Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 6

Political party affiliation & privacy
When researching the political party of a government official, is it acceptable to use public records as sources? The particular piece of information I am referring to contradicts an article by showing no party affiliation for the person in the state's public voter registration records, whereas at least one referenced source assigns a party to the individual. The main problem I have is that to put a reference in the article will necessarily reveal personal information about the individual (home address) which is not provided elsewhere that I've seen. It seems inappropriate to me, but the information is publicly available and didn't take me but 30 minutes to find. 66.26.42.28 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This indeed would be Original Research. If the person's political party affiliation has been the subject of public discussion, then it should be sourced to the reputable media. If it hasn't it should not be mentioned in the article. See also WP:BLP. You must not post the person's home address anywhere on Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't "Original Research", with the big boogieman caps. It's simply the use of a primary source.  However, the voter registration doesn't necessarily trump the published source.  I'm sure lots of people are active in a political party but register as unaffiliated.  There is also a question of BLP privacy if we link to something that shows home address, age, etc.  Because of those two reasons the public record should be left out.  Furthermore, is there a reason why we're interested in this person's political affiliation?  If there's no serious reason for it, and you have doubts about the published article, why not leave politial affiliation out of the article altogether? Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Squidfryerchef is correct. In response to privacy issues... What external resources say is not a 'pedia issue. But there is absolutely no need to link to every damn thing that comes down the turnpike. The government document has a unique, unambiguous title. USE IT and basta. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor issue in Deepak Chopra
An editor added a section to the Chopra article that seems to be a personal observation. I tried three times to explain the problem to the editor who added it, and I moved the section to the Talk page for discussion. The editor fixed the problem with first person that I had also noted, and added two book titles -- and then reinserted the material, without discussion, and without addressing the NOR issue. It actually seems an apt observation, so is this something that should just be let go? I kind of wanted someone else's involvement or opinion. I'm reluctant to remove it again. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict and Operation Cast Lead.
The first line of the article begins like this (or some variation thereof): "The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, refers to an Israeli military offensive into Gaza which began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[25] when the Israel Defense Forces launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎, Mivtza Oferet Yetzuka), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[26][27][28][29]" I am suggesting that it is WP:OR to claim that the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict "refers to an Israeli military offensive." The 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict has been going on since Jan 1 2008 and did not begin with Operation Cast Lead. Many editors have tried to correct this by replacing "began" with "accelerated," "flare-up", "intensified" etc. but we are consistently reverted to "began" or "started." It is also true that there have been attempts to rename the article. It is my contention that the article should not use "began" as long as it named the way it is. Until the name is changed to "Operation Cast Lead" or along those lines, we should use a word like "intensified" in place of "began" for accuracy. Comments please. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tundrabuggy, you are confussed as how the article became to have the name it has. A very small minority of the editors agree with your view.


 * While I won't do a complete recount, the talk archives and the special page on article naming all have the relevant discussions:


 * This article started being named "Operation Cast Lead", it then passed through several variations of 2008 Gaza bombing, a group of editors reverted after an hour of discussion to "Operation Cast Lead" I reverted per SNOWBALL back and a series of edits unfolded, including a move protection, that resulted in the current title when the ground incursion started. There is an active discussion happening on the title issues at this moment. Consensus can change.


 * Almost all editors agree that the conflict that began in Jan 1 2008 is covered by 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict and 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict (which clearly links to this article). The lede Tundra criticizes precisely exist to disambiguate the confusion. Its ackward but it is rough consensus.


 * Almost no editors agree the current title is correct - however not even rough consensus has developed around alternatives. Tundrabuggy is confussing the fact of a stalemate on the title with a re-purpoising of the article topic with which nearly no editors agree besides himself.


 * The WP:MILHIST guys agree that "Operation Cast Lead" should not be the title after a request was made for their comments. They were unanimous and provided copiuos opinion, althoguht they have not so far done any editing in the article or the talk page. Many editors have valued thier opinion on the matter.


 * How this is relevant to this forum is not clear to me, but I wanted to set the record straight. I challenge Tundra to provide evidence (not opinion) that the facts presented are wrong. --Cerejota (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The title may be wrong but the article should still reflect it. Either that, or both are wrong.  I would like to  hear uninvolved comments.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes absolutely no sense at all. Tundrabuggy seems to be saying that because there's an error in the first line of an article the error must be then compounded throughout the article. The article in question is clearly intended to be about the ongoing events that began on 27 December 2008 when Israel began a military offensive/security operation/whatever. We should just be patient about giving the article its 'definitive' title. Next week the Israeli government might withdraw its forces from the Gaza Strip and announce a successful conclusion to 'Operation Cast Lead' and we might find that this is the name that 'sticks' historically... or we might find that Egypt responds to violations of its airspace and these events escalate into a war that goes on for years and gets given a name no-one has even thought of yet. What we're doing at present is like arguing about what the article on the Six Day War should be called when we're only at Day 3! 80.176.88.21 (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. Apparently I did not make myself clear.  I'm just saying that we have had innumerable discussions about changing the name of the article and the current name is consensus.  So I say we should write an article about "the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" if we are going to call it that.  You don't name an article "The Doe family", and only talk about one of the Does.  What happens when you call something one thing and then focus on another is to somehow define the (2008-2009) conflict in Gaza in terms of only this one episode or incident in it.  If you want to talk about that one incident, then be honest, and name your article John Doe, not "The Doe family."  Either way, the perspective of both sides of the conflict should be aired 50-50.  I don't disagree that we should be patient about giving the article a definitive title.  As we know, concensus can change, and as you bring out in your (very amusing) Day 3 argument, wiki is not a crystal ball.  In the meantime the name should somehow reflect reality. Since my edit, which was "intensified" instead of "began" was a simple way of reflecting reality, seems to have finally taken hold after numerous reversions, I would consider this resolved for now. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Roof knocking
For some days now, I have tried explaining that the name "roof knocking" is a recent invention. I have been told by editors that this is OR. In fact, I cited the line, and the cite was removed with a cn tag. I have restored, but before it becomes another lame edit war, I wanted a third opinion.

The lien in question:

The IDF was using this technique as early as 2006, though the earliest usage of the term "roof knocking" in the press was during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.

Editors have removed the second reference, while leaving the first, alleging the second source doesn't directly support the claim. However, the first one doesn't support the claim either. Both have in common that the date published is the earliest date that can be found online for either phenomenon.

My point is, either both get removed as OR, or both stay. I would prefer both stay, as both pieces of information are important, and can be, using common sense, sourced. Comments?--Cerejota (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we have a news story about a person that takes a pole, runs, plants it in the ground, and uses it to jump over something, is it OR for us to call it "Pole vaulting"? What if the person did this 1000000 years before the term "pole vaulting" existed?  NJGW (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is the central question, but you seem to have missed the second part of it: 1,000,000 years later the name "pole vaulting" is first used in a reliable source, is it OR to say so? --Cerejota (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the third (or is it fifth) time: what source do you have that says explicitly "the earliest usage of the term "roof knocking" in the press was during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict?" You need a source that says that exact statement.  We cannot say "Cerejota couldn't find a mention of the term before X date in the press."  Even if the statement is absolutely true, it may be unsourcable.  When some academic or journalist prints a statement that the first usage of the term was 'such-and-such', we can include a statement to that effect.  NJGW (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, neither does the source say "using this technique as early as 2006". That is the central point. So for one statement, we are allowed to ignore the need for sources, but not for the other? --Cerejota (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the 1st statement, "The IDF was using this technique as early as 2006,..."
 * Here's the excerpt from the cited 2006 Guardian article that supports the 1st statement, "Mr Deeb was on the receiving end of a new Israeli tactic of using telephone, radio and leaflets to warn Gazans of impending attacks." Note that the 2006 Guardian article specifically states that this is a new tactic so the source supports the first statement.
 * Re the 2nd statement, "...though the earliest usage of the term 'roof knocking' in the press was during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict."
 * I could not find any excerpt in the cited 2009 Haaretz article that says or implies that the earliest usage of the term "roof knocking" in the press was during the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. So the cited 2009 Haaretz article does not support the 2nd statement. It appears that the editor believes the second statement is true because of all the news that the editor has seen since 2006, the first mention of "roof knocking" that the editor has seen in the press, occurred during the recent 2008-2009 conflict.
 * Opinion - Keeping the 1st statement and deleting the 2nd statement is consistent with the no original research policy of wikipedia. If the editor wants to keep it in the wiki, the editor may either find a better source or try to get a consensus for its inclusion using the official wikipedia policy WP:IAR, i.e. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the second statement may well be true and there may be a supporting source somewhere, this seems like more of a case of not yet finding the appropriate source for the statement, rather than a violation of WP:NOR. In my opinion, the statement should be restored without the inappropriate citation in that sentence but replaced with a template i.e.,
 * The IDF was using this technique as early as 2006, though the earliest usage of the term "roof knocking" in the press was during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.
 * An example of the type of source to look for is one that states that the IDF only released the code name "roof knocking" to the press during the recent conflict.
 * Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A rewording that may avoid these problems is,
 * The IDF was using this technique as early as 2006, and it had the code name "roof knocking" during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the rewording. --Cerejota (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Maps
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but what is the consensus on NOR as it applies to user-created maps? For example, File:Map of USA highlighting Jello Belt.png as used in Jell-O Belt and Mormon Corridor? What source states that those are the boundaries of said regions? Mike R (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maps are considered images... so WP:NOR applies. In brief... a user created map does not need to be specifically referenced, but it should reflect information discussed in the article, which would be referenced. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The map, correlates roughly to a map in a link I just added to Mormon Corridor. It also more-or-less matches the description of the region mentioned in the article. –  j ak s mata  16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you cite WP:RS that this was a heavy Mormon settlement area, you're very probably in the clear. If in doubt about the quality of the source, ask at WP:RSN. Once that's all resolved, include the citation in the image's Description page - along with a description of what the strawberry jam represents. The point of this is that some editors are pushing for a stricter policy on on user-created/-modified images, and some Wikiprojects already have image-review groups. If you do it now, while you have the source handy, it will save you trouble later. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maps and diagrams may be images, but a diagram can be OR just like text can be OR. "Original images" was intended to allow photographs of content relevant to the article.  I'd say if the map follows naturally from cited information, it should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the procedure for removing/correcting maps that do not accurately reflect their referenced sources? CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say just be bold and edit it (upload a corrected version), if you have the ability. WP:IFC mentions that you can tag images for cleanup with ifc. If it's really inaccurate (unsalvageable), use WP:FFD. –  j ak s mata  15:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Does conference numbering interpolation = Original Research?
I'm trying to create a table of the National Conferences of a Social Fraternity. Lets say I have 3 sources that say that "The 23rd National Conference of XYZ was held in Boston on July 3-5, 1951", "The XYZ New York National Conference was held on July 1-3, 1952" and "Cleveland hosted the 25th National XYZ Conference in July 1953".

