarise: -- PBS (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think that an event can be called a genocide unless reliable secondary sources have described it as one. For a Wikidepa editors to compare a series of events with a definition of genocide and draw the conclusion that those events were a genocide is a WP:SYN.
 * From my understanding of what GregJackP has written above (and I invite him to explain if I have got it wrong), if an bird walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and so meets the requirements of a definition of a duck taken from a reliable source, then Wikipeida editors can describe the bird as a duck even though no reliable sources has been found that states it is a duck, because it is not a SYN to do so.
 * That is an over-simplification and inappropriate application of WP:SYNTH. First, if it is not WP:OR, it is not SYNTH, period. See WP:SYNNOT (yes, I know that is an essay). Second, if I'm talking about a 1956 Ford Thunderbird, I don't have to have the source say that it is a car for me to say it is a car in the article. See WP:OBVIOUS. If you have an established definition of genocide, supported by reliable sources, it is not OR to look at a discrete set of facts that match that definition and say that it is genocide, any more than it is OR to say that a source that describes a murder but does not use that term can have that action identified as an unlawful killing, a homicide, or murder. See what Jimbo said here. It's not appropriate to limit Wikipedia sources on genocide to those published after 1944, when the word was first used. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Agree with   - We have Duck blocks,  we refer to people we're certain are socks as duck socks, so yes, the reasoning is sound, further, when we look back in history itself, we see examples of this, i.e: In colonial times when a person died of a certain lung disease, it was called "Consumption",  when we look back at that same period of time, we don't call that disease "Consumption", we call it "Tuberculosis" because that is what it's properly called.  It meets the symptoms, and therefore recieves the label.   PBS is right   KoshVorlon    Rassekali ternii i mlechnye putiundefined  17:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - could you please clarify? You state that you agree with, but the text you wrote seems to agree with my position. My understanding of PBS's position is that unless the source actually states the disease is tuberculosis, we have to call it consumption because that is what the source called it. I'm claiming that it is not OR nor Synth to call it TB, because that is what it actually is, it is apparent from the description of the symptoms, and that's what it should be called. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   14:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Woops! my mistake, yes, you're correct, I agree with your position.  KoshVorlon    Rassekali ternii i mlechnye putiundefined  17:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone describes symptoms of an illness carried by a person today, then just because a Wikipedia editor thinks those symptoms indicate that the person has TB one can not add to an article that the person has TB unless there is a reliable secondary source that say they have it. That is true today and it is true for the diagnosis of people in the past. In the case of consumption there are plenty of sources that sate that consumption is an old name for TB, but that is very different from an Wikiepdia editor looking at the symptoms of an illness and labelling it TB. In the latter case the usual way to deal with such text is either to find a modern secondary source that states the person had TB, or if one can not be found use an older sources that says the person had consumption and then another source to note that the modern term for consumption is TB. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to make diagnostics like this. While the duck test can be used in Wikipedia namespace it can not be used on article pages to draw conclusions which are not present in reliable secondary sources.-- PBS (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"If you have an established definition of genocide, supported by reliable sources, it is not OR to look at a discrete set of facts that match that definition and say that it is genocide" Actually, it is. It is a violation of NOR precisely because there are some conflicting definitions of genocide, because the facts are not (cannot be) known in sufficient detail to editors (to use the UN definition, just how many people must die to cause the death "in part" of a group? Is one enough?  How about ten?), and most especially because non-politically motivated experts sometimes come to opposite conclusions on the question of whether or not a particular event crosses the threshold for genocide or is more appropriately classified as mass murder. This problem is so well known that this problem is all over the popular press (example). You need a source for a claim that an event constituted genocide, no matter how obvious it seem to you personally.

Deciding whether the mass murder of people based on their socioeconomic status, e.g., nobles during Revolutionary France, constitutes "genocide" is far more difficult and far more fraught than saying consumption is universally acknowledged to be an exact synonym for a disease that we now call tuberculosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous and not covered by OR. If I have an established definition of a car, supported by reliable sources, it is not OR to look at a discrete set of facts that match that definition and say that it is a car. If I have an established definition of a duck, supported by reliable sources, it is not OR to look at a discrete set of facts that match that definition and say that it is a duck. If I have an established definition of a TB, supported by reliable sources, it is not OR to look at a discrete set of facts that match that definition and say that it is a TB. What your argument does is provide ammunition for genocide deniers, who will go back to sources from before 1944 and say, "see, no statement that it is genocide." GregJackP   Boomer!   05:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it is OR to look at "" and conclude that the facts match the definition. This is covered in the NOR policy in the second sentence in the lead:
 * "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."
 * In the section on primary sources it states
 * "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
 * As the section in NOR linked to by WP:STICKTOSOURCE says
 * "If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery."
 * -- PBS (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, you obviously have ignored the part on WP:SYNNOT and every other wikilink that I've put up. You have still not addressed why I can't discuss a duck as a duck or a car as a car when it is not explicitly stated in the source. If a source calls a bird a Mallard, I can call it a duck. If a source calls a motor vehicle a '56 Chevy, I can call it a car. I can show you the policies and the statements by Jimbo about using commonsense and WP:OBVIOUS, but I can't change a bureaucratic mindset that is apparent here. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The two Hampton L. Carsons
Is this OR? I would like to say that Hampton L. Carson (lawyer) (1852–1929) is the grandfather of Hampton L. Carson (biologist) (1914–2004). (In both cases, the middle name is "Lawrence".) According to Joseph Carson obituary, the Joseph Carson in question is 100% definitely the son of the lawyer. The 1953 obituary goes on to mention Joseph's son Hampton L. is a professor in St. Louis, it also names Joseph's wife's maiden name was Edith Guest Bruen. The biologist has a Who's Who entry naming his parents, Joseph and Edith Bruen Carson. Choor monster (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Using a sequence of photos to draw a conclusion
This question is related to a discussion about images for Going commando at Talk:Going commando. My question, which I don't think is clearly spelled out in the NOR policy and guidelines, is how far editors can go in drawing conclusion based on a series of photos. Can we say that the model in File:Pierced blonde in studio 07.jpg is not wearing underwear because she isn't wearing any one minute later in File:Pierced blonde in studio 05.jpg (NSFW)? We don't know what costume changes too place in the one minute that passed between photos, so can we make assumptions? Do we even know if photo timestamps are accurate? How far, in general, can editors go in interpreting the meaning of a sequence of photos to reach conclusions that are beyond what you could see from looking at only one of the images in isolation?<P>And can we only look at File:Pierced blonde in studio 07.jpg and say, "well, she'd look different (IMHO) if she had underwear on"?<P>What I see is sources that mostly say that under normal circumstances (outside of exhibitionism or upskirt hijinks) others don't have any idea whether or not a person is wearing underwear, and in cases where others do find out it's because some social norm or expectation has been violated. Which raises the question of whether or not you can illustrate a topic which is not normally visible. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Quoting OR websites
In wikipedia article MH17 material is quoted from a website www.bellingcat.com

1) I'm pretty sure the material on that website counts as OR

2) Assuming I am right on (1), surely OR material from it cannot be presented on wikipedia with the defence that 'Quoting other refs on a subject is not original research. The ban on OR means that we don't publish OR here on Wikipedia, but we quote it from other sources'

If I am wrong on (2) surely that is a back-door for people to publish OR on their own websites and then link it into an article as not OR, i.e. "quote it [OR] from other sources"?

Sorry I can't work how to use the notify template, the user involver is Ahunt I'd be grateful if someone notifies him.


 * You have a fundamental misunderstanding of no original research policy. Please read it again. It's perfectly fine for external sources to do "OR". In fact that's what they're supposed to do. It's Wikipedia editors who should not engage in OR.
 * As to 2) that's where WP:RS policy on reliable sources comes in. If I publish something on my website and it gets covered in secondary reliable sources, then yeah it could be used (assuming it doesn't violate some other policy). If it doesn't, it can't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks I see the problem is the website with the OR is not that it is OR but that it is not RS and have removed it again Dbdb (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is reliable. literally deleted references to the Washington Post, Deutsche Welle, Forbes. Stickee (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Word Passport
Extensive original research. A rough estimate, at least two-thirds of the sources given therein come from the self-styled "World Service Authority", so called, which are in fact also the issuer of this self-styled passport. -- 5.198.6.211 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be a lot better to cite the new media at least, like the Slate article (which also refers to a New York Times article not yet cited on Wikipedia). --Dowcet (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom
I've started an RfC about List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom. The article has no sources and includes lots of living people. It's not clear what the criteria for inclusion in the list are. The RfC hasn't attracted comments from any additional editors, so input would be welcome. I've also flagged this on the BLP noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC on consensus statement of relative safety of currently marketed GM food
See here Posting here since issues of WP:SYN have been raised. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Related Synthesis Question
On the Genetically_modified_food page is a claim "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." it has 10 sources. the "There is broad scientific consensus" part is only expressly stated by one source, and that partially "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." . The remaining citations do not. They speak of safety in some form or another. Are the remaining sources forming a synthesis to back up the one? Are all the sources forming a synthesis that make up the claim as the one source does not expressly state that "food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." "I would welcome an uninvolved party to answer this. Thanks. AlbinoFerret  19:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * From my interpretation (and by the way the statement is made twice, first in the lede and secondly within the Controversies section, totalling 8 references in both) the scientific sources cited are in fact intended to be interpreted as "broad scientific consensus". It is not a literal expression, rather an interpretation of the combined sources provided. You'll find very few scientific articles stating "broad consensus" as a fact. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Asking questions on Twitter
Recently, especially when it comes to voice actors, I've noticed a trend of individuals asking questions to an individual on Twitter, either about their personal work or coworkers, and then inserting their response onto the article. A recent example is Blood Blockade Battlefront where this tweet asking about another voice actor resulted in this response. Immediately afterward the response, this edit was made to the article, was reverted per WP:BLP, and reinstated with the link to the tweet. Given that the information was not previously published in a reliable source AND the information was clearly the result of an editor asking a question on Twitter, would this practice be considered original research? —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:RS doesn't permit self-published sources (which Twitter clearly is)to be used as "a third-party source about another living person" - which means it can't be used in the example you give. More generally, there is the obvious problem of being able to confirm that the Twitter account actually belongs to the person it is claimed to. And frankly, if the only source for something is a comment on Twitter, it probably doesn't belong in an article anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The little blue checkmark indicates accounts where Twitter has verified it belongs to the actual person. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Original research has a precise and specific meaning on Wikipedia, which is insertion of claims that are not supported by a reliable source. While taking the initiative to find or even prompt the creation of a reliable source would be commonly understood as "doing research", it is outside the particular meaning of OR as a term of art on Wikipedia. The resulting source should be regarded the same as any source for consideration, so in the case of a tweet it would be a WP:SPS. Rhoark (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem using a comment made by a verified person on Twitter to source information in the article as long as it's not being used to verify notability. Once notability has been established, it is perfectly acceptable to use a primary source for information. Sometimes, that is the only way to get the information. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly not much of an issue on a non-controversial edit, but we must be careful to not set a precedent that could be used to manipulate Wikipedia for worse in the future. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon and Comparison to Dassault Rafale
There is a dispute at Eurofighter Typhoon concerning proposed language comparing the Eurofighter to the Dassault Rafale, concerning whether the proposed language amounts to synthesis having the nature of original research. This issue has been at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and a decision has been made to take the issue to this noticeboard for comments by editors who are familiar with the application of the original research policies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft paragraph and comments of proponent
The draft paragraph with contentious bits in bold.

"According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.  Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.   The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.   An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar.  Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.   The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection.  Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding  a larger reflection. "

With respect to first bolded bit, they claim it is synthesis because they assume I'm insinuating that the composite percentages are the reason for the Typhoon having a lower RCS than the Rafale, just because it follows a sentence that does draw a comparison. However here is what the relevant section on the wikipedia "what synth is not" page has to say:

1. Wrt composite percentages - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition "Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone. Gray-area cases aren't SYNTH, just unclear writing. Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph. The reader would get the same meaning from these sentences if they were in separate paragraphs, or in different parts of the article."

I.e. it is not synthesis just because two sourced facts are stated in separate juxtaposed sentences. So when Mztourist says, "This side by side comparison of factual information is Synth when read following the previous sentence," he is incorrect. Even if we removed the part about the Rafale, it would still be in the Rafale article, indeed the image source is from that article anyway. So the facts would all still be there in wikipedia, saying the exact same thing and having the same meaning. As per "SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition" the reader gets the same facts even if they are placed elsewhere in the article, or project.

With respect to second bolded bit, they claim it is synthesis because they assume I'm proposing this as further synthesised proof of RCS, just because it follows a sentence that does source a comparison. However here is what the relevant section on the wikipedia "what synth is not" page has to say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization "Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research. As an example, if a source shows (without any total following it) "1+1+1+1", a Wikipedia article can express the same data with summarization "1+1+1+1=4""

I.e just because I'm summarising the content of the radar detection range equation in the sources, it is not synthesis, and as before, it isn't synthesis just because it's juxtaposed either. The statement is correct, radar detection range is proportional to the 4th root of RCS as per equation marked out in source following sentence. See also, if required:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) Also of note, if two separate sentences are individually sourced and accurate to that source, it is not synthesis/OR and complies with example 3 in No_original_research

Also applicable to complaints against paragraph: What_SYNTH_is_not What_SYNTH_is_not What_SYNTH_is_not

I am happy to include any sourced counter claims, as mentioned by Mztourist, if he can find WP:RS for them.Z07x10 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary by opponent
To analyse the contentious paragraph: "According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return. This is the original wording from February that all of Z07x10's later edits seek to support.

''Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes. The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.  This side by side comparison of factual information is Synth when read following the previous sentence.

An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar. I'm really not sure what this is trying to say as it is comparing the Typhoon against a completely different, stealthier aircraft.

Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section. '' I'm also unsure what this is trying to say.

''The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding a larger reflection. '' This is another attempted comparison between the Typhoon and the Rafale (which does have a vertically mounted radar).

In my view all of the above amounts to Synth to support a claim made in a questionable source. User: Z07x10 doesn't present any information that could support the contrary position such as that the Rafale's engine intakes conceal the engine face more efefctively than the Tyhpoon. I certainly don't wish to see this page devolve into a blog of "the Typhoon is steathier because of this" versus "the Rafale is stealthier because of this." Unfortunately that will be the result if the questionable source is supported by this OR/Synth. Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
I can't agree that two separate sourced statements amount to synthesis, because neither of them amounts to the suggestion of a third point that isn't expressed by either of them, and that is the crucial aspect of this. If you look at the incorrect examples here. There is a third point/opinion being suggested by the crucial words in bold:

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

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

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

In the third example it's more complicated but there is still a clear insinuation that the rule broken is not plagiarism and that Jones may have broken another rule relying on one editor's interpretation/OR of a source:

"If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them."

You can see the clear linkage between the sentences, "practice" -->> "this rule" and the manual "does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead..." It could be acceptably rewritten as:

"Not consulting the original sources is contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. According to the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them."

There is no longer any editor OR/synthesis although a reader may still perform their own OR/synthesis, which does not count as editor WP:OR.

Now my edit:

"According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return.  Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes.   The Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes.  

Here the point that the Rafale has a larger RCS is included in the first sourced sentence, the Typhoon's surface area composition is stated in the second point and the Rafale's surface area composition is stated in the third point, without any adjoining commentary linking the two. There is no suggestion that the Rafale has a larger RCS as a third point, because that's already sourced and pointed to in the first sentence. Could the first sourced point be because of the second and third sourced points? Well it could but the editor has not suggested that themselves with any inflammatory text, as shown in bold in the above examples. Any OR/synthesis is on behalf of the reader and that is impossible to prevent and does not constitute editor OR, as shown in. "

An apple is a kind of fruit that is eaten by many people. Apples contain fruit sugars, vitamins, water, and fiber. Apples can be eaten raw or cooked. Some people are allergic to eating apples.

Is the reason that many people eat apples because they contains fruit sugars, since these are sweet? Is it because of the flexibility provided in being able to be eaten raw or cooked? Well it might be but the editor has not suggested this simply due to juxtaposition, any OR/synthesis is on behalf of the reader once again. Wikipedia rules under juxtaposition do not hold an editor accountable for reader OR, only their own OR. It simply tells complainants, as readers, not to perpetrate their own OR and blame it on editors :

"SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't."

Ultimately it is impossible to write in a way that stops readers thinking and drawing an opinion on the multiple facts presented to them and would we want to anyway? Editors are not responsible for human nature, only their words. Inferring words that aren't there is a complainant problem not an editor problem.

See also:
 * "The policy gives one example of something that's not SYNTH and says, "The first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced." SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources: it's about what the writing says, not the grammatical structure of how it says it.

If you want to take one source that says "allergic reactions can lead to death" and a second source that says "some people are allergic to apples", and you want to add these up into a new conclusion, "so nobody should eat apples unless they're trying to commit suicide", then there is no possible way to say this without violating SYNTH. It does not matter what grammar or structure you use: introducing your own new idea is prohibited.

On the other hand, if every single idea (considered separately as well as the overall effect) is taken from reliable sources (rather than your own new ideas), then there is no grammar structure or way of expressing these ideas that will make the material violate SYNTH. There are many ways of expressing these concepts that make the article badly written, but bad writing that introduces no novel ideas is bad writing, not a violation of SYNTH."''

My actual writing introduces no third point.

Wrt to second complainant point:

"An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar. Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.  Z07x10 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)"

Again both sentences are accurate to the source they cite. Being "unsure" of what material is saying is not a reason to cry synthesis/OR:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_secondary-school_question
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)

Wrt third complainant point:

"The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding  a larger reflection. "

This statement makes no mention of the Rafale even, the fact that the Rafale has a fixed vertical radar (as per Mztourist comment) is not something that I have mentioned in my edit. If it's a fact anyway then so be it.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all

I am happy to include any points, which support other views as per policy, as long as they're reliably sourced.

See:

"It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view."Z07x10 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The initial sentence makes an assertion regarding the relative radar cross section, and the following sentences present evidence as to why that should be so from sources which make no such comparison. This juxtaposition is clearly intended to reinforce the initial questionably-sourced claim - which amounts to synthesis. Incidentally, the article cannot cite material uploaded to Photobucket or docdrod, and such material shouldn't even be linked on Wikipedia talk pages since it appears to be a breach of copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Andy, I gained permission before uploading it. The reason I didn't link the original is because in a year's time it may disappear.  I could use the wayback archive method instead if it's better for you.  Juxtaposition/grammar does not constitute synthesis, only words do.  My actual words introduce no third point as per wikipedia policy.  The only OR/synthesis is your brain taking several sourced facts and drawing a conclusion yourself.  That is not OR/synthesis as per the policy guidelines.  It may help to look through the examples it provides, which I've taken great time to outline above   Z07x10 (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your say-so wrt copyright is not enough - we need something public from the copyright holder. And of course juxtapositions can imply meaning and constitute synthesis. This looks highly problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, issues regarding copyright aren't a question of 'what is better for me' - they are Wikipedia policy. As for your assertion regarding juxtaposition, I am not going to get dragged into a facile argument over semantics - the later sentences are clearly and unambiguously intended to provide evidence for the initial questionably-sourced statement, and are drawn from sources which make no such comparison - this is synthesis, since it is you not the sources in question that are making the comparison. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay I have changed the reference to http://web.archive.org/web/20140419074552/http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Eurofighter_World.pdf.
 * I am stating what the policy actually says wrt synthesis/OR? I have made no comparison, I have stated two sourced facts side-by-side, it is only an editor's words that can count as synthesis.  Providing evidence on its own is not synthesis.  As per the juxtaposition article on the apple example, the same material is already included elsewhere in the project anyway .  Is the apple widely eaten because it contains fruit sugars or because of its flexibility to be eaten cooked and raw?  Maybe, but the actual words don't say that.  No additional suggestion of any unsupported points has been provided by my text.  The original point was made in an independent study by experts at by the institute of peace and conflict studies (not by myself), who study and publish reports on a variety of things:
 * http://www.ipcs.org/
 * http://www.ipcs.org/about-us/
 * http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR178-IPCSAnnual.pdf
 * http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdfZ07x10 (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Presenting 'sourced facts side-by-side' in order to provide evidence for something they don't individually state is synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a reference to the actual wikipedia policy and examples to support your opinions. The only evidence they provide is for what they actually state, I have not said anything else.  If a reader does believe they provide evidence for something else then that is in their hands and is not editor OR/synthesis.  The policy is very clear on this:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_matter_of_grammar


 * "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources: it's about what the writing says, not the grammatical structure of how it says it."Z07x10 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have said precisely nothing about grammatical structure. And the sources you are citing together to provide evidence that the Typhoon has a smaller radar cross-section than the Rafale do not individually state this - making the combination a clear and unequivocal synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked you to cite where the policy says that this is synthesis to support your opinion  .  Under the policy and examples, an editor can only be held accountable for non-neutral wording  in juxtaposed sentences when citing sources that suggests a third point not in any source.  My wording is neutral, every point in isolation is NPOV.  The point that the Typhoon has a smaller RCS than the Rafale is already stated in a source therefore it is not a third point as per the definition of synthesis in the policy, and my wording does not highlight the other points as proving the first point let alone a third point.  Just because points appear to support another point that does not prohibit them from inclusion, otherwise in say the String Theory article, an editor wouldn't be able to cite sources that support or oppose part of String Theory (but not the whole) in case a reader/complainant infers that they are using this as synthesis to support/disprove the whole theory, even though there words are neutral and suggest no such thing. So until someone proves the whole of String Theory, anything in the article, besides an overview, would be synthesis based on the opinion you've provided here.  This would make for a terrible encyclopedia.Z07x10 (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * An editor can be held accountable for non-neutral editing anywhere. And as for your source, what it actually says is " According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter". 'May appear'. The material in question doesn't even support the initial sentence (and is too equivocal to be much use). And as has been pointed out on the article talk page, it isn't normal practice to include comparisons with other aircraft in Wikipedia articles - and doing so on the basis of a single source making a vague comparison is entirely unjustified. I have no idea why this debate has been permitted to go on for so long - regardless of WP:OR issues the source is misrepresented, and the content is undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are yet to cite a single reference in the policy applicable to my content that supports your opinion  .  The point sourcing that reference on RCS in the edit text says, "some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return" which is a fair representation of what source says.  The source fits the description of a reliable independent secondary  source .  The edit text says exactly what is in the source:


 * "According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter. While both fighters lose their masking abilities if fully loaded up with external munitions, the Eurofighter at least has the ability to carry 4 semi-conformal BVRAAMs i.e. a well armed air defence or interception patrol, which is reasonably invisible. "


 * It is also incorrect to say that it is not normal practice to include fighter comparisons on wikipedia (see MiG-15 vs F-86).


 * It would be nice to get some policy-supported opinions from other people, who understand the policy Z07x10 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in policy which justifies including this vague comparison in the article in the first place. A comparison which the source you cite notes is only actually valid for an unarmed aircraft (something you omitted to mention). Though why a source which uses terms like 'reasonably invisible' should be considered RS for technical matters is beyond me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please source the opinion that policy doesn't justify this inclusion? Actually your other assertion - which definitely fits the description of OR/synthesis on your part - isn't quite the case either.  If you read the source it says the Typhoon has the ability to carry 4 semi-conformal BVRAAMs, providing a well-armed aircraft for interception roles that is 'reasonably invisible'.  Clearly it depends on the load, but I am happy to include the full text in that paragraph if you feel it's better:


 * "While both fighters lose their masking abilities if fully loaded up with external munitions, the Eurofighter at least has the ability to carry 4 semi-conformal BVRAAMs i.e. a well armed air defence or interception patrol, which is reasonably invisible."


 * Again, the IPCS (Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies) is an independent body of expert researchers part of a wider group of independent research bodies, so there is no reason to suggest that their comparison lacks credibility.


 * "Partners and Networks
 * The Institute closely interacts with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Foreign Service and the three wings of the Indian Armed Forces – the army, navy, and the air force – the academic community, and the media.


 * The Institute also organises track-II dialogues involving the strategic community from other countries on select issues such as Nuclear Security, India-Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Water Security.


 * The IPCS has partnered with the Brookings Institute, Sandia National Lab, IISS, China Research Forum, and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, among others, in the past.


 * Furthermore, the IPCS is part of regional and international networks. In South Asia, the Institute is the founder member of the Consortium of South Asian Think Tanks (COSATT), a network of leading think tanks in the region; the Strategic Studies Network (SSN) led by the Near East South Asia Center (NESA) involving think tanks and scholars from North Africa, West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia; the Council for Asian Transnational Threat Research (CATR) including experts and Institutes from South Asia, Southeast Asia, Australia, Korea, Japan and the United States; and the GIBSA network involving the Institute for International and Security Affairs (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, SWP), Berlin; Centro de Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (CEBRI), Rio de Janeiro; and the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), Pretoria."


 * If ever there was a case of an independent reliable secondary source, this it.


 * Furthermore these sourced points improve the article by providing interesting sourced comparisons, surrounding RCS, aircraft construction and the Typhoon's swash-plate mounted radar, so over-zealous enforcement of policy and opinion shouldn't prevent their inclusion.Z07x10 (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)''


 * It may be independent - I don't however see why it should be seen as particularly reliable for technical matters, given the vagueness of what it actually says. Furthermore, the source in question says nothing whatsoever about the RAF. In fact you cite no source at all for the first half-sentence of the contested material - you are juxtaposing an unsourced assertion about the RAF with a source discussing procurement in India. I can see no reasonable interpretation of the combined material that doesn't suggest that you are trying to argue a case from disparate sources. A case that actually has little direct bearing on the subject of the article, since it isn't about the Rafale.
 * There is nothing vague about what it states, that is only opinion. As established above they interact with a variety of experts, including research scholars, the Indian government, airforce, navy and army as well as a large variety of other experts, so their sources are likely to be of a high standard, especially since India recently compared the two aircraft in the MRCA tender.  Their other partners include:


 * http://www.sandia.gov/
 * https://www.iiss.org/
 * http://www.kas.de/wf/en/
 * http://www.brookings.edu/
 * http://cosatt.org/
 * http://nesa-center.org/
 * http://strategicstudiesnetwork.org/


 * So their research cannot be described as vague, although given the nature of military research and diplomatic angles, they may not identify all their sources.
 * Now going back to Mztourist's angle that the construction comparison intends to support the radar cross-section comparison, the first source already makes this assessment, so there is no third point and therefore no synthesis to be alleged even ignoring the neutral language used in the edit :


 * "While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars. According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter."


 * For further reference:


 * "Although not of the classic angular, zigzag edged shape usually associated with stealth designs, Eurofighter Typhoon's shape balances aerodynamic requirements, such as low drag and high lift, with the need to minimise reflected radar energy in all directions, producing a signature which is smaller than that of all other fighter aircraft currently in production."


 * Yes, the first bit of the sentence wrt RAF requirements, and indeed the first sentence itself, was included by another editor and the source for exceeding RAF requirements IIRC was from a Typhoon forum and hence the source was dismissed as unreliable. The edit was left as the requirements laid out in document SR(A)-425 were for quite a high maximum frontal RCS of 1m^2 and it is fairly well accepted that nearly all modern fighters are below this, although I would have trouble supporting that assertion, so I am happy to remove the statement about RAF requirements, even though it is likely true, I can't support it.


 * All information in that paragraph pertains to Typhoon radar signature reduction and supported comparisons (as per Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 article). Z07x10 (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * So you believe that a vaguely worded claim in a disputed source is still RS? If this claim had any weight it would be carried in numerous more reputable sources that this. I am frankly amazed that you still try to argue that there is no synthesis here. You are still essentially saying the Typhoon has a higher % of composites than the Rafale and so it is stealthier.Mztourist (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. That is an assertion without substance. The statement in the source is very clear - that some sources have estimated the Rafale's RCS to be 4 times larger than the Typhoon - and the source, as evidenced above liaises with subject matter experts and is independent and is therefore a reliable secondary source .  The fact that you dispute it in isolation without supporting reasoning is irrelevant as you are not a subject matter expert.
 * 2. Estimates from such expert sources, although not conclusive, are often provided by advanced specialist software, e.g.   and are therefore not dismissible as 'vague'.  This also applies to.
 * 3. The claim is supported by other sources but with slightly less specific wording, as already evidenced above :
 * "Although not of the classic angular, zigzag edged shape usually associated with stealth designs, Eurofighter Typhoon's shape balances aerodynamic requirements, such as low drag and high lift, with the need to minimise reflected radar energy in all directions, producing a signature which is smaller than that of all other fighter aircraft currently in production."
 * 4. The original source already presents the % of composites as a reason for the Typhoon having a lower RCS, therefore there is no third unsupported point being made/suggested/implied and hence no synthesis, even if my actual wording in presenting the second point wasn't neutral, which it is.
 * Synthesis definition:
 * "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."
 * Source text:
 * "While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars."
 * In this case the source already presents A and B as a reason for C, so stating composite percentages in my edit can't possibly imply anything new or original, even if I did present it as the reason for the lower RCS, which I didn't.Z07x10 (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this argument has gone on long enough. The sole "source" for the Rafale having four times the RCS of Typhoon is a single throwaway sentence in a paper written from an financial and economic standpoint; and it itself merely says "some sources". So, the assertion is not reliably sourced. The paper referred to (the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies paper) then mentions composite versus metal construction in a single sentence, barely an aside, but this hardly constitutes proper discussion. The paper might be reliable from the standpoint of the policies of the Indian Government, but not from an engineering or technical standpoint. So we are left with the dispute that the two sentences which follow this assertion in the article, when combined with it, constitute synthesis. This forum has members who are well-versed in the WP:SYN policies, who presumably were not previously familiar with the article or its interminable edit-warring. They instantly agreed that the three sentences constituted synthesis. So a lone editor has carried on the argument, posting replies which are WP:TLDR, 90 percent irrelevant and demand reversed burden of proof that the policies actually mean what they state unequivocally. I would seek some binding decision which would resolve this disruptive dispute and impose sanctions, preferably a topic ban, for continued disruption and attempts to game the system. HLGallon (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. As mentioned already the source liaises with subject matter experts and doesn't analyse from a purely financial/economic standpoint (as the Rafale was the cheaper MRCA option for India anyway) who include parties who've recently assessed the two aircraft. Some of their sources are likely militarily and diplomatically sensitive, so aren't quoted.  The wording of the statement in the source can't be used as proof that the source isn't reliable.
 * 2. Often such analysis reports are required to be of a given word length and therefore summarise the critical points. This does not make it unreliable.
 * 3. The source liaises with the Indian government, airforce, navy and army, who have recently assessed the aircraft against the Rafale. It also liases with technical laboratories like Sandia and other specialist networks.  .  As mentioned previously sophisticated software exists for estimating radar cross-section   , so the 'estimate' being referenced is likely a long way from a 'finger in the air' given the resources and vastness of their network '''AND is backed up by another source in slightly different wording. :
 * "Although not of the classic angular, zigzag edged shape usually associated with stealth designs, Eurofighter Typhoon's shape balances aerodynamic requirements, such as low drag and high lift, with the need to minimise reflected radar energy in all directions, producing a signature which is smaller than that of all other fighter aircraft currently in production."
 * 4. The two references that follow it focus on composite percentage only, however the source for the first point already states composite % as a reason for the lower RCS:
 * Source text:
 * "While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars."
 * Therefore no mention of composite percentage by an editor thereafter, even if stated non-neutrally (which it isn't) can possibly constitute OR/synthesis because the first source has already stated the point you're accusing them of synthesising.
 * 5. So far no complainant has backed up their opinion with policy.
 * 6. Perhaps you should have read my responses because then I wouldn't have to keep explaining why it can't possibly be synthesis.
 * 7. This is the OR/synthesis noticeboard, so don't use this late opportunity to dispute the reliability of the source, when that wasn't your original complaint.Z07x10 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If contributors consider a source to be of questionable reliability, they are entirely free to say so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed but that isn't a subject for the OR/synthesis noticeboard and the previous DRN didn't find a problem with the source. I have already pointed out why the source is reliable due to the nature of their work/partners and if people had actually read my response and followed the links they would know this.  I have also shown another source that supports the same point in slightly different wording without giving a precise RCS (radar cross-section) difference, it simply says the Typhoon's RCS is less.  I have also clearly explained why there is no point being synthesised because the alleged synthesised point (composite % being a reason for the RCS difference) is already stated in the source for the first point!  I don't see that there are any valid complaints left at this stage.  Surely we can at least agree that it can't be synthesis and close this debate?Z07x10 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see no evidence that anyone agrees any such thing - to the contrary, everyone other than you who has commented seems to see the content as problematic. Though I suspect that less in the way of repetitive walls of text might have attracted more comment... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Two Comments
As at least one editor has pointed out, the statements made by the proponent of the contested argument are too long, difficult to read. Can he or she make the point in one short paragraph? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The original complaint was one of synthesis, specifically that the mention of composite % for the two aircraft in 2nd and 3rd sentence of the content is acting as synthesised support for the RCS difference in the first sourced sentence in that paragraph. However the source already makes this exact point, stating composite % as a reason for the RCS difference, therefore there is no synthesis and this is not an issue for this board.
 * Source text:http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf
 * "While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars."Z07x10 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the contentious language was "Some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return." and then the OR/synth that followed to try to support this claim, rather than this new quote, the reliability of which I question below. Mztourist (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Second, the underlying issue is whether a reliable source has engaged in the synthesis, in which case we may quote it. If an editor has engaged in the synthesis, it is original research, and the argument that it was original research is why this question was brought here. If an unreliable source has engaged in the synthesis, then the requirement for reliable sources is a reason to exclude the synthesis. It appears that the issue now may be the reliability of the source (compounded by the length of the posts). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely that is not an issue for the original research noticeboard. Complaints about unreliable sources should be dealt with elsewhere, although in this case I maintain that the source is reliable and there is a second reliable source making a similar assertion.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htmZ07x10 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also the issue (being discussed on the article talk page) as to whether the article should making such detailed comparisons between the particular aircraft concerned at all. One is the subject of the article. The other one isn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, that isn't an issue for the OR noticeboard, although there is a precedent for this in the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 article, which makes comparisons between the F-86 and MiG-15. As it is, the comparison in the Eurofighter Typhoon article is very short (2 lines) and as long as editors can provide WP:RS there isn't a problem, since reliably sourced aircraft comparisons are few and far between.Z07x10 (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The comparison of the MiG-15 and F-86 is clearly relevant to the article concerned - they fought head-to-head, and their relative merits in combat have been the subject of much in-depth discussion in multiple sources. Which can clearly not be said about any discussion concerning the relative RCS of the Eurofighter and the Rafale, give the lack of sources actually discussing it. If it had been discussed extensively, there would have been no need to start citing sources which don't actually make any comparison. And no, the lack of sources for something isn't a reason to include it in an article... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Typhoon and Rafale were developed by two rival European manufacturers, during the same time period. The manufacturers split during the early days of the EFA Project.  There has been a lot of speculation about their relative merits and rival bids, so naturally there is an interest, which warrants some coverage.Z07x10 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There clearly hasn't been 'a lot of speculation' about the relative RCS of the two aircraft, given the paucity of sources actually discussing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Except we do have two sources and a third source where an EADS radar expert compares detection range with an F-35.Z07x10 (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What are the two sources you are referring to? What relevance is a comparison between the detection range of Typhoon compared to the F-35? While there may have been 'a lot of speculation' about the relative RCS' particularly among fans of either the Typhoon or Rafale, AndyTheGrump is completely correct that there is a lack of WP:RS on the issue, which is why you have had to resort to the dubious Indian source and OR/Synth. Mztourist (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Having determined that there is no synthesis (see source text) can we close this down, as I think we can agree that it is not an OR issue anymore, whatever remaining complaints there may be?Z07x10 (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No such determination has been made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The original complaint was one of synthesis, specifically that the mention of composite % for the two aircraft in 2nd and 3rd sentence of the content is acting as synthesised support for the RCS difference in the first sourced sentence in that paragraph. However the source for the first sentence already makes this exact point, stating composite % as a reason for the RCS difference, therefore there is no synthesis by mentioning composite % and this is not an issue for this board. Doesn't get any clearer than that.
 * Source text:http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf
 * "While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars."Z07x10 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I note this new quote, which is contradicted by the figures Z07x10 has provided that the Typhoon is 85% composite, while the Rafale is 70% composite. Clearly the Rafale is not "overwhelmingly metal" and so the source is unreliable. Mztourist (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, that is a classic example of a non-expert misinterpreting a source written by experts and taking a statement out of context. Everything is relative and depends on radar perspective, and compared to the Typhoon it is overwhelming metallic when viewed from the critical frontal, side and bottom perspectives because both the fixed vertical radar, wing, tail and canard leading edges, intakes and part of the fuselage sides are metallic, as is the DDM-NG case on the tail.  The metallic intakes and fuselage are the main problem because they massively increase radar reflective from all angles bar the rear.  The Typhoon has a tilted radar, carbon fibre composite intakes and fuselage sides and no metal case at the top of the tail.  The wing root leading edge is also glass reinforced plastic.
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg/220px-Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg.png
 * http://s1281.photobucket.com/user/sigmafour1/media/TyphoonConstr_zpslgixpxjr.png.html from http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/TecGuide.pdf radar assertion http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Eurofighter_World.pdfZ07x10 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It should again be noted that this is the OR noticeboard and source reliability is outside the scope of this board and the complaint you raised. With your original complaint failed perhaps you should WP:DTS.  Seeing as you have now lost/given up the synthesis case, perhaps we can close this debate.  If you still feel the need, you can take this up on the RS noticeboard but I feel you will lose because there's a second pay-per-view source saying the same thing.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htmZ07x10 (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Source reliability is not out of scope of any discussion concerning Wikipedia article content. And so far, it has not been established that anyone has 'lost' any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It very much has in terms of the synthesis case and this is the wrong board for discussing RS.Z07x10 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Z07x10 what does "overwhelmingly" mean to you? Do you honestly believe that by having 15% less composites overall than the Typhoon, that makes the Rafale "overwhelmingly metal"? I would also point out that globalsecurity.org is not regarded as WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Without stating a percentage it means nothing. The only thing being conveyed there is that the Rafale has a far higher percentage of metal covering its surface. From a side-on perspective it certainly is more metal than non-metal because of the intakes and fuselage metal.Z07x10 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