Now I don't have a source that says that the Conference held in New York is the 24th National Conference even though it was proceeded by the 23rd and followed by the 25th, so in the table, would it be considered Original Research to put 24th in the box for the number of that Conference?Naraht (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could say in a footnote that this is an assumption made on the basis of the dates of the 23rd and 25th conferences. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations (e.g. adding or subtracting numbers, rounding them, calculating percentages, converting them into similar units, putting them on a graph, or calculating a person's age) that add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources
 * I think this qualifies as a routine calculation. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to go with Itsmejudith's suggestion since it makes clear that this is something that can still be researched. I'm using ref_label and note_label and the note_label is b. Conclave Number interpolated  . I also have one case where the year is being interpolated rather than the number, and I'm using a separate ref_label and note_label for that. Blueboar, if more people support you, I'll just remove it and I won't have lost anything. Thank you both for your comments.
 * I also think that this qualifies as a routine calculation. However, I question whether it's really, truly important to provide the "anniversary number" in most articles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, it isn't really an anniversary number since the Fraternity started out with Annual conventions, stopped for the Duration of WWII, went back to Annual after the war, expanded to every 18 months in the 1950s, expanded to every two years in 1986, but will be going to annual for the 2010-2012 period in order to celebrate their Hundreth. (I've moved it out of the sandbox and it is now at List of Omega Psi Phi Grand Conclaves). I'd say that 38 references is a lot, but there are 246 on another page that I've been the most frequent editor on.Naraht (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the interpolation is reasonable, but if you want to be exact in attribution yet not attract attention from the deletionists with a footnote about the 24 being interpolated, consider placing the "24" in [square brackets], just like if you were quoting something that needed a grammar fix. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanx, for now, I'll stay with what I said before. I'll keep watch and see if anyone wants to change it.Naraht (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Naraht, Re Suidfyerchef's remark "...not attract attention from the deletionists..." - Considering the support you've gotten here (and now including mine), I don't think you need to fear anyone with an overly strict interpretation of WP:NOR. Keep in mind the official Wikipedia policy WP:IAR which states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." IMO your edit certainly improves your article(s) and has a consensus here. In fact, the article may be improved further by deleting mention of interpolation, which just seems like needless, and possibly confusing, clutter. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing I should add, if you are uncertain if an interpolation is correct, or if an interpolation can be reasonably questioned for some reason, that's a different situation. The information has to be credible or it's not improving Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do believe it is credible, but to me, if I don't indicate that it is interpolated, then that would seem to imply that the information exists in one of the references for that year, which I feel is misleading. (Maybe I'm being so strict that I'm a deletionist, but I don't think so.) And since the mention of interpolation only occurs once down at the bottom in the notes, I don't think it is adding much clutter. I'm also doing pages for the conventions of other Greek Letter Organizations and will see if appears to be cluttering on that.Naraht (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Are DNA surname projects original research?
A question has arisen at WikiProject Human Genetic History and in particular on the Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) article regarding the use of DNA surname projects as sources. I would be most grateful for further input on this issue. To put the issue in context there are three commercial DNA testing companies which host DNA projects: Family Tree DNA (http://www.familytreedna.com), DNA Heritage (http://www.dnaheritage.com) and the genealogical website Ancestry (http://dna.ancestry.com). The vast majority of such projects (in excess of 5,000) are with Family Tree DNA, who provide project managers with their own website for the publication of results. The Ancestry projects can only be accessed by people who have registered for an account with Ancestry. There is no public listing of DNA projects on DNA Heritage. For examples of projects with this company try searching on the names Churchill and Kennedy. The projects are all run by volunteers, who are generally genealogists, with varying degrees of qualification. Do these projects constitute original research? If so, under what circumstances can we cite material from these projects? Dahliarose (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, this isn't original research. Original research is when the Wikipedia editor determines something.  What you're talking about is a primary source.  (You do need to decide whether this information should be considered "published" as well.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the clarification. I'd forgotten that we were looking at everything specifically from the point of view of the actions of the Wikipedia editor. As these are primary sources we should therefore be using them with caution and it is also a question of deciding how reliable they are. Dahliarose (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against atheists
We've got a heated dispute going on over at Discrimination against atheists regarding original research; one user is claiming that because he concludes something constitutes discrimination, that is sufficient to have Wikipedia say that it's discrimination. Examples include the British monarchy mandating the monarch be CofE constituting discrimination against atheists; one would think that if it were so obviously such discrimination, there would be at least one reliable source asserting such, not just his appeal to the dictionary. Or are the rest of us offbase? Serious WP:OWN behavior as well. I'd just protect the article myself except I got involved. Extra eyes would be nice. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yikes... That article is almost entirely Original Research. It is essentially one giant WP:SYNT violation... it list all sorts of laws and constitutions, etc. from around the world, and states that these are discriminatory.  At first glance it looks well sourced... but if you actually look at the sources, it isn't.  Most of the sources are simply links to the various laws, constitutions, etc.  These citations show that the various laws exist... but do not support the statement that they are discriminatory... or even that anyone claims that they are discriminatory.
 * Essentially the article is geared towards "proving the point" instead of "discusing the issue" Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There must be good sources for some of this, eg the British Humanist Association, etc. dougweller (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dunno about the rest of Discrimination against atheists, but any statement about "the British monarchy mandating the monarch be CofE constituting discrimination against atheists" is historically inaccurate, as any decent textbook will show. The CofE requirement was brought in by Parliament in the Act of Settlement 1701, after the overthrow of James II of England, and was intended to exclude Roman Catholics. At the time it was assumed that everybody would have some religious beliefs and I can't think of any notable professed atheists in Britan at that time. --Philcha (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Several of you have worked to clean up the OR, but the disputes continue. I've added it to my watch. Demands for sources and the removal of original research already fill the talk page and edit summaries, but battles still rage. Not much else we can do here, I'm afraid, so I'll close this one up. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Frank Sander Residence
User:Maxwell33 (talk) has written a paper for school and keeps adding the information to this article. He has overwritten other changes, including simple facts (square footage) from recent cited sources (NY Times) with unreferenced information. I have tried to explain policy to him but I have failed miserably and a revert war is starting. The user is new and confused (he was last seen getting into a fight with SineBot). There are WP:BLP and privacy issues, he showed bias on the talk page and deleted initial communication on his user talk page so I was a little firmer on reverts than usual. I'm going to let it go for the night. Would someone else take a whack at it? His talk page and the article talk page have all the background. As an aside, this article is borderline on notability but we'll deal with that once we sort out citations and content. Thanks for the help. -Savewright (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quiet now. The editor was unfortunately interpreting most advice office as harassment, so though he may have had suitable sources for the material, the message wasn't getting through that he needed them at wp. I've watch listed the article, but for now it looks finished. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Campbell (journalist) - should be an easy one to clear up
We're having trouble with this article with an editor ((83.67.217.135 (talk))) who seems to want to break WP:OR in order to break WP:NPOV. The issue is thus: Stuart Campbell has a verifiable involvement in the FairPlay campaign, to the extent of "supporter" and "spokesman". The FairPlay campaign encouraged a boycott of games buying in the UK during the first full week of December. The campaign website claims that there was a "big sales blip during the campaign week which saw Game, Europe's biggest videogame retailer, lose a massive 80% of its share value overnight in response to disappointing sales". It also claims "When the campaign was over, sales shot up again, just as we said they would". Taking these claims at face value, they are all either false or unverifiable. Sales blip: Game's sales figures for the weeks surrounding the boycott are not available. 80% of share value lost overnight: verifiably false using historical share price information. And sales shooting up again: again, no sales figures are available.

It is true, however, that GAME did issue a profit warning on 17th December 2002. News articles blame this on a price war with Argos and Dixons. The share price did drop on this profit warning, which came on 17th December (just over a week after the end of the boycott). In order to get close to the "80% overnight" claim, we have to interpret "80%" as "70%", and "overnight" as "15 days". Now, obviously, if we include this information and link it to the boycott, it would be synthesis (WP:OR). What 83.67.217.135 wants to do is to include all this information in the section about the boycott, but not to explicitly link it to the boycott, which he considers not to be a breach of WP:OR. The other editors concerned in the debate all think that to mention one after the other like this implies a link. 83.67.217.135 thinks that this will allow the reader to determine for themselves the "notability" of the campaign. To read this debate, simply scroll to the bottom of the talk page for article in question.

It seems to me that the only reason to include information on a share price relating a claim made on a website for a campaign that the subject of the article is not particularly closely linked with, is to push the POV that the boycott was a success.

As can be seen from the history of the article, 83.67.217.135 considers himself the "owner" of the article, reverting others' changes whenever he disagrees with them, sometimes with an edit summary such as "what the fuck is wrong with you?". From the talk page you can see that he will not listen to other editors, considering himself to be the ultimate authority on what changes are allowed to be made. He has had to be warned about civility on several occasions (indeed, he has recently called me a liar, ignoring me when I show that what I have said is true).

Frustratingly, this debate would probably not be occurring if 83.67.217.135 would declare the WP:COI that he seems to have. He refuses to confirm his identity, or rule anything out. He has almost certainly used at least one sockpuppet on the talk page. With deference to WP:OUTING, examining his contributions reveal that he is almost entirely concerned with mentions of the name 'Stuart Campbell' on wikipedia. His writing style and way of treating people is recognisable from other websites. Yet this article cannot currently be changed without his say-so, as he will just revert the change.

All we really need is a few more than the 3 or 4 editors we currently have to come along and chat for a few minutes. Maybe you will all agree with him, but at least the debate will be resolved. Please do help - it could all be resolved so easily and quickly! Thank you. Jumble Jumble (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article's currently in AFD, so these issues may be moot soon. I haven't reviewed all the edits traded in the dispute, but will say looking at some of them that the IP has added unsourced commentary, but much of the section does rely on quite a few self-claimed accomplishments re FairPlay. Those claims sourced only to Press Releases should be regarded more skeptically and I'd urge they be sourced to third-party publications or removed. The NPOV argument isn't an excuse to add original research, but the NPOV is sufficient to remove self-published credit the organization has taken for changes to industry practice or sales. The entire FairPlay section remains deleted for now, but with the new AFD and page protect currently in place it's premature to say if this is a stable resolution to the conflict. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and "Gaza massacre"
Reliable sources have identified Arab leaders, media, and personalities as saying the events in Gaza are a "massacre". Editors have felt that this is the generalized viewed as simple POV name for what the Israeli side calls the "Operation Cast Lead", and should be included in the lede and in the article itself as an important contrast to the name given by one side. Other editors have insisted on removing this sentence, and have raised concerns about POV, bias and Original Research, they have also removed content in the article itself that elaborates on the fact that this name is used. (as a note, the "Gaza massacre" is a redirect)

I find the POV/Bias arguments snowballable wrong: describing the opinion and name used by one side of a conflict is never POV unless we appear to support the actual name as if it were fact, which we don't.

While I think the sentence is very well-sourced, I do recognize a weakness I recognize: they do not explicitly refer to the "Gaza Massacre" but rather than "massacre in Gaza" or "massacre" and specifiying place somewhere else, etc. SOme editors opposed to the inclusion of the term argue that using the phrase "Gaza massacre" is OR because we are deriving a novel idea from the sources. I and others have argued this is an incorrect interpretation: the sources are unambigous int hat when "massacre" is used, it refers to the current events in Gaza, and not to another event. In case the "offending" sentence is removed from the version of the article you read, here is it in context at a "previous version" link and in text (no context):

The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre (مجزرة غزة) in the Arab World.

There are other issues I would like to raise regarding what I consider pointy allegations of original resarch, but this one would do for now. Please give us your perspective.--Cerejota (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that none of the linked sources state the foregoing quote in their articles. For further (and the countervailing view) discussion of this problem see Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 08:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read my paragraph above I said: I do recognize a weakness I recognize: they do not explicitly refer to the "Gaza Massacre", that is why I opened this process: I feel that is a valid point, but the current climate in the discussion (which you said had to go to arbcom - which I disagree) is not conducive to such nuances. I say lets get a new set of eyes and get it over with.--Cerejota (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And here for a more complete discussion Nableezy (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC) (fixed link by: --Darwish07 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
 * And I recognize no such weakness. The BBC Arabic site uses the Arabic words for Gaza Massacre here: . Aljazeera does here: . Numerous other arabic sites use the arabic words we cite. Nableezy (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And on above news links, the conflict is completely identified only by the term "Gazza Massacre" in the titles themselves. --Darwish07 (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * May I also add that there are other 8 Arabic references saying the "Gaza Massacre" term ,in Arabic and on the titles and with no extra explanations, on the ("more complete discussion") link provided by Nableezy above. So I claim that this weakness does not exist in the mentioned Arabic references. Thank you --Darwish07 (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that they do not capitalize so we do not know for sure what is intended. This is English wiki and we should use English sources as much as possible. 6 sources are given and not one supports your allegation.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think brewcrewer's point is the phrase in general: lets try not to recreate the debate here, but expose our points to more eyes. I want to see what the people here say, if anything.--Cerejota (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, we won't continue the debate in here. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also you'll find three concrete replies to the 3 "problems" proposed by Brewcrewer in the link he has given. Thanks. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Take care to avoid recentism, as the terms of the debate are still evolving. It's undeniable that the BBC and Al-Jazeera are reliable sources, but we are left with the question of the equivalence of the Arabic and English terms, and as we know terms in different languages are rarely exact equivalents of each other. The solution would seem to be to pull apart the single statement with many sources and instead to attribute a sentence to each of these sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea, but just having the single sentence is a problem for some, I only see it being a bigger problem if we go into any more detail. Could we perhaps source the arabic words to bbc and aljazeera, while the english ones to a google translation? There are many on the talk page who know arabic, on both sides of the discussion, but nobody is disputing that the words in arabic translate to 'gaza massacre'. Nableezy (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's best not to include footnotes in the lead paragraph (that paragraph should summarise sourced statements in there rest of the article). And also I'm not sure that right now the conflict is known in English as "the Gaza massacre". But the sources cited are all or mostly reliable ones, so you could use them to develop the "International responses" section, and there you could say that those sources had used the term "massacre". Prefer English-language sources where you can, but also bear in mind the need to reflect views right across the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions and tips. Nableezy (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I think it only fair to include the full paragraph here for context: "The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when the Israel Defense Forces launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (???? ????? ?????, Mivtza Oferet Yetzuka), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.  The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre (????? ???) in the Arab World." As Cerejota has acknowledged, none of the references refer to "The Gaza Massacre" as the Arabic Name for either the "conflict" or the "operation." Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir, we've said the conflict is identified as Gaza Massacre in more than 10 Arabic references, which were just a sample. And I've also said you do not need to find a statement saying: "The Iraq war is also called Occupation of Iraq", but just find a suitable number of references that refer to the events as "Occupation of Iraq". This is exactly what happened in a number of Wikipedia articles like Iraq war and War in Darfur. Please see my "Reply to claim 2" paragraph as I have addressed such claims before. Thank you. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course Hamas calls Israel's actions a "Massacre". One of the interesting things about this particular round of Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the fact that both sides are much more media savy than they used to be... and both sides have become more expert at media manipulation. For example, both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups offer automatic "missle strike" counters that you can place on your MySpace page so you can keep track of how bad the "other side" is, and groups from both sides have learned to post videos on Youtube showing the damage that the other side is committing to all those "innocent people" (and not showing the damage their side does). This is a war folks... and media manipulation is just one more front in that war. The key for Wikipedia is to not be duped by either side... I think that, within the context of a neutral discussion media manipulation by both sides, it would be quite appropriate to mention that Hamas leaders use the term "Massacre" to describe Israel's actions. Otherwise we should be skeptical of such words. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact that is similar to my revision of the sentence here: "The operation, which Israel says is in legitimate self-defense, has been called a massacre (مجزرة غزة) in the Arab World."  I maintained the references given as they do indeed call it a "massacre"  (little "m").  This NPOV edit is consistently reverted within minutes of putting it up.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the fourth time, on this single subsection. Please read the sample 10 Arabic references which called the events "Gaza Massacre" as we've mentioned. And below Nableezy references which show several Hamas spokesmen calling it "Gazza massacre" and not just "massacre" in English sources. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And what's this babysitting of Israel before the term "massacre" ??? It's not our problem if the Arabs even called it a Holocaust. We just put it without adding a layer of justification or our own sympathy as you did in that edit. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is unnecessary (and biased) to include the legitimate self-defence part to excuse Israel's actions. The Israeli government calls all military action it takes legitimate self-defence just as all action taken by Palestinian militants is called legitimate resistance to illegal occupation by them and their supporters. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, your list of references does NOT say what you claim it says. What you are saying constitutes WP:OR. The only time that your sources even capitalize "massacre" is when they use the word in a headline and then capitalize every main word. The Arab speakers are quoted as calling the situation "a massacre" "a terrible massacre" etc. At no time does anyone report that it is referred to as "'The Gaza Massacre" And finally, the context makes it clear that it is not NPOV to accuse Israel of a "massacre" without even allowing a justification from Israel in the same breath. Basically what is being attempted here is to remove all of Israel's justification to the second paragraph, and to manage to call the situation a bolded capitalised Massacre in the first two defining sentences. It goes against wiki WP:NPOV even if there were reliable sources to back it (which there are not).