A Summary, and Thoughts to Go Forward
It appears that one editor, User:Z07x10, the proponent, wants to include the comparison language. Multiple editors want to exclude the comparison language. The first argument was that the comparison language was synthesis amounting to original research. The proponent has, in my opinion, established that another source has provided the language. However, there are multiple reasons for excluding the comparison language. Some have said that the source is biased, because the source was trying to sell the Eurofighter. Others have said that the language is not necessary in the article, which is about the Eurofighter, not about a comparison of the Eurofighter with other aircraft. It appears that there is a consensus against the inclusion of the language, just not a consensus on why to exclude the language. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There are several ways to go forward. First, the proponent can accept that there is consensus against including the language. I don't think he wants to do that, but it would be the easiest way forward. Second, he can, as he suggested, go to the reliable source noticeboard. That isn't likely to help, because it may address the source issues, but there are other arguments against the language. Third, he can request formal mediation. That is the last and most heavy-weight option for trying to get compromise. It will require that a majority of the editors agree to mediation. Fourth, and this is the only binding approach, someone, either a proponent or an opponent, can publish a neutrally worded Request for Comments, and the RFC can be publicized on various Wikiprojects such as military history, to get the involvement of as many previously outside editors as possible. So I suggest: Either Z07x10 can acknowledge that he is in the minority about the language, or someone can file a neutrally worded RFC. If anyone wants help in wording the RFC neutrally, I will help. That is the extent of my involvement, and maybe of this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon thank you for your input, unfortunately if past experience is any indicator and based on his comments above, User:Z07x10 will continue to try to win this issue at another forum despite the consensus against him. Mztourist (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be damned if content should boil down to a matter of cliche opinion and mob mentality minus any rationale or relation to actual project policy. There is absolutely no wikipedia policy against comparative content.  User:Mztourist has stated that the source is not reliable, therefore surely it should be down to him to take out a complaint on the RS noticeboard and say why.  Personally I think the fact that there is another source widely used in wikipedia and widely respected elsewhere backing up the first source, that there is a very strong case for saying that it is reliable.
 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm
 * There are over 500 uses of this source in wikipedia already.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=globalsecurity.org&go=Go
 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/history.htm
 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm
 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalSecurity.org
 * There are also over 500 uses of ipcs.org
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=ipcs.org&go=Go
 * User:Mztourist and his colleagues lodged a complaint of synthesis, he agreed to have that matter resolved here and he lost. He should simply WP:DTS rather than go on a fishing expedition for alternative excuses.Z07x10 (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia operates by consensus. Consensus here is clearly against inclusion of the comparison, for multiple reasons. And no, nobody has 'lost' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So if the site is invaded en masse by a flat Earth cult and they outnumber the few critics monitoring the issue, wikipedia will state that the Earth is flat? That is sheer lunacy. Sorry but I've never subscribed to the belief that a million monkeys hammering on a typewriter for a million years will eventually write a great novel. The synthesis argument was lost as clear as clear can be.Z07x10 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Z07x10 you should read what Robert McClenon has said above, there is a consensus against inclusion of the language, if anyone needs to WP:DTS it is you, but as with the Typhoon's maximum speed, I know that you won't. Mztourist (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So now you've realised that the source is reliable and are going with something completely intangible that can't be proven wrong, like 'language'. There is no policy against reliably-sourced comparisons.Z07x10 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to research what wikipedia policy on consensus actually is:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
 * "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

So a consensus that doesn't respect policies and guidelines, i.e. yours, is not a valid consensus.Z07x10 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That has to be the most bizarre interpretation of Wikipedia policy I've seen. You are apparently claiming that your personal opinion constitutes a 'consensus'. Utter garbage... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No I'm stating that 'a consensus' without sound reasoning supported by the wikipedia policy and guidelines is actually just a vote and not a consensus, as described in WP:consensus policy.
 * A. There was no synthesis - Robert has pointed this out.
 * B. Another source supports the questioned source. Both are used over 500 times each in wikipedia and have excellent credentials, hence they are WP:RS
 * C. There is no policy against reliably sourced comparisons.

Hence 'the vote' has no grounding in policy and therefore doesn't fit the description of WP:consensus.Z07x10 (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Z07x10's claim that "the previous DRN didn't find a problem with the source" is factually untrue. See Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 78. The DRN case was archived without being resolved, and no determination was made concerning any problems with sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy, the complaint raised in the DRN was that the content contained synthesis, so it was moved here, however Robert McClenon has agreed that the source makes the exact case I was accused of synthesizing. Then the fishing expedition for other excuses began.  The protagonists never mentioned anything about the reliability of the source in the DRN until it was pointed out that it made the same case I was accused of synthesising (even though I'm frankly not guilty of that either).Z07x10 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for inclusion of the material, and no amount of facile Wikilawyering is going to change that fact. One person cannot constitute a 'consensus', by definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, Robert McClenon's opinion on whether synthesis is involved is of course welcome - but he has no final say in the matter (and isn't asserting that he has). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Without sound basis in the policy and guidelines, even a million people cannot constitute WP:consensus.Z07x10 (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, so where's the synthesis in mentioning % composites if the first source already states that as a reason for the lower RCS?http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdfZ07x10 (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * One person cannot represent a consensus - and so far nobody but you has suggested that the multiple people arguing that the material should not be included are doing so contrary to policies or guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have made an edit inline with several reliable sources that doesn't breach any line of wikipedia policy whatsoever. If it has, please do point it out.  If it hasn't WP:DTS.Z07x10 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, WP:OR etc, etc, etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV - I added content on the material I found, it is not the responsibility of one contributor to research all points of view.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Neutral_point_of_view
 * WP:WEIGHT - I added two reliable sources supporting the finding. I can't find any reliable sources supporting a counter finding.  If you can, be my guest and include it.
 * WP:RS - There are also over 500 uses of ipcs.org and globalsecurity.org in wikipedia and their credentials are exceptional:
 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalSecurity.org
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=ipcs.org&go=Go
 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm
 * http://www.ipcs.org/about-us/
 * WP:OR - Yeah, no, that one's closed. The source makes the exact case I'm accused of synthesising. The fact you keep bringing it back makes me feel you're not very neutral and are just here to annoy people.  Please state the point I synthesised.Z07x10 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will note one core policy statement that I think highly relevant given the above... from WP:Verifiability: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion."
 * The fact that some bit of information may be verifiable does not mean we must include the bit of information in an article. It is clear that multiple editors agree that this particular bit of information should be omitted (yes, z07x10 there is consensus on that), and only one editor who thinks it should be included.  Continuing to push for inclusion is simply a case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding verifiability, and in particular the reliability of the sources being cited, it should be noted that the ipcs source states that "According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter", whereas globalsecurity.org gives a figure of 1 m2 for the Rafale, and 0.5 m2 for the Typhoon.  I think we can thus safely conclude at that at least one of them must be wrong. Though frankly, if the figure globalsecurity.org gives for the F-35 (0.005 m2) is correct (which is of course open to question, along with the other data), I suspect that our readers might think we were comparing the Typhoon with the wrong aircraft, or at least omitting a comparison which may be seen as more significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

One More Time
Okay. I personally think that the question of original research has been answered. Some editors may disagree. That doesn't matter. What is clear is that there is consensus against the inclusion of the comparison language. I don't see a consensus opinion as to why not to include the language, but I do see a consensus not to include the language. The proponent of the language, User:Z07x10, appears to be saying that the language has to be included unless a single reason based on Wikipedia policy can be cited for excluding it. I disagree. He or she appears to be saying, then, that in the absence of a single consensus reason for excluding the language, WP:ILIKEIT applies. I am willing to listen to a new argument for including the comparison language, but it appears that there is a consensus against including it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Z07x10 is entitled to go to the reliable source noticeboard to ask about the sources, but that won't address other questions, such as weight and relevance, and will probably just continue to annoy those editors who are already against the language. I suggest that a previously uninvolved editor close this thread because it is getting nowhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that Z07x10 go back to the article talk page, and, if he really wants the comparison language included, prepare a neutrally worded Request for Comments. I am willing to help with the wording to be sure that it is neutral, only asking whether or not to include the language. Arguments for and against the language can go after the statement of the question, not in it. It would be even easier if Z07x10 backs off and agrees that there is consensus against including the language, but, if Z07x10 wants the language, an RFC is the only productive approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have gone to the RFM noticeboard because ultimately it will end up there anyway.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFMZ07x10 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comparison language on aircraft articles is not new, nor against policy. Ultimately the content provides more reliable sources, which always improve an article.  Other POVs on the same or other aspects with WP:RS would be welcomed in that article.  I don't think I've heard a single argument based on policy (or anything else) as to why not to include the content.  It seems to be a huge case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Z07x10 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That makes sense - though I should point out (Z07x10 having failed to do so for some reason), that Z07x10 has initiated Requests for mediation/Eurofighter Typhoon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well what exactly would we RFC on? OR, RS, language or whatever happens to be the next flavour of the day?  If Robert McClenon wishes to make an RFC based on the RFM above, fine.  I can't help but think integrity has been lost here and it's simply become a matter of gang size, completely defunct of policy grounding.Z07x10 (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that User:Z07x10 has filed a Request for Mediation, requesting formal mediation, and, as noted there, has been selective in listing editors. I do not personally understand what he or she expects to be gained by formal mediation, because I see no grounds for compromise, and mediation is a facilitated compromise process.  Either the comparison language is to be included, or it is to be excluded.  I think that formal mediation will be a waste of time, because it will just repeat what has already been said both in informal mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard and here.  Z07x10 asks:  "Well what exactly would we RFC on?  OR, RS, language ..."  I tried to propose that the RFC be simply whether to include the comparison language, not any specific reason to include it or to exclude it, but whether to put that language into the article.  That is what an RFC could decide.  However, since Z07x10 has requested mediation, the request should go forward, and either be accepted or be declined.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest that an editor with no previous involvement close this thread, and we can let the Request for Mediation run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Request for Mediation doesn't seem to have been listed by the bot for the purpose. There may be a problem with the bot, but the bot does appear otherwise to be working properly.  There may be a problem because there was a previous declined Request for Mediation with the same title and topic.  This isn't the first time that Z07x10 has requested mediation on this article, and that may be confusing the bot, which, after all, is only a bot.  Assistance from the human members of the Mediation Committee has been requested, so stay tuned off and on to this channel.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have listed it again, I may have overwrote the old one through a misunderstanding of the system - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2Z07x10 (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

George Caunter
I have tagged the article on George Caunter as containing original research, which has been disputed by another user. My concern is that there are many statements which are only supported by primary sources (regardless of their reliability), whereas User:Jefferyseow insists that all of these sources are accurate and reliable. Please see Talk:George_Caunter and weigh in on whether or not the tag is warranted. Dowcet (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * At a first glance I would contend there is not much of an issue here. Many of the sources come from documents published in journals and newspapers from history. The sources could be improved undoubtedly but I believe the page will okay to remain up. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless there are other opinions, can we close this one? DaltonCastle (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Can someone else comment here? Otherwise I think we can resolve this. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Nation of shopkeepers
Much of the text, as well as some of the 'footnotes' on this page seem to me to be OR. Happy for more opinions. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. It seems like original research or at least original synthesis. I bolded 'seems' because the article would need a thorough source fact check, in order to establish that it is in fact OR. I've checked the only online reference and the referenced content was not directly referenced by the source. It was either original research or weasel wording. I would suggest boldly removing the more contentious sentences, while the sources are checked. --Legion fi (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It can not be WP:SYN unless it is first WP:OR, see WP:NOTSYN. So how can it be at least original synthesis unless you can first show that it is original research? I don't have a problem with dissecting the article, but we need to use the proper standards. GregJackP   Boomer!   07:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Legion. Such topics are usually prone to claims of OR given they come down to a rough collection of facts feebly bound together by history or social constructs. It does need a thorough check, which would actually go a long way into improving the article's overall quality. The term yields over 57 thousand results on G Scholar, so there's certainly material to spare! Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I might take a crack at it within the next couple days if anyone wants to help me out. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Never mind, ha! This is more complex than I had thought. But if anyone starts it up I'll join in to help! DaltonCastle (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawal from the European Union
Withdrawal from the European Union contains two lists, at Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union and Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union. The latter lists 17 parties, but only 1 has a citation in support (which I added). The former lists 30 parties, but only 4 with citations.