 * I'm sure you didn't check the Arab reference or read the debate before writing this. Did you? We've shown 10 Arabic references calling it "Gazza Massacre", literally, as a sample including BBC Arabic, Aljazeera, Jordan News, Egypt News and the English source. Gulf News. We've even shown statements from Egypt's Pope saying "Stop the Gazza Massacre" in one of the Arabic references. I just didn't like to put 10 more references on a statement already referenced by other 6. Please check the debates, first. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And As said by Nableezy:Beyond that, here are some english news sources: SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." ; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman 'Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.' ; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' ; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' . That enough english sources? Nableezy (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The term 'The Gaza Massacre' is not simply Hamas's argument, it is the name they have given to this most recent conflict. The name the Israelis have give is also in the lead. The arguments for each side are presented in the body of the article. Every battle that I have checked, where the two side have different languages, reference both sides name of the conflict along with the English title. I dont see why this has to be any different. It is not OR to present what Arabs have called it, there are a number of sources that refer to it as either 'The Massacre' or 'The Gaza Massacre' in Arabic. If you insist on not using Arabic sources to find the Arabic name (which is truly baffling on common-sense grounds in my mind) above are a number of English sources, directly quoting Hamas and Arab officials calling it 'the gaza massacre.' For something as simple as what do both sides call an event to have caused such heated debate seems illogical. I think we can clearly show that it is not OR with sources cited above. Nableezy (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And (even though this is the NOR board) it is not a POV violation to accurately report what the two sides are calling the conflict. It would be a POV violation to censor one of those sides description because you feel that they should not be using the words, not that they are not using those words. The article make no statement that the incident is a massacre, it clearly says that Arabs have called this 'the gaza massacre,' that is not a POV violation it is merely a statement of fact backed by multiple RS. Nableezy (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Question to All Could this be a translation issue?  I don't speak Arabic, but it seems like distinctions between 'the Gaza massacre' 'The Gaza Massacre' or 'a gaza massacre' etc. etc. are the exact sorts of things liable to be translated in different ways by different people.  Has anyone considered it from that angle?


 * Yes there is the matter of translation, Arabic has no capitalization for example. Agree with Nableez above, it is neutral to report not only what the Israeli side is calling the event but also what the Gaza and Arab World side is calling the event. It is not neutral to try to censor one side because your POV is challenged by it. Re: original research accusations re: exact phrasing, note that the article refers to the name being used in Arabic. But anyway here are some more English-language sources that use the exact term "Gaza Massacre":


 * Gulf News
 * Islam Online
 * Uruknet
 * Muslim Matters
 * Iranian
 * Asian Tribune
 * Sri Lankan News


 * And from the UK and Australia and NA:
 * Tribune UK
 * ABC Australia
 * Indian Country


 * RomaC (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Yes translation can be an issue, the arabic words that are used مجزرة غزة, can be translated Gaza massacre, or Massacre of Gaza, but most sources, including my best friend, translate it as Gaza massacre. The sources that I provided above are English translations of statements and interviews made by Hamas leadership, the translation they all have used is 'Gaza massacre.' Capitalization to me is a pretty minor issue, just seems odd to say something is a proper noun and not capitalize it. But there are sources for the translation of Gaza massacre, and sources for the arabic words مجزرة غزة. The sources the RomaC posted also refer to the 'Gaza massacre', but they are not attributing that to anything. We do have sources in major Arab media (BBC Arabic and Al-Jazeera) that use the Arabic term, and we do have English sources that translate for us what at least Hamas is calling the conflict. Every single battle that I can think of between 2 entities where there is a language difference between the two have the common English name as the title, and each sides nomenclature in the lead. Nobody can answer why this should be different, rather going from policy to policy, first OR, then NPOV, then UNDUE. . . and all this time the article isnt even calling the events a massacre, it is just saying what one of the involved parties is calling it. Nableezy (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone who has responded here is also deeply involved in editing the page, with the exception of Blueboar and Itsmejudith.  I urge my fellow editors to listen to their opinion, as the rest of us have heard each other's opinions ad nauseum.  Would anyone care to summarize the position of the two uninvolved editors regarding this?  Or will we continue to ignore them?  Thank you.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tundrabuggy, We've compiled a new list of references that put no room for further debating, including having the full term "Gaza Massacre". Particularly the new set of references are:     . Thank you! --Darwish07 (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your references do show that many are calling it a massacre. There is no denying that.  But it is not a proper name or it would be reflected that way even in translation. "Your friend" (or mine) is not a reliable source on wiki. What you are suggesting is that every source above has mistranslated "The Gaza Massacre" to "the Gaza massacre".  It is not a formal and proper name, but rather a description, a view, and a judgment.  If you are going to put in the Arab judgment as a "massacre", it must be balanced with the Israeli view. {I guess we need to take this to the NPOV board} I believe the reason you are demanding that it be interpreted as a proper name is to claim "balance" or equality with Israel's proper name for it "Operation Cast Lead."  But that isn't balance, that's spin.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Itsmejudith and blueboar were described as the only uninvolved editors to weigh in on the subject, and a request was made to summarize their feedback. Blueboar wrote that at this early stage, calling it a massacre is not NPOV. It's premature to characterize it as a consensus view when events are fresh and both sides in the conflict are actively controlling and/or manipulating news coverage. Itsmejudith said that only sources written in English should be taken into consideration on that question, and as a current event, for the time being the appropriate handling would be to address its use in the "International responses" section where those sources calling it a massacre are clearly attributed. At this point I don't think there are any OR questions remaining. See WP:UNDUE and WP:SUBSTANTIATE for more advice how best to find a NPOV handling here. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of racing simulators
This article has bothered me for awhile now. There are many problems with it. Barely anything is actually sourced, and most of the info is just users' opinions. I don't think an acurate comparison like this is even possible under wikipedia's guidelines, so I'd say it's best if the article were removed. Much like the article on racing games, I think this comparison is more of a "battle" between fans of a specific game, trying to show that their preferred simulation/game is a better simulation/game. I hope I'm putting this in the right place, if not I'm sorry, and hopefully someone will quickly remove this and point me in the right direction. If this is the right place, then please discuss and let me know what you think. --Wes Richards (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah... this does strike me as being mostly OR. I have tagged it as such. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whew. I think it's got a long way to go before it's up to snuff. Judging by appearances, the sources that are given are all just self-pub websites. But its editors have really labored hard on the content there. It's been tagged a long, long time and the tag hasn't helped. It's not easy to remove just the unsourced content-there'd be little to nothing left. I don't know if Wp:AFDing would be constructive or not. Besides the urgent need to identify its RS, it needs substantial editing to make it more encyclopedic and less "Shopper's Guide" ish. It would be great if some "tough love" editor(s) could be found who are willing to provide guidance and supervision to allow the article to get straightened out.  Professor marginalia (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article in more detail... a lot of the technical stuff in the charts can be cited to the games themselves ... but that means that the bulk of the information is taken from primary sources (the games). And that results in an article that is simply one big excersize in OR (especially WP:SYNT). The very attempt to "compare" these games, without citing sources that have compared them first, is OR.  I am not sure if that can be fixed.  Dispite that fact that someone has done a hell of a lot of work compiling this information, I think AfD may well be the right way to go here. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you guys for having a look. I think the only solution is removal of the article as most of the details don't have good sources and are found by just running the game and seeing for yourself.  It would be a great article to have if all the details had a good source, which, short of all the games' programmers stating what their game has/doesn't have on a reliable website, I don't think can happen.  You may be able to cite a few reliable websites where developers have stated what their game does/has, but those are very few, and it would leave a mostly blank comparison table.  Again, thank you more educated wikipedians for having a look.  Being a big simracing fan and a regular wikipedia reader, this article has been bothering me for some time.  There is ongoing debate in the online simracing community on which game is more realistic, and I think that debate ends up targeting this article somewhat.  --Wes Richards (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Methanol/ ethanol
In Aspartame controversy this study was removed and considered Original Research: Dr. Woodrow C. Monte, "Aspartame: Methanol, and the Public Health" Journal of applied nutrition, Spring 1984. v. 36 (1) p. 42-54 It has 62 references and claims that methanol has ethanol as an antidote, which is found in fruit juice and alcoholic beverages, and therefore prevents methanol poisoning. Immortale (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hard to say. I don't have access to Monte's article. What does this claim have to do with Aspartame? And can you quote the relevant passage from the source? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The study can also be read as scanned pages here, even though that site is not an approved website it gives you an idea what the study is about. The quote I used: Unlike aspartame, methanol in fruit juice and alcohol have their antidote ethanol, which prevents methanol poisoning and was marked as WP:OR Immortale (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't read it closely enough to have found support for a claim as strongly worded as, "juice and alcohol have their antidote ethanol, which prevents methanol poisoning." (comes real close on alcohol). If it's there but I haven't seen it, just point it out to me. But what this paper seems to do is argue that methanol's neutralized in foods and juice because of the presence of ethanol, and therefore it's wrong to extrapolate from those food/juice related of toxicity studies any kind of confidence about the dose levels of methanol consumed in aspartame drinks. Am I right? And the author hasn't convinced the FDA there is a real concern there. So the source can be used without overstepping OR, but only with very tight wording and clear attribution. For example, "In an article published in the blah blah, (job description) Woodrow Monte argued that the methanol in aspartame posed more risk from consumption than methanol present in alcohol and fruit juices because it lacks ethanol. Ethanol has an inhibitory effect on the metabolism of methanol." This satisfies the NOR, but may raise other issues. The study is dated, and I don't know whether or not it's sufficiently notable to cite now. It wouldn't violate NOR though. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll add your wording of the study to the article as you have summed it up better than me. I'm sure there are newer studies showing the relation between methanol and ethanol, but maybe not in relation to aspartame, which clearly does not contain ethanol. Thanks for looking into this. I appreciate it. Immortale (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is another problem with the whole section (Aspartame_controversy) in which this source is used. It's a probable WP:SYNTH violation. Only anti-aspartame advocates are making these claims. Where is the research that shows this is an actual problem with aspartame itself in real people? Does more research back up this fringe claim? This is similar to the often misused in vitro research findings extrapolated (without evidence) to in vivo realities by promoters of alternative medicine ideas. This is also a very old (by scientific standards) source. If a better and newer neutral source that directly addresses experimentation with aspartame and 'in vivo'' findings, we'd be on more solid ground. Right now we're reproducing anti-aspartame OR propaganda here. The whole section is already tagged with an OR tag, and the issues need to be addressed. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not OR if the claim is accurately cited to a published source, so if there are other problems with it, it would be good to clarify them. The WP:Fringe, WP:RS and WP:Undue policies address this kind of issue so there may be more specific guidance on this these pages. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin American images
This has come up before, but is now coming up again. At Talk:Latin_America there are claims that photos need sources. My understanding is that "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Which is it, photos need a source or no?  NJGW (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole image thing is tricky. In principle you're right about wp:OI. But practice is more complicated. For over 6 months now there have been pressures for some degree of citation to go with some types of image, and I've encountered these in paleontology and zoology articles. Breaking it down by types of pic:
 * Diagrams, reconstructions etc. (common in paleontology and zoology) probably need a source. Usually easy because the diagram usually illustrates something in the adjacent content, and that should have a citation you can paste into the image Description page. If the text lacks a citation, fix that first!
 * Photos of well-known objects, e.g. Pentagon, may not need citations at present because uncontroversial.
 * Photos of less-well known objects, e.g. statues or buildings of purely local significance, may be very difficult to back up.
 * Photos of species bother me and I think are going to run into trouble. I see in a few Wikiprojects enough questions of the type "Can you identify this creature whose picture I took?" I suggest it's prudent to use a spotter's handbook / field guide / ilustrated book from a reliable publisher to back these up. Even so it's tricky wiht e.g. spiders, where scientists' main method of species identification is ... the exact shapes of their genitalia.
 * Photos of non-famous people have at least two problems. One is backing up the statement "this is a ... (Scotsman / diabetes sufferer / village elder / etc.) As with species, the best citation would be a reliable illustrated book - but at least you won't have the spider genitalia problem. The other is to do with privacy rights and you should check Image use policy.
 * I'm sorry if that's not as helpful as you hoped, but I think images are becoming a messy issue. --Philcha (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as e.g. things like statues or local buildings, I'd say that it's acceptable to reference a book or other publication that has another picture of the same thing - if the two look the same, I think that's good enough. If someone debates the issue beyond that, I feel that they're being tendentious and are trying to keep an image out of the encyclopedia for other reasons. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The specific issue here is of people. There are many (thousands? 10s of thousands?) of pictures of non-famous people on Wikipedia.  Each non-famous person pictured on Wikipedia (according to wp:OI) is being used to illustrate an established sourced concept.  If I take a picture of White Uruguayans and place it in the section of Wikipedia that talks about white Uruguayans, is it original research?


 * People citing BLP seem to be misreading the section of Image use policy ("the subject's consent is not usually needed for straightforward photographs taken in a public place") and Commons Policy on the matter]. The law in many countries (and the guidelines/policy stated everywhere I can see on Wikipedia/Wikimedia) follows the concept that "a reasonable expectation of privacy" entails a model release form, while photos in public are free to use in non-commercial ways (magazines and newspapers are non-commercial, which is why paparazzi are legal).  Now, ignoring the (to me bogus, and according to policy irrelevant) BLP argument, are these photos OR according to current standards/guideline/policy?  NJGW (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * statues or local buildings - It is not acceptable by default. A historical building may have been destroyed and replaced with a concrete replica, three years later it looks exactly like the real thing. Reliable sources were printed before the original was gutted out, even the current register of historic places lists it as original. So there must be additional evidence that present-day building is, in fact, the historical one. NVO (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is still being discussed on the Latin American talk page. The author of File:Mexican_Girls.jpg states in the description, "These Mexican girls are at a fair in Jalisco, Mexico near Zapopan." Is it OR to use the image in an article with the caption "There are 16 million Mexican-Caucasians." ?  WP:AFG and wp:OI seems to say that we go with what the author says.  If this is OR, aren't the wikipedian created images at Featured_pictures/People/Traditional ("the visual equivalent to featured articles") also OR?  Should we delete all this OR, or is this a misreading of wp:OI and wp:AGF?  NJGW (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Narrowly speaking, this is no more original research than the average self-loaded, unpublished photo. The caption identifies the girls as Mexican but not Caucasian. But I didn't read that the "caucasian" identification is the focus of dispute. I don't think the dispute over this photo can be resolved quoting any policy. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest we procede? The main dispute is with an editor who says he would be satisfied with a consensus here that the image with the caption "There are 16 million caucasions in Mexico" does not violate OR.  As for the girls' ethnicity, I don't see anybody saying  these boys (also pictured in the article) might not be of African decent.  NJGW (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Coming late to look at it, I don't know if the disputes remaining are simply over that one picture because now that I look more closely, there were disputes over many of them. I will agree that editors shouldn't mine the photo files to look for pictures of people they think look like they have particular ancestry. You could well fall back into a conflict with OR when the photo's uploader didn't indicate.  We shouldn't assign a heritage to people in photos using guesswork based on what they look like.  For example, peoples photos shouldn't be used as examples of "mulatto" when the subjects' actual heritage isn't indicated. Some suitable alternatives would be: a) choose only photos of subjects whose heritage is sourced, either through the photo description or some RS or b) choose photos from a spectrum of Latin Americans without ascribing to them any particular heritage. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another issue with these photos is the assertion of nationality... that the people shown are "Mexican" or "Brazilian" or whatever. For all we know, they are Americans who were on holiday in the country when the picture was taken.  So... if we are going to have a photo to illustrate the ethnic/racial/heritage make up of a Latin American country, what is needed are photos of people who can be clearly identified as a) being citizens of the country, and b) who have self-identified with the ethnic or racial group under discussion. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed in part. But if I were to go by our photo policies, I think if the photo description given reads, "Taiwanese celebrating Vesak", it's arguably sufficient unless there's a realistic reason presented to challenge it. But when the person uploading the photo didn't identify them as such-and-such, it's naive and potentially offensive for editors to believe they can accurately identify a subject's nationality or ethnicity by judging looks alone. And if the photo caption doesn't reveal the identification, and there's good likelihood the editor is wrong anyway, why use it?  It's very offensive to many people to be presumed to belong to a particular ethnicity based solely on their appearance. For situations where the subject might be wrongly identified in the photo description, we maybe need a stricter guideline. I don't know. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sports statistics not directly reported
I'm working on a hockey article for a league that doesn't directly report shut-outs for goaltenders as an aggregate statistic, however in the world of goaltenders its normally a fairly important statistic. The league does report the scores of the games and player stats from the games, so I don't think it would constitute original research to say "Goaltender X recorded 5 shutouts in Season Y". My question becomes this: I wouldn't be saying anything that wasn't true, and that couldn't be verified, but the verification could be cumbersome as I might have to cite a dozen games to prove a single statement.--Crossmr (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Would I need to cite each individual game as a verification of the statistic?
 * 2. Would it be original research to total all the shut-outs league wide and make the statement that goaltender X lead the league in shut-outs that year?