The second list is, it seems to me, difficult to define and is thus prone to WP:SYNTH. Concerned about that and the large amount of content without citations, I have tried over recent days revising content, removing content and engaging with other editors on the Talk page. This has not been successful. An IP editor, User talk:80.108.153.176, repeatedly restores material, but has not added any citations and describes WP:V as "mad" (see here). Another editor, User:TheHeroWolf, with a recent history of being blocked, has also restored uncited material. I am at a loss as to how to advance in a productive manner. Can anyone offer suggestions or wish to come input on the page? Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Bondegezou, it's very evil like you talk about us. "With a recent history of being blocked" you had not to say. And I was blocked only once and illegaly (by a non-neutral center-left agitator). And may I ask you where do you come from at all, as you never edited the article before and suddenly appear and delete a huge paragraph, only because of "no citation". You never edited the article until at recent time, so leave it alone, please. Your actions remind of dictatorship agents which wanna quickly eliminate all sources leading to the weakness of the dictator. Is the dictator in your case the EU? It seems so. The EU is anyway a dictatorship. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would suggest, User:TheHeroWolf, that you remember to assume good faith when considering other editors' actions. As far as I can see, you are the only person who thinks User:Acroterion's block was "illegal".
 * I first edited the article in question in December 2013. Not that it matters: all articles are open to all editors at all times. You might find it useful to read WP:OWN.
 * Everyone else, I've added further thoughts to the article's Talk page. I think beyond the OR issues, there are further problems with the section in question. But, as ever, further input from others is most welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Any statement that a political party has a position on something needs a source - I'd have thought that was self-evident. And yes, the second list looks very much like synthesis - lists like these are more or less certain to end up that way, because parties may have differing perspectives over a whole range of issues, and are unlikely to have all ever made an explicit statement regarding the exact criteria specified in the list. We should explain whet the position of individual parties are, rather than trying to shoehorn them into arbitrary groups of our own invention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * WP is not neutral, but center-left pro-EU, that's why I was blocked and why most other editors are glad, that I was blocked then. They are all center-left and wanna have neutral editors removed. The german WP is even worse. I have debated with the user, who blocked me, much, but suddenly he did not talk with me anymore though it seemed he was giving me more and more right. Maybe because he was out of arguments and too coward to admit I am right? And then once he threatened and blocked me suddenly because of my neutral edit in Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia. He said, I would be "editorializing and soapboxing", but in fact I've removed editorializing, non-neutral quotations and obvious facts which everybody knows and do not require extra mentioning (e.g. that the party is pro-USSR) from the article. So a user blocked me, who even didn't want to talk about it, and is even more stubborn as you both. If you want citations, you have to add them. All parties are added by people (including me) who known that the parties are pro-Withdrawal or pro-Reform. You can also of course simply look into the party programmes. Or, as I said, you can find direct citations for them. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input, AndyTheGrump. I'm holding off on further edits to the article myself for a period to give other editors time to input.
 * TheHeroWolf, I suggest you take a look at WP:V and WP:AGF, two key pages explaining how Wikipedia works. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You have not to repeat yourself. I know your excuses. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication
User:Rms125a@hotmail.com believes that this paragraph in Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication is synthesis, while I have pointed out that the no-synthesis policy prohibits original analysis by editors, not the inclusion of the analysis by reliable sources. What do you think: is the bolded text prohibited by WP:SYNTH?
 * In 2004, Archbishop Burke said he would not give communion to 2004 presidential candidate and Senator John Kerry, in part because of his position on abortion. According to religion experts, such a denial of communion would have been unprecedented. Kerry's own Archbishop Sean O'Malley refused to specify the applicability of his earlier statement that such Catholics are in a state of grave sin and cannot properly receive communion. The issue led to comparisons between Kerry's presidential campaign and that of John F. Kennedy in 1960. While Kennedy had to demonstrate his independence from the Roman Catholic Church due to public fear that a Catholic president would make decisions based on the Holy See agenda, it seemed that Kerry, in contrast, had to show obedience to Catholic authorities in order to win votes.    According to Margaret Ross Sammons, Kerry's campaign was sufficiently damaged by the threat to withhold communion that it may have cost him the election. Sammons argues that President George W. Bush was able to win 53% of the Catholic vote because he appealed to "traditional" Catholics. 

I've encouraged Rms to read the policy, but he has declined to do so, mistakenly citing BRD as a reason to repeatedly try to push his change onto a pretty calm article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Château de Ranton

 * Château de Ranton

Not really sure what to do with this one... it's kind of a combination of original research, promotion, COI... On Talk:Château de Ranton the user/author releases copyright for this article that is based primarily, according the them, on "papers" at the chateau. The user is the owner of this chateau and runs a B&B there, the domain for said business is linked in the article. Given that the source is not verifiable and as primary as they come, the COI/promotional aspect to having this article, and the original research that's in it... how are cases like this handled?Vrac (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Invasion
This article has a long history and was even featured from 2006-7, but as far as I can tell, it's entirely spurious. It ought to redirect to Offensive (military). The article makes a mighty effort to define "invasion" as a distinct concept worthy of independent study, but it just isn't. An invasion is simply a military offensive that crosses some physical or political frontier; all the information about logistics and securing lines of communication and civil-military relationships and so on is just duplicating topics that are better covered elsewhere. Nothing about these military questions depends on whether the operation is an "invasion" or not. The word "invasion" (invade, invader, invading) isn't even used in the DoD dictionary of military terms, let alone defined. ADP 1 and ADP 3, the two "capstone" manuals of US Army doctrine, use "offensive" on practically every page and "invasion" not at all. Any article on "invasion" is necessarily original research because "invasion" isn't recognized in relevant sources as an independent concept. It's just a word that happens to exist in English. TiC (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest filing a merge request at WP:AFD. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You can do that? I thought that AFD was only for when the nominator really wants the page deleted. TiC (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding together census figures for different parts of the UK
Many of the articles in Category:Immigration to the United Kingdom by country of origin make use of country-of-birth data from the 2011 UK census. Because of the way in which the census is managed, this data is reported separately for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I haven't been able to find a source that reports a total figure for the UK as a whole. Is it legitimate for Wikipedia editors to add together the three figures to get to a total for the UK for use in these articles, or would that be original research? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CALC states:
 * Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations.
 * I think what you are talking about fits that description, and so should be OK. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Blueboar, that sounds like it covers what I had in mind. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sophisticated original aggregations
In the article Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States, there is a table that not only contains several (sourced) surveys ranking U.S. Presidents, but also an original attempt to aggregate these in a sophisticated manner, which by no means can be called a "routine calculation". It is my contention that its presence is not appropriate for several reasons, but don't feel completely comfortable claiming it to be inappropriate synthesis because no particular position is being advanced per se. However, I do feel it goes against the spirit of forbidding original research, because any aggregate is bound to imply an idiosyncratic "overall" picture. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Fucking A" - plot analysis
I found this yesterday: Fucking A. It is an article about a play that contains large quantities of what looks like original research. I'm on a slightly unreliable wifi connection and not much time to edit. Just wondering if someone with more time and patience could go at it with a scalpel and remove the original research. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Definitely needs work. There is a difference between a plot summary and a plot analysis. If this is supposed to be a plot analysis then it needs to cite sources that analyze the plot (doing so ourselves is OR).  If this is supposed to be a plot summary, then it goes into way to much detail. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: Synthesis in 2012 Koch-related funding of Americans for Prosperity
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity. Please contribute to the request for comment, at which the issue of synthesis has been raised. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from editors with some familiarity with our WP:SYNTHESIS policy are respectfully requested. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Several commenters to the RfC have cited WP:SYNTHESIS in their statement of position. Attention from editors with some previous experience in identifying and explaining WP:SYNTHESIS is respectfully requested. The RfC question proposed content is a one-sentence addition, a summarization of multiple sources including The Washington Post. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Issues in the appropriate application of our WP:SYNTHESIS content policy remain in the discussion. Your comments are needed. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: How much "poetic license" does a translator of primary sources have in wikipedia?
Talk:Mat (Russian profanity) .-M.Altenmann >t 05:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Status of Bern, Switzerland
The article Bern opens by describing it as "the de facto capital of Switzerland", which I believe is original research. The discussion on the Talk page might benefit from participation by editors more experienced in applying Wikipedia policies. Mathew5000 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: OR vs RS Policy question at WP:VPP
I started a discussion thread at Village_pump_(policy) and would appreciate if those who are familiar with these 2 policies/guidelines would chime in. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations ) 17:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Jeepomotive"
An editor on the German wiki has created an article about railway jeeps, using a very rare term, essentially a piece of journalistic wordplay. I think there's no more original -in the bad sense- work than neologisms, and Wikipedia is not the place to play wordsmith. He had originally translated the article into English; it was ridden with factual errors that strongly suggest he was unable to read some of the sources for meaning in English. For example, he claimed that the liberation of the Philippines occurred in 1940, based on an alumni association magazine, reporting on the actions of the class of '40. Jeep Train, viewed version by version, gives a pretty good idea of the issues, the German version, [] still reflects the neologism. How is something like this, that affects two seperate languages, dealt with? My German is all but nonexistent; I can puzzle some out, but not enough to write, except for the simplest sentences, and those with help. Anmccaff (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Caffeine
Do people feel that this section of this review article "Physiological, Behavioral and Psychological Effects of Caffeine" "Aside from its well-known effects on sleep and arousal, which are primarily mediated by antagonism of the adenosine A1 receptor, caffeine is also known to interact with the dopamine system to exert some of its behavioral effects (Cauli and Morelli, 2005; Fredholm and Svenningsson, 2003). These actions are likely mediated through inhibition of the adenosine A2A receptor, which is primarily localized to dopamine rich areas of the brain (Fredholm, 1999). Adenosine A2A receptors are co-localized with dopamine D1 and D2 receptors (Kudlacek et al., 2003) and have been shown to form heterodimers (Fuxe et al., 2003). In addition, activation of adenosine A2A receptors decreases dopamine binding at the D2 receptor (Salim et al., 2000). Through these interactions, caffeine is able to directly potentiate dopamine neurotransmission, thereby modulating the rewarding and addicting properties of nervous system stimuli... In rats, caffeine administration leads to increased locomotor activity (Nehlig et al., 1992), which can be blocked by administration of dopamine receptor antagonists (Garrett and Holtzman, 1994); (Kuribara and Uchihashi, 1994). Caffeine can also induce rotational behavior in rats with unilateral lesions of the nigrostriatal dopamine cells in a manner that mimics dopamine (Garrett and Holtzman, 1995; Herrera-Marschitz et al., 1988). Finally, caffeine can potentiate the effects of dopamine on rotational behavior in animals with this same lesion (Jiang et al., 1993). When taken together, these studies suggest that caffeine interacts with the dopaminergic system to produce some of its behavioral effects."

Supports the text "Other research states caffeine can affect the reward system"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion isn't really necessary anymore - your revised version is supported by the citation text.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 22:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Will hat as solved. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
Is it WP:OR to conclude that the most recent poll taken in a state isn't the only reliable source and that polls taken a day or two before are also reliable? Can we include recent polls in addition to the most recent poll without violating WP:OR or can we only include the most recent poll in order to not violate WP:OR? Is a poll reliable enough to use on a map if it was taken one or two days before the most recent poll? At what point does a poll become outdated and unreliable when compared to polls that are more recent? Btw, this issue is also being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard and I also brought attention to this matter at the reliable sources noticeboard. Prcc27 (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Conclusions of a scholar about vaccination
I would like to know if the following statement is considered as WP:OR or not:
 * ''"published reports suggest that only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination", "a majority make no explicit recommendations, and only a minority actively recommend against vaccination"

It is based on the following statements:
 * "Associations with Care by Complementary and Alternative Medicine Providers"
 * "Primary exposures were use of chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture, or massage practitioner services. "

(i.e. the set of Complementary and alternative medicine surveyed by the authors contains naturopathy)
 * ''"published reports suggest that only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination. A survey of naturopathic physicians in Massachusetts found most making no recommendation, 20% actively recommending, and 7% actively opposing pediatric vaccination"
 * "Studies indicate that a majority of CAM practitioners make no explicit recommendations, and only a minority actively recommend against vaccination. "

Thanks for your comments and remarks. Paulmartin357 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's WP:OR. The source says "CAM practitioners" [in general] make no explicit recommendations and you're modifying that to apply specifically to Naturopaths, whereas the source says of them that only a minority support vaccination - so your text is synthetic and counter to the gist of the source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn, thanks for your comment. The source says:
 * "A survey of naturopathic physicians in Massachusetts found most making no recommendation, 20% actively recommending, and 7% actively opposing pediatric vaccination"
 * It is WP:UCS (and simply rephrasing) that "7%" is a "minority" and that "most" is a "majority". This wording is being confirmed (and summarized collectively for all kind of practitioners) by the authors in their final Discussion chapter as:
 * "a majority of CAM practitioners make no explicit recommendations, and only a minority actively recommend against vaccination"
 * There is no explicit exception, no other opinion, no other conclusion, no other research material, no other source, no other findings in their article contradicting their global collective conclusion about CAM practitioners, including naturopaths. I don't see any contradiction with the fact that "only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination" Paulmartin357 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling 7% and 20% both simply "minority" positions obscures the fact that one is a probably-statistically-significant 3x the other (three quarters of those taking an active position). The wordings could give an WP:NPOV impression that "most" don't really support it at all. The "actively" keyword is too weak to overcome that in my opinion...the too easy to read the first part, then think the opposite of "support" is "oppose". How about, "nearly three times as many [whatever term for this group of people] actively support vaccination as actively oppose it, but most do not take a strong position for or against", which clarifies the differing levels of support for those who have a position as well as that most go neither way. DMacks (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wanting Wikipedia to say what the source doesn't say, based on your argument that the source doesn't contradict what you want so say, and on an extrapolation from some survey in Massachusetts. WP:NOR in a nutshell says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves" (my emphasis). It doesn't say what you want it to say. Futhermore there is a neutrality problem: you are trying to cherry pick something synthetic out of the article while omitting to summarize what it concluded, which is: "Our study suggests that parents who use naturopathic physicians or chiropractors for pediatric care are less likely to meet recommendations for vaccinations as measured by HEDIS specifications". Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DMacks, thanks for your valuable comment regarding quantities. I fully agree with you. However, Alexbrn is opposing about another point. He is pretending that the proposed sentence cannot apply to naturopaths, but only collectively to CAM providers (knowing that naturopaths are CAM providers) Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn, I am not "trying" to cherry pick WP:AGF. You perfectly know that I was making a correction to an existing sentence which was not reflecting the source, but saying the opposite of what the source says. By the way, I have no problem with your other sentence, but this is not the topic here, please remain focused. Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Chuckmuck
Chuckmuck : the following sentence has been marked as original research (with a question mark I am glad to see)

"The form of the chuckmuck is so different from other tinder pouches worldwide that categorising them together is misleading"

I would argue that exactly this debate actually occurred in the late 19th century when the word was adopted in academic circles - see history section in article,

When the science museum took over the firelighting appliances museum in 1937 it was not fully merged into it's catalogue. So a search now by the term "chuckmuck" yields 63 results (not all from the 1937 acquisition) mostly classified under "SCM - Firemaking" while the term tinder pouch yields only 43 but including some chuckmucks under 'SCM - Classical & Medieval Medicine' and other types of flint steel set. Further classification examples are in the article.