 * I think this counts as a simple calculation... which is exempted from WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks.--Crossmr (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamitic
A dispute has arisen on the article Hamitic about the continued use of the term "Hamitic" as an ethnic identifier in the CIA Factbook (a book that has been determined to be an RS when raised several times on the RS noticeboard). One editor states that the reference is "OR" on the following grounds "neither the CIA nor another source talking about the CIA says that it's still in use; it's wiki editors personally 'reporting' that it is". In response to the assertion that all summaries of the content of RS's constitute wikipedia editors "personally reporting" the content of the source, the editor replies "It's OR. User is indeed personally reporting that "the CIA Factbook continues to uses [sic] the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity"; CIA ref itself makes no such assertion; see WP:NOT#OR)" I can see nothing in the rules which state that this is a misuse of the source. The source lists information in the form of tables . Among these is a table which states "Ethnic groups: Hutu (Bantu) 85%, Tutsi (Hamitic) 14%, Twa (Pygmy) 1%, Europeans 3,000, South Asians 2,000". I do think that it can possibly be OR to state that "the CIA Factbook continues to use the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity", since this is indeed what the table asserts, in exactly the same way that it asserts that the Twa are "Pygmy" and that they constitute 1% of the population. The fact that it does not make the assertion in the form of a sentence, but in the form of a tabulation seems to me to be irrelevant. If it were not, all the content would be inadmissible. This eems to me to be a clear case of "wikilawyering". We need precedent here, otherwise it will be possible in future for editors to claim that any information in tabulation form "makes no such assertion; see WP:NOT#ORWP", and that the tabulation "Twa (Pygmy)" just constitutes the word Twa with the word Pygmy in brackets after it, not an "assertion" that the Twa are Pygmies. Tabulations that follow clear rules constitute statements made by the source, otherwise we are in for pointless rounds of dispute over tabulated sources with statistical and other information that editors don't like. OR should not be used as a tool to delete information one does not like. In my own view the CIA is being sloppy by using an obsolete term no longer considered useful by anthropologists, but that does not justify excluding the fact that the term continues to be used by a mainstream source. Paul B (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So is anyone ever going to respond to this? If not, I will condider it legitimate to raise on another board. Paul B (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would interpret that Hamitic and Tutsi are the same from this one source. Yet Tutsi and Hamitic are given two separate articles, and my sense skimming the articles is that they aren't always accurately interchangeable. You could tighten the sentence to eliminate any original interpretation, "Nevertheless the CIA Factbook continues to uses the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity, for example in the data sheet of Burundi or Rwanda" becomes "The CIA Factbook continues to include Hamitic as an ethnic group in Burundi and Rwanda." But even then, I don't think it is by itself such a significant fact that it needs to be in the article.  Is there nowhere else the term is found used today except this Factbook? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. I came here for a discussion of the issue of OR. Whether the content is or is not necessary for the article is surely a separate matter which belongs on the article's talk page. The issue is whether source uses the term Hamitic as an ethnic group. You seem to be saying that it does. The bracketed sections are intended to represent larger ethnic groups into which the smaller ethic/tribal groups can be placed. It is comparable to saying of languages: English (Germanic), French (Romance) etc. In this sense it is not saying that "Hamitic and Tutsi are the same", but that Tutsi is a tribal identity within the Hamitic family (at least in the opinion of the CIA factbook) in the same way that English is a language within the Germanic family. As I say, the truth or falisity of this claim is irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes, as you know. Verifiability not truth is the mantra! Paul B (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, rewriting the original "nevertheless the CIA Factbook continues to uses the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity, for example in the data sheet of Burundi or Rwanda" to "the CIA Factbook continues to include Hamitic as an ethnic group in Burundi and Rwanda" is still unsatisfactory because the CIA Factbook source that's presumably to be placed behind the assertion does not state anywhere that it "continues to include Hamitic as an ethnic group in Burundi and Rwanda". If a Wikipedia editor adds the aforementioned phrase and places the CIA Factbook source behind it, he is pretending that the CIA source makes that assertion when it most certainly does not. All the CIA source does is include in two separate articles on Burundi and Rwanda the term "Hamitic" in parentheses after the Tutsi ethnic group. Nowhere in either article does the CIA Factbook source state that it "continues to include Hamitic as an ethnic group in Burundi and Rwanda". The latter is a Wikipedia editor personally reporting that the CIA makes that assertion rather than finding a reliable, third party source which states the that the CIA factbook "continues to include Hamitic as an ethnic group". This is classic original research. And Wikipedia's policies make it clear that editors should not act as journalists, but as encyclopedists:
 * "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, et cetera. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion."
 * "Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information."
 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources." Soupforone (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No-one is "pretending" that the CIAF is making a statement that it is not. The statement is a proper and accurate summary of the content of the factbook and is in no way original research. Quoting verbatum huge chunks of policy does not make your argument any clearer or more accurate. The quotation about primary sources is wholly irrelevant. The source is secondary. The quotation about journalism is wholly irrelevant. The source is not journalism. The quotation about reliable sources is also wholly irrelevant. I have already stated that the CIAF has been determined to be an RS on the relevant board. Check for yourself. Your reference to copyright violations is downright bizarre. This has nothing to do with copyright. Veriiability is also irrelevant, since the source is obviously verifiable aand the claim is not in any way extraordinary. As far as I can see this is not a problem. It's a smokescreen. Summarising the content of a reliable secondary sources is what we do. The issue, as I made clear, is that the information is tabulated. So that the word 'Hamitic' appears as what the CIAF calls an "ethnic group". To pretend that this is OR because it is tabulated would be the same as excluding the statements about population percentages. That it also why this is an important issue of policy. Paul B (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy reads, "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it [] to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research..Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided." The Factbook is a RS, but using just (this) much of it, this one word parenthetical, to source a broader claim not explicitly stated in the source, which is evidently contradicted by multiple RS, and has been differently interpreted by the three of us--in this case these policy passages are directly relevant to whether this is OR. It's obvious the CIA may include the word there even while otherwise acknowledging it's fallen out of use. Frankly, unless it can be demonstrated that this claim is noteworthy at all, that this is more than a single idiosyncratic case where the term (lingers) in published form, I think it's undue weight to mention it at all in this article, leaving the OR dispute moot. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is being used to advance the position that that is what the factbook states. It is not "contradicted by multiple RSs" that this is what the factbook states. Why is this difficult to undertand? I have already explained that the term Hamitic is most widely considered to be obsolete. We have multiple RSs that state this - many of them added by me! The point is to state that fact and also that it continues to be used in this instance. To suppress evidence of continued usage would be create a false implication of complete consensus. The same is true of many terms in this racial/ethnic area. In some cultures and contexts some terms ("Caucasian", "Negro" etc) are considered obsolete, or offensive. In others not so. We should accurately document the range of usages. However, with respect, this is not the undue weight board, it is the OR board. What matters most is not whether this actual sentence should or should not be in this article. It is a matter concerning proper interpretation of policy that matters here. It is important to me, and I hope other contributors, that there should be consensus on a matter of principle concerning policy so that OR claims are not made improperly. That's what matters here. Soupforone's argument is exactly the equivalent of saying "The CIA factbook states that the Twa are 1% of the population" is OR because the factbook makes this statement in the form of a table. That's what Soupforone is claiming. IMO, if we allow this to be asserted we make a mockery of OR policy. Paul B (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Quote verbatum [sic] large chunks of policy"? What would you prefer? That I loosely quote small chunks of policy? Look, the edit is original research because all the CIA Factbook shows is the word "Hamitic" in parentheses besides the Tutsi ethnic group on two separate articles on Burundi and Rwanda. Again, nowhere does it state that it "continues to include Hamitic as an ethnic group in Burundi and Rwanda" or that it "continues to [use] the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity, for example in the data sheet of Burundi or Rwanda" as you've continuously and bizarrely defended. This is what the other editor that originally made the edit personally reported. The CIA does not discuss itself in the third person, okay? It made no such assertion. If it did, you would quote right here for us where it states that it "continues to [use] the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity". But you of course can't do that since it never states as much. The other editor has. This is original research on the other editor's part, and pretty shady original research at that since not only did he ascribe to the CIA source an ethno-political position it does not reserve for itself (i.e. that it "continues to [use] the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity"), he literally handpicked which "examples" of the CIA source using the term "Hamitic" he personally wished to include in the article. Had he relied on actual third party sources as Wikipedia's policies instruct instead of interpreting a primary source himself, we wouldn't be having this discussion:


 * "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."


 * Which reminds me: I never once mentioned "copyright", much less "copyright violations". That's a strawman. I mentioned original research. The fact that you insist I did when a simple peek at my previous post proves otherwise is what's really "downright bizarre". Soupforone (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Why don't you read what you actually wrote? Copyright violations are mentioned in the policy passage you quoted. If you didn't think it was relevant you should not have included it. Simple. Now you are resorting to the same tactic of simply quoting bleeding chunks of policy without understanding their context. You don't seem to understand that it is appropriate to summarise and paraphrase what sources say. If every summary of a source were included as an "interpreation" Wikipedia would be a collection of quotations. That is part of encyclopedic writing. Also I repeat, it is not a primary source. Indeed it's tertiary. Look up Tertiary source. You cannot deny that Hamitic is used as an "ethnic group" by the CIAF any more than you can deny that they say that the Twa are 1% of a particular population, since that is how their tabulation system works. You keep evading the fact that your own argument would invalidate any statement made from this source, which would de facto invalidate its very status as a useable tertiary source. That is why this an important issue of policy. And that is why I raised it here. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kindly do not reframe what I've written. I quite clearly quoted for you the relevant Wikipedia policies with regard to their OR statements, not pertaining to any copyright violation references they may or may not contain. If I had been interested in copyright violations, I would have told you as much. However, I of course never once mentioned copyright because that's not the problem with the edit in question. It's quite clearly original research. I'm also not interested in debating your opinions. I've quoted for you right there as clear as day the relevant policies on this issue, yet you oddly continue to passionately defend someone else's OR edit. What's that about? Why are you so emotionally invested in someone else's personal interpretation of a primary source? And how hard is it to find a secondary or third party source which states what the edit claims the CIA source states (but actually does not) like I've already asked and like Wikipedia policy instructs? I'm not going to get into a shouting match with you. This silly little instance of OR is simply not worth it. All you have to do is either a) quote the exact part of the CIA source in question that supports either the statement that it "continues to include Hamitic as an ethnic group in Burundi and Rwanda" or that it "continues to [use] the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity, for example in the data sheet of Burundi or Rwanda", or b) find a secondary or third party source which does. It's as simple as that. Otherwise, the edit still is unfortunately a personal interpretation of a primary source because that is what the CIA source is in this instance: a primary source. It's the CIA Factbook which is the source identifying the Tutsi as "Hamitic"; it's not talking about another source that has labeled the Tutsi as being Hamitic. So again:


 * "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."