Perhaps I am too easily misled but it seems to me that there is a problem with museum categorisation which could be called misleading.

How man made fire is not such a big museum theme nowadays compared to the late Victorian era when methods of 'striking a light' were rapidly changing. That it why the term chuckmuck was introduced to distinguish from the plethora of other tinder pouches - the simplest of which would be a leather bag containing a flint and steel. Quite why they are called tinder pouches when they do not necessarily contain any tinder is beyond me. It seems a tinder pouch must have a flint and a steel in a pouch but need not have any tinder as this could easily be acquired in most areas. So indeed I would regard the term tinder pouch itself as misleading - though not really the subject of this post.

Chuckmuck, in my opinion, is needed as a museum category to distinguish this type of fire-making kit and I believe that is why the term was adopted by Victorian academia when it might have been considered original researchStone Routes (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Fermi's golden rule
The article Fermi's golden rule cites original papers to make a claim about the origin of the rule. Recently i have tried to make some improvements to the page - including tagging the part in question for OR, but some editors revert me, and explanations on the talk page are lacking, besides my afford to explain. Also notice that there are 2 editors who have teamed up to revert my edits, and 1 reported me at the edit warring noticeboard. Some uninvolved editor might help to settle things, thanks! prokaryotes (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The template of original research was clearly abused. The rule is standard QM course material, cited as such, and properly cross-linked to time-dependent perturbation theory, as it should. All sources except the first and last are secondary. One might wonder what this ill-placed fuss is all about: Well, the curious reader may join the abusive rampage report. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A quick glance at this editors track record for the last 24h or so reveals that his involvement is nothing but edit-warring against consensus. There are about 80 edits in a row directed at trashing articles previously edited by a particular user. YohanN7 (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Different edition. In the one linked here, it is Ch19.7. "Briefly"? Briefly? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Recent addition of secondary source' Editor Cuzkatzimhut recently added a new source to the part discussed here. However, the book only briefly mentions the rule as an example in the introduction of chapter 19. It is unclear why the editor added the reference at the part discussed here. prokaryotes (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is, there is nothing which backs up the claim made in the WP article that the rule is from Dirac. This might be obvious, or not, but as mentioned, to point this out we require reliable secondary sources which state that explicit. prokaryotes (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about this topic, therefore I will simply use WP rules. The statement "originially due to Dirac" is sourced to a paper by Dirac, presumably showing that Dirac's equation is basically identical to Fermi's rule. This is classic WP:OR. We need a secondary WP:RS making the claim that it was originally due to Dirac. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No.
 * The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. [emphasis mine]
 * There is a published source. It is a primary source. It is original research by Dirac. Dirac is certainly a both published and reliable source. Primary sources are perfectly fine, especially when they are seminal fairly easily accessible papers. Referencing it is not original research. Certainly not "classical OR" (whatever that means). YohanN7 (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Does Dirac make the statement in the paper: "it is I who invented this thing"? If not, then it is classic WP:OR, because the paper is being cited to give the inference of the editor that Dirac was the first to use it, and it is sufficiently similar to the Fermi rule to give him credit for this. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, physicists don't write "it is I who invented this thing". They let that go without mention. As another general rule, if it was not they who invented something, then they do write "it is NOT I who invented this thing", with proper attribution to who actually did. Original research in Wikipedia articles does not refer to original research by published reliable sources. The latter are referred to as primary sources. Primary sources are sometimes suitable for inclusion, sometimes not. In this case, the primary source is suitable because it is a seminal well-written paper. YohanN7 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is easier understood with the help of the picture and caption to the right. It is from WP:No original research. It illustrates the difference between own original research (which is a no-no) and original research by reliable published, perhaps even reputable, primary sources like in the present case. YohanN7 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You have yet what you believe classic OR actually is.YohanN7 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I know that physicists don't write "it is I who invented this thing". And I know what WP:PRIMARY means. This is why we don't cite Newton or Leibniz on who invented calculus, we cite secondary WP:RS. Primary sources are suitable to show exactly what is written there. It is fine to link the Dirac paper to show equations he wrote, but not for this claim, which is classic WP:OR. I quote This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. I am sorry that you don't understand this, but I cannot put it any simpler than this. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * But it is in the source, it is equations 24 and 32. Again, please define classic WP:OR. Citing primary sources is not OR by Wikipedia's definition of OR. Read it, and read it again please until you see its definition. It is quoted above and is at the top of the relevant article.


 * You have perhaps not understood yet that this Prokaryotes fellow is on a personal campaign. I don't blame you for this. He has now done some 100 straight edits directly as ware-fare versus mostly Cuzkatzimhut, but now also me. He has taken us both to ANI for not agreeing with his systematic vandalism. Check out this guys edit history before making any more judgments. YohanN7 (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you might reflect on the fact that an uninvolved WP editor like me sees this as WP:OR, independently of whatever Prokaryotes has done. Also consider the possibility that you may be wrong about policy. This is my last reply. Good luck with your contributions to WP. You will need it if you keep editing in this vein. Already I see that a WP:ANI case has started. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Excuse my butting in, User:Kingsindian, but why are you dismissing the article's talkpage, and thereby secondary source refs [4], [3] and [2] in this discussion? [4] has Dirac up there at the marquee; and [3], Merzbacher, op cit the Woodlands hyperlink above, certainly acknowledges Dirac with inventing time-dependent perturbation theory of which the FGR is one of the principal results. What written proof of the existence of fish are you demanding at a fishermen's conference? Has sense completely abandoned these quasi-theological discussions? You want a history of science book on a simple basic fact? Did Pythagoras discover the Pythagorean theorem? Should professionals swallow their knowledge and defer to voodoo? Are you also going to object to attribution of time-dep perturbation theory to Dirac, as it now stands, on similar grounds? Most alarming...Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice that you link to content which again is not referenced. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_field_theory#Gauge_invariance prokaryotes (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are free to butt in. I specifically said that I did not know about the topic and would just use the common WP policies. The discussion above was focused on the Dirac reference, because that is the one cited for this claim. Yohan was also arguing about the Dirac source, and on that part they are incorrect. The Merzbacher citation is a secondary source, if it states that Dirac was the one who invented this (preferably a quote and page number would be good in the citation in the article), that is fine. Perhaps you might just move the Merzbacher reference to the end of the first sentence to make this clear. Regarding specialist knowledge, you might want to read WP:EXPERT. Experts are of course important to wikipedia, but realize that this is a general purpose encyclopaedia, and experts, as editors, have no special privileges. If you cannot convince your fellow editors, most of whom are non-experts, of the correctness of your edits, you will have problems. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 19:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your equanimous statements. I will move ref [4] to the top, as well, if that would solve the problem--Merzbacher needs linkage explanation. But, of course, you do understand don't you, that this is a sideshow to a nastier edit war already reported, but largely, and foolishly, sidetracked by WP. If this mini-move were enough, one would have done it and squelched the mess; you know better than imagine that. W.r.t. expertise, we keep coming back to the silly inuendos of COR. No, I keep repeating, I have taught this subject but have not published in it. I don't know what more you want. 10000 students read that page in the last 90 days---You might welcome an expert helping them out. All I am getting out of this is vituperative attempts to trash the page, "to show them". I insist that this is not a good faith campaign to find better references---hell anyone could chip in to an open plea in the talkpage---but a nasty little episode in a disruptive spree. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above the Merzbacher book does not resolve the issue, same for Schwitter. prokaryotes (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As also mentioned above the "issue" has been resolved and settled by Schwitters. (Merzbacher does give Dirac credit for time-dep pert theory, hence linkage. Refusing to read Schwitters properly is not my problem.) Are you proposing to now run and sow your wild oats to that article now, to "help" the hapless student? If you wished to be constructive, find your satisfactory ref for time-dependent perturbation theory yourself, instead of flinging sour templates at the reader.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, convincing fellow editors, most of whom are non-experts, is almost never a problem. It goes the other way around too. The experts in the math/physics projects are extremely easy to talk with. In fact, the better they know the subject, the keener their ears are, and the quicker any disagreement is settled. Usually a consensus very quickly is reached, regardless of level of knowledge. Most experts are very quick to, in the rare cases they are wrong, change their minds. But, alas, people who have memorized a set of guidelines, mistaking them for laws of god, are considerable trickier to deal with. Here, as IRL. YohanN7 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jumping in - I, for one, don't have a dog in this fight - I am not an expert, nor one to memorize a set of guidelines - that being said - guidelines are necessary, the user should be able to (within reason) expect a similar experience throughout all WP pages. The reason for this is to protect the students that are mentioned above, from improperly cited information. While this information may not fit that bill (notice I am NOT refuting the information you want to add), it is also not an argument against said guidelines. If the information is attributable to proper sources than it should be cited and added in. If not, I am sure it can be reworded or verbage removed that fits the guidelines yet does not include any unsourced information. If the information is NEEDED, yet cannot be cited (which isn't preferable), than the template should be placed. The templates on WP are to help improve these pages, not add stigma. Can a happy medium not be met? Garchy (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

My contention is that, at present, the words and refs are super-carefully chosen to be correct as they stand; and no reasonable, informed, well-meaning individual could not accept them as are. You have somehow put it into your head though that this is a genuinely "controversial" issue in which reasonable people may differ. I have no clue what would satisfy everyone. Could you read the page and click on ref [1] again? As for the helpful improvement of pages by templates, you evidently have missed the concerted "legal vandalism" campaigns raging in WP on purely frivolous grounds, turning popular, useful pages into roadside advertising nightmares. Perhaps this might grow to be a side-task of this panel. Any salutary measure must be protected against willful abuse, and I quite strongly believe this is not the case here. it is not just "somebody else's business".Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

(EC, have not read last post.) The information is in the article, it is attributable to appropriate sources, it is even attributed to to appropriate sources. You are late to the party, and may not be aware that this thread is not an isolated incident. The templates can be used, and, as here and in other instances, misused. A common misconception (not among regular editors) is that every sentence should be attributed. This is false. Every sentence should be attributable. This is very different. But, the misconception has been used (purposefully or not) to litter a number of articles with unwarranted templates. See the OP's edit history over the last 120 or so edits, beginning with his first post on Cuzkatzimhut's talk page. YohanN7 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that this has gotten out of hand, and due to me not being an expert (or fully involved in this matter) I'm carefully choosing my involvement in this matter. I agree with you about the possibility of abuse here, perhaps an admin should get involved on that level. If you have shown that this can be properly referenced I think you're well within your right to add the information back and ask this user to leave it (instead of reverting) until this discussion has been discussed fully. If the user is simply saying "this reference is not good enough" after you have exhausted attempts to prove otherwise I would add it in and deal with this issue later if another editor has a problem with the prose. If you're still dealing with revert issues after that (and adding your reasons to the edit summary [again, I know it's like beating a dead horse!]), than you can report for content blanking.

- I am, in fact, not late to the party, as I picked this up much earlier today and have (silently) been following this the entire way (that is my form of mediation, break in when necessary). Please remember I am not, in fact, against your side, but rather trying to strike a balance. See my previous response (above), which may actually be to your liking. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome into to the party, now as a participant. I apologize if my invitation seemed a bit hostile. YohanN7 (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding 's comments, please understand what this board is for. This board is for outside WP editors to give opinions about WP policy. It is natural, indeed expected, that they will not know about the subject matter, and will give opinions based on WP policy. If you wish to discuss user conduct (think very carefully before you do this, and read WP:ANI Advice, especially rule 1), you should use WP:ANI. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

, no offense taken! Garchy (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update Notice that i found what appears to be a reliable secondary source for the content in question, http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/GoldenRule.pdf prokaryotes (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Age of consent
Please see previous discussion at User_talk:Fabrickator. There is a dispute over what the age of consent for the state of Pennsylvania should be listed as in the article Ages of consent in North America - Either "16" or "18"
 * Pennsylvania's statutory rape laws, and the "close in age exemptions" only apply to persons below 16 years of age
 * However there is also a "corruption of minors" law which can be used to charge anyone 18 and older of a misdemeanor if he/she has sex with someone under 18, and this includes 16 and 17 year olds. The party may be convicted if the jurors agree that he had committed the offense.

This court decision Commonwealth v. Decker'', 26 Pa. D. & C. 4th 157 (1995)" states that the "common sense of the community" determines whether someone committed corruption of a minor by having sex with a 16 or 17 year old.

One editor's position is that the Pennsylvania age of consent should be written as "18" because an adult who has consensual sex with a 16 or 17 year old can face legal consequences even though they are not statutory rape offenses.