 * You know what you have to do. Soupforone (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do know what I have to do. What I do not have to do is repeatedly read the same quotations over and over from you while you evade the points that you can't answer. The CIAF does use the term Hamitic and it does include it as an ethnic group. That is a fact that you cannot evade. There is no synthesis and for the nth time it is not a primary source. The sentence is simply a description of what the source says of the same order as "The CIAF says that the Twa are 1% of the population of Burundi". You see I can repeat myself too when a point is repeatedly evaded. Also I have not "reframed" anything you wrote. Tertiary sources like encyclopedias typically summarise information from a variety of other sources without specifically attributing them. The CIAF is not different from other tertiary sources in this respect. Paul B (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah; I didn't think you'd take me up on my challenge. But perhaps you can answer this for me: since the CIA source is apparently not a primary source, where did it get its information from? Which actual primary source is it interpreting if not its own internal data? I mean, last I checked, the CIA was in the business of gathering first hand information. I could be wrong though! ;-D Soupforone (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And no, the sentence is not on the same order as stating that the Twa are 1% of the population because the latter is what the source says. This is why you are able to quote for me what it says in this regard. However, you are still unable to quote the passage where the Factbook states that it -- the CIA -- as an organization either "continues to include Hamitic as an ethnic group in Burundi and Rwanda" or that it "continues to [use] the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity, for example in the data sheet of Burundi or Rwanda" as you've persistently championed because it doesn't state so anywhere. If it does, kindly quote it like I've repeatedly asked you to. Soupforone (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What "challenge" is that? The challenge depends on your own interpretation of OR which is exactly what I am disputing. It's not much of a challenge if it's predetermined to support a foregone conclusion. The challenge is meaningless. I dispute its premise for reasons I gave in my very first post here and I quoted the relevant passage in the very first post too. The CIA factbook is a digest. See the reliable sources board. The claim that it represented the CIA's own "on the ground" investigations or was somehow US propaganda was rejected by the board. "Tertiary sources like encyclopedias typically summarise information from a variety of other sources without specifically attributing them." Did you actually read that? What matters is the "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" according to policy. And no, the source does not "say" that the Twa are 1%. It tabulates it, in just the same way that it tabulats Hamitic as an ethnic group. Hence the statement that the CIAF uses Hamitic as an ethnic group is an accurate summary of the source. The fact that you don't like that is irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The CIA Factbook explicitly states " Ethnic groups: Hutu (Bantu) 85%, Tutsi (Hamitic) 14%, Twa (Pygmy) 1%, Europeans 3,000, South Asians 2,000 ". Ergo, it is not OR to state that the CIA Factbook says Hamitic is an ethnic group. That source does not indicate that the parenthesized terms are archaic or obsolete, so another source would be necessary to backup such a claim. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I told you that I'm not interested in your opinions. If you claim that the CIA's validity as a primary source was "rejected by the board", then provide a link proving that (not that it even matters since Wikipedia is not a democracy). Your word isn't good enough. Again I ask you, if the CIA got its Tutsi-as-Hamitic info from elsewhere in the here and now of 2008-2009, where pray tell is that other nebuluous primary source? And even if, for the sake of argument, the CIA were a tertiary source as you claim, how does that render the statement to the effect that it "continues to include Hamitic as an ethnic group in Burundi and Rwanda" or that it "continues to [use] the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity, for example in the data sheet of Burundi or Rwanda" valid vis-a-vis the source provided? Where does it state all that? This is like the fourth or fifth time I'm inviting you to quote the passage where the CIA declares that it "continues to include Hamitic as an ethnic group", especially with regard to Burundi and Rwanda. I know it'll never come because that's just one chap's OR. You haven't convinced Professor marginalia and you certainly haven't convinced me. Time to start a-quotin' or at the very least find a secondary or third party source that does actually support what you write. Soupforone (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether you are "interested" in my opinions or not. Your interest is of no interest. This board, however, is for expressing opinions, so it's rather daft to express a lack of interest in them. And the Wikipedia is not a democracy link has no relevance either. We are discussing community consensus. You can find the board's discussions for yourself. Paul B (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the Twa bit, it clearly states 1%. That is a statistical figure, and it's not OR to report it. Your analogy also bears no resemblance to our current situation since the current situation involves the synthesis of information from two separate CIA Factbook articles, not one. It also involves claiming that the CIA itself insists that it "continues to" support some defunct ethno-political designation, an attribution which it has never once asserted itself. In short, a completely irrelevant and seriously skewed analogy. Soupforone (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea if your rant is a response to what I said above, but its all off-topic.
 * For one, this is not the noticeboard to question the reliability of the CIA Factbook. That's the domain of the WP:RS/Noticeboard, and has nothing to do with what Paul B came here for.
 * For another, the invitation to to quote the passage where the CIA declares that it "continues to include Hamitic as an ethnic group", especially with regard to Burundi and Rwanda is fairly WP:POINTy since the mere fact that the source uses the term is itself evidence that the term is in use. Its not as if the source said the term was obsolete. It should not be necessary to say so, but the notion that the term is not in use has not been substantiated by a source either. But this is an encyclopedia, so even if you did "start a-quotin'" yourself, those sources would not indicate that the term could not be discussed.
 * But, like I said, these are not issues for this noticeboard. Paul B came here to find out if a particular statement is OR. Its not. Move on. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Move on"? If only it were that simple...
 * My post above was not a response to you, whoever you are. This is evidenced by, among other things, the obvious fact that I'm addressing Barlow's statements in said post, not yours. I would first had to have been aware of your existence to respond to anything you'd written.
 * Your second point is what, if anything, is off-topic since I never disputed that the CIA source mentions the term Hamitic. Indeed, I even acknowledged as much in my very first post. What I did say is that it's OR to state that the CIA "continues to use" the term Hamitic and especially with regard to Rwanda and Burundi because the CIA source that supposedly supports this says nothing about any "continued use" of the term Hamitic. That is pure, classic original research. The most Barlow can perhaps do in a situation such as this is to simply state that "in the 2008 edition of the CIA World Factbook, the term Hamitic is employed with regard to the Tutsi ethnic group in the Rwanda and Burundi articles". That's it, if at all, though even that's still pretty darn close to WP:NOT:
 * "Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information."
 * He can't, for instance, assert that the CIA "continues to include Hamitic as an ethnic group in Burundi and Rwanda" or that it "continues to [use] the term Hamitic as a specific ethnic identity, for example in the data sheet of Burundi or Rwanda" since 1) we don't know if the CIA used to employ the term in the past (to "continue" something, a prior history must already be in place) or even for how long since the source never states as much. 2) The CIA source dubs specifically and only Tutsis in Burundi and Rwanda as "Hamite", not their fellow Rwandan and Burundian ethnic groups nor the nebulous "an ethnic group" or "a specific ethnicity" which both leave it up to readers' imagination which exact ethnic group we're talking about. Hutus? Twa? Who exactly? 3) the CIA source quite simply never talks about any "continued use" of any sort. That's like saying Columbia Encyclopedia "continues to use" the term Hamite as an ethnic designation simply because of this article in its 2007 edition written in the present tense, and all this despite the fact that it too never once talks about any "continued use". The best one can perhaps say (again WP:NOT notwithstanding) here again is simply that "the Columbia Encyclopedia's 2007 edition defines Hamites as African people of Caucasoid descent that chiefly inhabit North Africa and the Horn Africa, including Berbers, Egyptians, etc." or something like that. But that's just a regurgitation of the standard definition of a Hamite which is already cited in the article, so what's the point? Hardly proof of any "continued use". And if we're debating that the term "Hamite" is not obsolete, why does the article state that it is? Perhaps, then, the entire article should be rewritten in the present tense; I'm not sure. Soupforone (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My thoughts:
 * a) The Factbook isn't a primary source for ethnic population information, but it is a primary source if used to illustrate the statement that "CIA factbook continues to include them as an ethnic group". If subject of the statement is the Factbook, the Factbook itself is being used as a primary source. If the sentence read, "Hamitics make up 15% of the population in Rwanda" the Factbook is being used as a secondary source.
 * b) If the question is whether or not the term "Hamitic" is found in this issue of Factbook, clearly it is. If this is a question about the ambiguity or potentially misleading implications in "continues to include it as an ethnic group", then reword the sentence. Any unsourced interpretation made from an ambiguous source which is open to multiple interpretations is OR.
 * c) The Factbook also listed "colored" in the ethnic group category-and it's easy for me to project with that example--how context dependent ethnic terms (like "colored") can be, and potentially very misleading they can be removed its context. It's potentially very misleading to generalize too far, as in "The CIA Factbook continues to use colored as an ethnic category" when it's merely repeating the term as it's actually used and with it's own peculiar meaning in a particular country. Point being, it isn't explicit in this source itself, from this tiny bit alone "- (colored)", what its usage there implies.
 * d) Please turn the heat down, everyone. If we're confused, many readers will be too. Key questions are, What is it we're trying to say? Is it important enough to say it? Can we clearly verify it? And are we confident we communicated exactly what it is we tried to say?
 * It seems to me this can be sorted out peacefully. Good luck. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Colored (in South Africa) is specifically defined as derived from the 2001 census, which presumably uses Apartheid-era categories, which may still be useful for statistical purposes to the ANC government. However this very example weakens your argument that the factbook is in this instance being used as a primary source. It may well be that the government of Burundi continues to use categories that are inherited from Imperial governmentality, but the factbook does not specify the source. I fail to see the relevance of Soupforone's reference to Journalism policy and quotations about "Breaking news". How can this be breaking news? Also the fact that the CIAF uses the tern in two places does not make a reference to the fact "synthesis", which is a concept that describes the combining of seperate assertions to create a new argument. Stating that the factbook uses the term is not a new argument. It's this kind of outright misrepresentation of policy that does not make a good editing environment. As far as I am concerned an editor added this information in good faith and it was removed by making inappropriate claims. It is legitimate to include. It would be even better if we knew the sources that CIAF are using. What we need in articles is more infomation, not less. Paul B (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what isn't clear here is that "continues to use" is interpreted as making a statement about a decision or action taken by the CIA to use that term Hamitic. And in that interpretation, Factbook is a primary source. That's what the your dispute sounds like it's about.  That's like saying, "AT&T telephone company continues to use the name 'Jones' in the phonebook."  The phonebook itself is a primary source in this case. Using Factbook as a cite in a corresponding manner is using it as a primary source. With the phonebook listing as an example, does this illustrate how the ambiguity of the primary source text opens a door to a somewhat odd conclusive statement?  Playing devil's advocate one step further, the Hamitic issue has been very controversial and divisive. Imagine a modern day German phonebook with a phone listing, "Aryan". Now imagine it used to cite the sentence, "German phonebooks continue to use the name, 'Aryan'", and how that might imply something very differently to some people than "Albert Aryan has a telephone listing in Germany."  I'm just saying, a miscommunication something like this may illustrate the reason you're both talking past each other. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is odd. If someone were claiming that the name Jones no longer existed then surely the fact that it continued to be used in the phone book would be both notable and properly sourced. It proves it continues to exist as a name. To use your Aryan analogy, if someone claimed that the Joneses are a superior race, then quoting the mere existence of the name in the phonebook would be wild extrapolation. In this case continued use is all that is being claimed. The word Aryan also continues to be used in various contexts, including as a name - though usually a forename (as user:Fullstop will affirm!). Paul B (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent analogy, Professor marginalia. That's precisely what I've been saying all along. The CIA Factbook is obviously being used as a primary source here to support a statement it never makes itself. The source never states anywhere that it "continues to use" the term Hamitic. That was literally the fabrication of the editor that first made the edit, an OR edit by another editor which Barlow has since passionately championed for some odd reason. It's also a slippery slope in that it opens up an entire new world of problems. For example, if an editor should come across any 'ol article or text that happens to have been written recently and that also happens to use the term "Hamitic" in reference to some ethnic group or groups (like, say, this recent book with regard to the Beja), what's to stop said editor from adding a reference to the fact that the Hamitic concept isn't defunct because so and so used it in such and such although so and so never states that the Hamitic concept is still "continued to be used" by them just because they've invoked its name this one time. What will this do in terms of undermining the article's lede which asserts that the Hamitic concept is supposedly obsolete? Perhaps this calls for an article rewrite, and in the present tense this time since the Hamitic concept apparently isn't defunct according to the CIA Factbook's "continued use" of it and many other similar isolated "continued uses" no doubt. Soupforone (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "now imagine" scenarios are unnecessary when the top post is a simple question of "is it there?" Those three words are amply covered by WP:V. No fertile imagination necessary.
 * For the same ontological reasons, it also should not be necessary to have to say that the source is using the term. An article on noodles does not have to explicitly say cookbooks have the word "noodle" in them. They just do.
 * But slapping an OR tag on a statement that does say "it is there" is plain silly. Ditto the demand for excessive precision, which reflects an assumption that the authors were being devious.
 * Summa summarum: Soupforone needs to quit tilting at windmills, and Paul B needs to quit waving his arms around so much. ;) Get rid of the offending statement; its not OR, but its superfluous. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I of course do not agree that the statement is not OR and could easily debate otherwise, I concur with your final suggestion that the offending statement is superfluous and that it therefore must go. Soupforone (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You overrate your qualities. And your ego heard wrong too. I did not say it must go. I said it might as well go. It was not a concession. It was an attempt to pour oil on the waters. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it continues to be used it continues in the meaning relevant to the article then it continues to be used. It does not stop it being archaic, or even erroneous. It does mean that it continues to be used in some contexts and that's all. This is exactly why it is Suopfoone who is trying to "advance a position" here. I've already explined why the analogy is false. No-one is saying, for example, that there are still a lots of candle makers about because the name Chandler appears in the phonebook. That would be the exact equvalent to this analogy. The term is being used as an ethnic group, not as a personal name or as anything else that would obviously be irrelvant. It is Soupforone whose editing is tendentious because he is trying to suppress information that adds a little bit of complexity to the issue of current usage rather that creating a rigid party line for the aricles. Paul B (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on a graph
Would I be correct that it would be considered original research to in this article say that shows that the number of new cases per week/month has remained similar since mid-November 2008? Babakathy (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume you mean that the rate of increase in new cases per week has been about the same since mid-November. In other words, the number of new cases per week in November is about the same as the number of new cases per week in December, ...etc. That may not even be correct since the number of new cases seems to be accelerating, as indicated by the graph arching up, rather than a straight line going up. So the statement may not be true and it isn't easily seen by the reader, whether or not the rate of new cases per week is increasing each month. Graphical analysis that is beyond what the typical reader could do, might come to some conclusion about whether or not it is true but that would be a violation of WP:NOR in my opinion. But more fundamentally, I don't think one would want to put that statement in the article because it may not be true. In any case, the answer to your question is yes. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You confirm my suspicions in both aspects of your answer, aprreciated. Babakathy (talk)