My position is that the Pennsylvania age of consent should be written as "16" because the secondary sources discussing the matter all say that the age of consent is 16.
 * Anastasia, George. "D.A. to fight ruling on Rinick sex tape A judge said reporters were entitled to view it. Prosecutors said four women's privacy rights must be protected." Philadelphia Inquirer. August 5, 2011. "Rinick's lawyer in that case, Nino Tinari, said yesterday that the charges were downgraded to corrupting the morals of minors after Rinick produced videotapes that indicated the girls took part in consensual sex. (The age of consent in Pennsylvania for sex is 16.)"
 * Smerconish, Michael. "The Pulse: Coming forward on abuse helps the community" (Archive). Philadelphia Inquirer. August 5, 2011. "There are no statutory-rape charges pending as the age of consent in the commonwealth is 16."
 * Boyer, Barbara. "Chester sex case points up questions A high school administrator has been charged with two misdemeanors. Experts say the issues are not clear-cut." Philadelphia Inquirer. April 9, 2005. Retrieved on August 4, 2015. "Wilson's arrest highlights confusing questions about sexual relations between youths who are of the age of legal consent at 16 and adults." and "In Pennsylvania, prosecutors turn to broader laws, such as corrupting the morals of a minor, that are not as clearly defined."
 * Elizabeth, Jane. "State ranks low with school sex abuse law." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Saturday May 31, 2003. Retrieved on August 4, 2015. "The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16 years old -- reduced in 1995 from 18 years old."
 * Martin, Josh P. "Lower Merion High teacher suspended in student-romance allegation." Philadelphia Inquirer. January 5, 2011. "Pennsylvania law sets the age of consent for sex at 16, although prosecutors in some counties have brought child endangerment and corruption-of-minors charges against teachers who have had relationships with 16- and 17-year-old students."
 * Norman, Tony. "The night that justice got mugged in Georgia." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Friday January 23, 2004. "By contrast, the age of consent for sex with an adult in Pennsylvania is 16."

These sources do discuss the "corruption of minors" law; they anyway say that the age of consent is "16" and a former prosecutor quoted in the Boyer article says that the consideration of whether someone is corrupting a minor is a separate consideration from the "age of consent"
 * "JoAnne Epps, dean of academic affairs at Temple University's Beasley School of Law, said that even though a teenager can legally consent to sex, corruption of the morals of a minor gives prosecutors authority to file charges for inappropriate relationships. "They are different crimes," said Epps, a former prosecutor. "Having sex with a 16-year-old may not necessarily be statutory rape, but that's irrelevant in determining whether a person is guilty of corrupting the morals of a minor.""

I also think that if there are issues on how to define "age of consent" we need to find sources which explicitly define it, such as legal dictionaries, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If "age of consent" and "corruption of minors" are two separate things then yes- the age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16. Prcc27 (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The usual definition of age of consent is complete, rather than partial 'legality'. However, whichever age is decided, the additional complicating factor should be made clear, I know of some countries that have different rules according to various criteria, and in which a 'final/full' age is reached. Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is how I dealt with this issue: footnoted the "16" by mentioning that there is also a corruption of minors law and explained the issue in detail, including statements from a prosecutor who discussed the nuance in the laws WhisperToMe (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:No original research talk page discussion of scientific sources as OR in news articles
I started a new section at the talk page for Wikipedia talk:No original research. It concerns the application of OR to scientific concepts that represent a consensus within the relevant field but have not been mentioned in secondary source coverage of the event. This is a note for any readers of the noticeboard that may be interested. Roches (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor claiming Syrian Maronites are "Lebanese"
There is an editor at the "Lebanese people in Syria" article who has repeatedly added that Maronites in Syria "are Lebanese". He has not provided any source:

"It is correct for all Maronites in Syria and Cyprus. Provide source that says otherwise." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * How is this an original research issue, and not a mere content issue? GregJackP   Boomer!   20:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So what is the appropriate noticeboard? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An unsourced statement is original research. Rhoark (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid impact avoidance; statement fails verification?
Article contains the statements: "The results of this study indicated that a single employment of this "option can deflect NEOs of [100-500m diameter] two years before impact, and larger NEOs with at least five years warning"., These effectiveness figures are considered to be "conservative" by its authors as only the thermal X-ray output of the B83 devices was considered, while neutron heating was neglected for ease of calculation purposes.,."

Are these (primary) sources sufficient for the highlighted sentence? My reading of the source is that the authors say one of their figures in the report is conservative because they rounded down the potential yield of the bomb. Geogene (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Geogene (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This additional source has also been proposed on the Talk page . Geogene (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What I find disruptive is that user BaundaryLayer takes the reported estimations as a gospel of literal salvation, and using the word "could help" is heretic and fear-mongering, according to him: a WP:FUD. Cheers, ==BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Caricatures-included, I don't take anything as "gospel", I'm simplying summarizing the results and limitations of the NASA studies in their own words. Why is this a problem? That you have antipathy towards this suggests you have an WP:AXE to grind with me, as your comment is, in no way even related to the issue of finding original research. Which is the forum we're in.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The process here is (1) Boundarylayer hunts down a lot of primary sources from nuclear weapons labs about blowing up asteroids with nukes (2) Boundarylayer interprets these primary sources to say that we can completely destroy asteroids with nukes, no problem (3) anyone that challenges their interpretation, including by saying "could" instead of "would", (as in "would destroy the asteroid") is in some way a fearmongerer/propagandist/anti-nuke/anti-Boundarylayer. But that's Wikipedia's problem, not my problem. This specific point is an example that I found particularly frustrating, but nobody's interested. Geogene (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You could add something along the lines, A study from 2007 by the NSS claims ... But it is a primary source and it seems questionable to derive general conclusions about effectiveness, since NEOs compositions varies, and it has never been tested yet. It is unclear what exactly is considered OR here, since the part cites the conclusion from the NSS 2007 study. The part which begins with These effectiveness figures are considered.., appears to be to much info.prokaryotes (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

OR dispute at Lavrentiy Beria
I am currently engaged in an OR dispute over at Lavrentiy Beria with User:Radyanskysoldativ regarding the identification of a man in the background of a photograph who is obscured. Much more detail can be found on Talk:Lavrentiy Beria. This is actually a kind of tricky gray area I think, because I think it's pretty clear that Radyanskysoldativ is engaged in OR, but his circumstantial arguments are not wholly unconvincing -- perhaps WP:IAR is appropriate? We are at the moment the only two people who have weighed in on this issue, and I would like some other points of view.

BTW, he's a bit combative in tone, but in the interest of fairness and full-disclosure, we did have a minor edit war over this, and I did revert him twice. I hope his arguments and mine can stand on their merits. Eniagrom (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor adds OR to aprox 6 articles, about an alleged Scientific consensus

 * 14-15 December 2010, Pathogen5 adds "Although there is now broad scientific consensus that GE crops on the market are safe to eat..." - 25 user edits, last were the addition of the supposed consensus to Genetically modified food controversies He cited a report by NAS - however, there is no mention of a scientific consensus. Additionally he adds a study which is summed up here Séralini affair.
 * 02 September 2012, Jytdog copies the statement from editor Pathogen5 1:1 (including Séralini) to Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (Edit summary: added paragraph referencing controversies and referring to controversies article) -
 * 26 January 2013, Jytdog adds the statement "While there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food" to Genetically modified food - All references he uses here do not support the claim that there is a scientific consensus. The editor stated in his edit summary, "added sentence requested in talk to the lede, which now has basis in the body of the article". If we look at that talk page discussion we can read in the first paragraph "The problem is that strictly speaking those sources do not really prove a scientific consensus", and the first reply there comes from Jytdog where he defends the reference discussed there (Namely AAAS Board, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society). The discussion was brief and only between Jytdog and editor Kmhkmh.


 * 26 Januray 2013, Jytdog adds his statement to Genetically modified food, edit summary:"copied content from lede of Genetically modified food controversies article".
 * 07 June 2013, Aircorn adds a similar statement to March Against Monsanto (Jytdog edits the page a little later that day)
 * 09 June 2013, Jytdog adds the statement to The Non-GMO Project
 * 28 October 2013, Jytdog adds the statement to Genetically modified organism, states in edit summary: "copied lead from GM foods controversy article and very lightly copyedited".
 * 28 October 2013, CFredkin adds Jytdog's version 1:1 to Genetically modified crops, edit summary: "Modified lead."

There have been various reverts by editors on all affected pages to remove the unreferenced consensus statement, but Jytdog always reverted them back. The discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetically_modified_food#RfC_on_Sentence_on_.E2.80.9Cbroad_scientific_consensus.E2.80.9D_of_GMO_food_safety_fails_to_achieve_consensus:_It_is_time_to_improve_it. RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it], from July 2015 pointed out that the statement is in error. However, Jytdog didn't updated his page edits. When i removed a few of the references at Genetically modified food, Jytdog reverted me. In the following talk page discussion i pointed out that these references do not contain the information of the statement. Editor Petrarchan47, Tsavage, Jusdafax and SageRad seemed to agree with my arguments there. Yet editor Jytdog is not responding to these arguments, except Genetically modified food, all other articles still claim that there is a scientific consensus, per Jytdog's POV/OR. prokaryotes (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems very clear to me that Prokaryotes does not understand what "scientific consensus" means, and what "consensus" means when referring to our behaviour here. For the record, the scientific consensus is as Jytdog portrays it, he does not appear to be indulging in WP:OR at all. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read this discussion: RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it prokaryotes (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I read that ages ago, and more than once thanks. Doesn't change what I stated above. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Then apparently you ignore Wikipedia community and don't understand how scientific consensus work, see for instance authorities like the WHO state that GMOs must be tested on a case per case basis, and none of the cited sources speaks of a sc. Stating that there is a sc violates OR.prokaryotes (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The scientific consensus statement went through an RfC in 2013 that upheld the statement and yes, it is in several articles that deal with GM food controversies. That statement went through a 2nd RfC that was closed in July of this year, that found no consensus.  We have been working at Talk:Genetically modified food to reach consensus on a new statement.  When we do, we will probably have to have another RfC on it, and that is the one that will replace the old one.  The discussion on new language is still in progress; things take time to work out. Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the current version is a good start, and this can be used to update the sc versions. However the sources still only in part connect to the new version.prokaryotes (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought about doing that, but that seemed to be rushing ahead of consensus and it seemed better to me get something stable before propagating it. Since you yourself are still contesting some of the sourcing at the GM food talk page and here in this thread, it does not appear that we have something stable yet. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * While there were RFC's, no RFC can override OR. This is a huge synthesis where the sources themselves do not make the specific claim, though one comes close. We cant add up all the sources and come to a conclusion. AlbinoFerret  13:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unclear what your point is. The first RfC accepted the statement and its sourcing and found no policy violations; the 2nd RfC simply found no consensus. We are working on new language on Talk. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean that the RFC is stalled because of your objections there.prokaryotes (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jytdog, I dont know about the first RFC having not looked at it. The most recent RFC on the statements was closed no consensus and the closer as I remember did not address the OR problem, though it was raised in the RFC. That does not mean it doesnt exist. The guidelines are clear, synthesis of sources to come to a conclusion they all do not state is OR. AlbinoFerret
 * Nor does it mean that OR exists. The lack of attention to the OR claim in the close, and the prior RfC that found everything fine, makes it unlikely that the community would agree that there is OR. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You misrepresent, since the part “broad scientific consensus” is no longer supported per RFC. prokaryotes (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

i was clear that the 2nd RfC found no consensus and we are working toward new language. I also noted that you yourself are raising objections here and elswhere. Just because you are claiming OR does not mean you are correct. (btw it is very unlikely that this unfocused posting is going to generate any meaningful feedback to help guide our work on the talk page) Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pro is correct, and not the only one who recognizes and is willing to speak out about the OR/SYNTH claim. It is unsupported by the sources despite heroic and sustained efforts to make it so, unsupported by the RfC, and ignores the most recent peer reviewed papers which state categorically that there is NO safety consensus, that up to half of studies have found harm, whilst misrepresenting the WHO and using an anti GMO labeling position paper as MEDRS. Frankly I'm getting tired of stating the obvious and repeating myself over and over. We are here to give the readers as much of the best, latest, most accurate, well sourced information as possible. That's it. We aren't here to make GMOs look good or dangerous.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

More related OR

 * Jytdog and editor Yobol, both support original research in a related edit, outlined here (Dif), and then made a original research claim, not supported by the source.prokaryotes (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These edits are supported by the source, and in fact move the article closer to the tone of the source. Rhoark (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain where exactly the source states "Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis to ensure that concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity, possible gene transfer to humans or genetic outcrossing to other organisms are satisfied" -- Source statement = "This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods" Source prokaryotes (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * we summarize, we don't plagiarize. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * again I agree with pro - and disagree that this is what we call a summary. It is spindoctoring with an additional, unsourced claim thrown in.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   08:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

OR on Reserve requirement and others
I'd appreciate it if other editors could have a look at edits like this one, where an ip seems to be adding their own personal views to articles, prefaced with unencylopedic commentary like "you'll note that". Another example would be here, dismissing the views of, among others, Joseph Schumpeter, a highly influential economist and Harvard professor, as a "quack theory." Valenciano (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis in absolutely dreadful state.
Kim Davis trivially falls under WP:BIO1E, but a handful of editors are maintaining the article as if she's notable for something else. I think the goal for including all the extraneous information is to attack her character and undermine her position. The article currently reads as if she had a WP:BLP before the last couple weeks, but it was created on September 1st, in response to her actions protesting the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.

The article currently has sources that do not mention the recent controversy at all, and that seems to be clear WP:OR, as editors are deciding which scraps of information dug up from 2011 or before to include in the article, rather than allowing the sources relating to the current event to decide what information needs to be included.

Aside from this, the excessive detail into her election, including a colored table and 3 sections completely unrelated to the controversy seem trivially inappropriate and do not conform to the standards set by other articles about people notable only for one event. Furthermore, the section on her personal life is listed out of chronological order, in order to make her seem more like a hypocrite.

If editors could please take a read and contribute to the discussing there or here, it would be most appreciated. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kim Davis is actually notable for several events, each documented in the BLP:
 * Running for political office
 * Winning an election
 * Unlawfully refusing to issue marriage licenses to Same-sex couples
 * Petitioning the US Supreme Court
 * Going to jail for contempt of court
 * Being released from jail
 * Claims of original research have been soundly refuted on the talk page, but other editors are welcome to review the article, the sources, and the talk page to decide for themselves.- MrX 20:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

vasectomy-Ideological issues; contains original research
The last paragraph under the idealogical issues in the article on vasectomy appears to contain original research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy#Ideological_issues

paragraph in question is included below:

"An alternative view-point of contextualizing vasectomy debate is the evolutionary "battle of the sexes" conflict of interest. From a Darwinian stand-point, males may increase their genetic fitness by mating with multiple women over the course of their lives (see Sexual Conflict). As a woman's reproductive capacity reduces significantly with age towards menopause, eventually ceasing while a male partner is still able to reproduce (see Age and Female Fertility), she benefits in evolutionary terms from her partner undergoing vasectomy - eliminating or greatly restricting his ability to mate with other women in the future, thus helping to ensure or protect her partner's investment and resources for herself and any progeny. Vasectomy may in this way be advantageous to female reproductive strategy (after a threshold number of children are born), and detrimental to the male reproductive strategy, if viewed in generalized evolutionary fitness terms alone."

While there are links to other wikipedia articles related to the 'alternative viewpoint' being mentioned. There are no citations about who is making this viewpoint other than the editor writing it. To me this would classify as original research because the editor is drawing their own conclusions and making up a point of view that is loosely based on a concept discussed in another article that is not directly applicable to this modern form of permanent birth control (vasectomy) End of unsigned post

This was blatantly original research and I removed it. The fact that it has no sources shows that it must be OR. (That is, if this wasn't OR, the author would know exactly what source the theory came from.) Are there other articles that have similar original research? Roches (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ranking of living supercentenarians
The table in List of oldest living people lists supercentenarians and their ages. The majority of the table is sourced to the GRG's Table E of validated living supercentenarians. The GRG table also ranks these names in descending order by age. If entries are added to the Wikipedia article table that are not sourced to the GRG, is it WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to rank all entries in the article regardless of the sources, given that the ranking is determined solely by age? The opposing argument is that since the GRG ranks the names, Wikipedia must rank the names the same way, and that to rank all entries by age (aka provide our own ranking) is WP:OR and violates WP:NPOV.

This is related to the World's oldest people wikiproject.

Thank you for your help and insight. Ca2james (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The point here is that it's not for Wikipedia to determine who the 27th oldest person in the world is or whatever. Information like that has to be sourced to an outside agency, such as the GRG. My suggestion is to have two separate tables: one with ranked, verified entries sourced to the GRG, and another which is unranked, with people who have been reported on in other sources, such as newspaper articles, but are not included in the GRG's tables. That way, different viewpoints are represented fairly in accordance with WP:NPOV and there's no need for original research. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that the presentation of validated (by the GRG or similar agency) vs unvalidated table entries is being discussed in this RfC, and the question of whether specific sources are reliable for birth dates and age is being discussed at RSN. I'd appreciate it if this particular discussion could focus on the question of whether ranking entries according to age is OR. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The simple answer is yes if the ranking is not sourced. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The answer to the question is no, it is not OR per WP:CALC.  your remarks here are adding to the pile of evidence that will be useable at an MfD to shut down the World's oldest people wikiproject.  You cannot exclude reliable sources outside of GRG; Wikipedia is not an extension of the group's work.  Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources" ---> WHICH THIS SUGGESTION IS NOT. There's a difference between, as the guideline states, "adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age" and deciding that any given person is the Nth ranked person in the world. Your comment is a totally unwarranted attack and totally off-base. This is nothing to do with excluding sources outside of the GRG, it's about following Wikipedia's core policies: No original research and neural point of view. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying X is greater than Y is greater than Z is WP:CALC. I suggest you think very hard about the stance you are taking. It is going to lead the community to shut down your project and/or eventually topic ban its members. Your project is not a walled garden.  There is not much rope left for you all. I really mean that. You have got to stop trying to make GRG the sole legitimate source for age. Period. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please calm down and think for a moment about what you are saying. If the issue were just saying that 1 January 1900 comes before 2 January 1900, that would be one thing. But it's not. The issue is whether the age claimed is validated or not. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that GRG is the only reliable source for age within Wikipedia. This is not true. Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not at all what I am arguing and you know it. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I will take your bait. What are other reliable sources for validating age in WP other than GRG? Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Guinness World Records and the International Database on Longevity both deal with the validation of supercentenarians, but it just so happens that the GRG is far more widely-recognised than the others. But again you missed the point. The reason organisations like this exist is because anyone can just claim to be "115" or whatever, so if you want to create databases of the oldest people, you need to prove their ages are true. Newspapers typically just report the claim, and don't attempt to verify the ages of the people they report on. That's not to say that we can't include claimants sourced to newspaper articles but not verified by an organisation dealing with age validation, but it should be acknowledged that their ages have not been independently verified as true.
 * Having two separate tables gives users the opportunity to see a list of the oldest verified people, along with a list of claims. That presents different viewpoints as per WP:NPOV and Wikipedia doesn't create its own rankings and violate WP:OR. Furthermore, not all reliable sources are of equal validity - given that the GRG is considered an authority on the oldest people in the world (by Guinness World Records as well being frequently cited in the media) whereas individual newspapers are not, this should be taken in to consideration as per WP:NPOV. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Think first about the people who will actually use the information. Splitting the table up into GRG-sourced and unranked tables, or splitting it into verified and unverified tables, does nothing but settle a talk page argument. It would make the article much harder to use.
 * The table draws from multiple sources. Ranking a list of entries that comes from multiple sources is not original research. The dates are sourced and the ages are calculated from the dates, so a ranking would be linked to the sourced dates. If a person is 27th on the list, they are "the 27th oldest person in the world, according to Wikipedia's List of oldest people." If that same person is 26th on the GRG table, they are "the 26th oldest person in the world according to the GRG." Again, the sourced data determines the ranking.
 * If you were to "source" the rankings from the GRG table, you create a problem that probably is original research and non-NPOV. You're deciding that only one source is reliable for rankings, which is the same thing as saying that only one source is reliable for dates. Roches (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not taking in to consideration that this is not a question of whether one age is greater than the other, it's also about which claims are verified. If the GRG ranks people, and one person is not on the list, you have to ask why not. It's because their age has not been validated (proven to be true). There's a big difference between citing a source which has a reputation in the field, which validates cases, and which creates a table of the oldest people, and between a source that is a news reporting agency and has just reported on a claim individually. That's why it's a problem if Wikipedia has a ranked list.
 * "If a person is 27th on the list, they are "the 27th oldest person in the world, according to Wikipedia's List of oldest people." ---> It is not up to Wikipedia to decide who the 27th oldest person in the world is. It's like Wikipedia deciding who the 27th best golfer in the world is.
 * "You're deciding that only one source is reliable for rankings, which is the same thing as saying that only one source is reliable for dates." ---> That's because only one source actually has rankings. Creating a ranking by compiling cases from other sources is different.
 * "If you were to "source" the rankings from the GRG table, you create a problem that probably is original research and non-NPOV." ---> What happens if we have someone who claims to be older than the official Guinness World Records titleholder? Do you just ignore GWR and rank the other person above them? No, you have the official titleholder ranked #1 and the other person listed separately as a claim. Otherwise you're violating WP:UNDUE by not giving the correct weight to sources (because clearly Guinness World Records is the more reliable source in this case). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am very aware of what I am saying. And I am saying that every time you write you here, you are providing more evidence that you are trying to create a little GRG walled garden within Wikipedia. This is not OK.  It.  is.  not.  OK. Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My proposal (returning things to how they were previously) is based on policy and is not in any way a "walled garden". No one would accuse the FIFA football rankings of being a walled garden. Your accusations of bad faith and attempts to intimidate me is a form of Wikibullying and I suggest you stop or I will take this further. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments such as this one are disrespectful and non-contributive. What evidence do you have that Ollie is trying to create a "GRG walled garden"? To me it seems more like he is trying to keep the reliability of these lists at a reasonable standard. 930310 (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is unbelievable how you continue to build evidence against yourself. FIFA is the only source for rankings within the walled garden that is FIFA.  Wikipedia is not a walled garden and GRG is not our only reliable source. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And what evidence is that? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The way things were before with World's Oldest People articles was a GRG walled garden full of articles that were that didn't comply with policies and guidelines. Wanting to go back to that is therefore an attempt to recreate the GRG walled garden where all articles reflect only what the GRG thinks is important and only grg-approved sources are used. The goal of all this work is to bring down the walls in this walled garden and to bring the articles into light of Wikipedia. Ca2james (talk)`


 * OK, so at this point, Cajames and I are making the Wikipedia policy-based arguments as to why it is not OR to rank people based on age, based on reliable sources say, per WP:CALC. The only dispute here appears to be what constitutes a reliable source for age.  Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, what constitutes a reliable source needs to be determined. Some editors feel that the GRG is the only reliable source (since Guinness only names the oldest person world-wide and the IDL doesn't actually publish a list of names) but I (and others) don't think that way. I've reached out to the broader Wikipedia community asking whether specific sources are reliable for a single entry in the table at List of oldest living people over at RSN. When both these discussions have close, I expect to start an RfC to determine whether rankings should be included on the oldest living people article at all - knowing whether or not we can rank them based on age and WP:CALC is important to know. I know this is all using a lot of community time but I get tired of arguing in circles. If it takes getting community input for these wikiproject members to believe my policy-based arguments, so be it. I very much hope that once consensus has been established for this article, we won't have to repeat these discussions at other articles. Ca2james (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Some editors feel that the GRG is the only reliable source" ---> Think about what the GRG actually does. It's a completely different type of source to newspaper articles - it's not just reporting on one individual, it actually validates the ages of longevity claimants and has a ranked list of the oldest validated people in the world. Creating the List of oldest living people article on Wikipedia is not a simple question of just throwing a load of names from various sources in to one list - which it would be if nothing like the GRG existed - because an organisation outside Wikipedia is attempting to do the same thing. So, if people reported on in newspapers are not featured in the GRG's list, you have to ask why not. If an organisation trying to create a list of the oldest people has not included a particular person, why should Wikipedia? It's not a question of the GRG being some "super reliable source", it's about giving due weight to the sources that exist. By all means list them separately ("according to this source, person X is 112 years old" or whatever) but don't mix them in with the GRG lists and rank them because it violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 's response to this, which you copied to WT:WOP, is quite good. Ca2james (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And I have refuted your policy-based argument by pointing out that your interpretation of WP:CALC is completely wrong. These are not routine calculations because it's not just as simple as "this person is older than the other person". WP:OR, "in a nutshell" states this: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." ---> If Wikipedia creates its own ranks, it's not only original thought but it's synthesis of published material. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

My take

 * Lists should be "List of people over X years old", not anything like "List of oldest people" -- and certainly not "...in the world" -- because that puts the idea in the reader's mind that it's meant to be complete or nearly so. Plus, even though lists are almost always implicitly incomplete unless there's some way to know we've got a handle on the whole population (of commercial jetliner models, walks in space, and other rarefied stuff) the very first sentence of the list must emphasize that it's highly incomplete, possibly having as few as 10% of qualified people.
 * If there's a "rank" column, it should be "Rank among persons listed here", again with a footnote/fine print reinforcing how incomplete the list is, and that this should not be interpreted as the oldest, second-oldest, etc. person in the world, or even oldest "verified" in the world (because verified is neither a standardized term, nor one the reader can readily give real meaning to) -- should probably just say oldest persons "reported by reliable sources" or something like that.
 * To in any way give or imply rankings, or that X is the oldest person in Place Y, without hedging such statements in with very strong disclaimers like that really would by SYNTH, because it implies that by cobbling together reports of old people from various sources (reliable though those may be for the purpose of reporting those individuals as individuals) we think we know enough to conclude where those old people stand in the world population as a whole. Again, since we know 90% of people are missing, we can't possibly do that. To repeat: we probably cannot report the "oldest person" or "oldest known person" in the world, and all this stuff about who was the oldest between date X and date Y should be jettisoned.
 * If, in contrast, the US Social Security adminstration, in conjunction with the Census Bureau (let's say) feels they've reached the point where they can say with confidence that X is the oldest person in the US, then we might report that, because it's conceivable they're able to do that (someday, though that day isn't here yet), and they're in a position to judge honestly the reliability of their own work along those lines.

EEng (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)