Anti-Christian sentiment
I have major OR concerns about this article. For starts, the lead, which I moved to talk That here, I would appreciate people commenting on this talk specifically, and the article as a whole more generally. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on article's talk page. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Boy's Town, Nuevo Laredo
A rather interesting set of original research that basically amounts to a prostitution travel guide. I don't even know where to begin in cleaning up this article. A bold hand and drastic chopping down is needed here. Vassyana (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

National Service in Singapore
I've reverted what I see as synth here. It's a recurring problem, would appreciate a few extra pairs of eyes to look through before and after? Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant insight needed
I may be missing something here or perhaps my interpretation of WP:Synth should be more literal so I need to know if the following is indeed considered synthesis or if it is indeed allowed within the spirit of the policy.


 * BART offered extended service for the New Year's Eve holiday.

was expanded thusly:


 * BART offered extended service and special discounted passes for the New Year's Eve holiday.

This is true and verifiable, but another editor is citing synthesis because the flash passes haven't been specifically cited about this incident. The same editor resisted allowing New Year's Eve to be mentioned in the lede until it was pointed out that nearly all reports stated the national holiday as a part of the reporting. These trains don't normally run after midnight or so - the shooting occurred at 2:15am - and certainly aren't packed and overflowing after the evening work rush has ended. These "flash passes", issued and sold specifically for New Year's Eve allow users to pass through swing gates used to accommodate large crowds but I'm not stating any of this. Simply that in addition to extended hours these passes existed. Any insight appreciated. -- Banj e b oi   14:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can conclude that the NYE flash pass was discounted from the source. If the hours of service were "extended" for this one night, what is the normal price the "discount" applies to? It can sound like cavilling, but it is technically OR/synth, the claim isn't obviously verified even with the synth source, and if the fact hasn't been relevant enough to mention in news stories, then it's hard to argue that it's important to the article here. Saying it happened on New Years Eve is fine, in my book. That much is significant, it's self-evident even to school aged children once they can read a calendar. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Banj e b oi , I think in your above message you forgot to put in the additional citation as it appeared in the  wiki, so I copied it here,
 * "BART offered extended service and special discounted tickets for the New Year's Eve holiday.[1 ] [2 ]"


 * In my opinion it doesn't violate WP:SYN, which states, "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." There is no conclusion here of any kind that I can see. There are just two facts from two reliable sources that are put in the same sentence. One could have just as easily written, "BART offered extended service for the New Year's Eve holiday.[1 ] BART offered special discounted passes for the New Year's Eve holiday.[2 ]" Either way it's not a violation of WP:SYN. Putting them in the same sentence is simply better writing.


 * You might consider placing the citations thusly, "BART offered extended service[1 ] and special discounted tickets[2 ] for the New Year's Eve holiday." but it's not necessary. What you originally had in the article was fine and didn't violate WP:SYN. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * After I posted the above message, it looks like the webpage of the second link changed and now contains all the info so you can write, "BART offered extended service and special discounted tickets for the New Year's Eve holiday.[2 ]" --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's an archived version of the webpage in case it changes again. http://www.webcitation.org/5eJlPOKKW --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed another thing. Perhaps "discount" is not a sufficiently precise interpretation since the ordinary fare may be less than the $6 price for unlimited usage, so you might want to reword that to be in accordance with the source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The normal fares would generally be much higher as riders pay for each trip they take. The "Flash Pass" offered unlimited travel but the usage was not tracked as normal tickets were. If possible I'd also like other editor's input to see if there is consensus on this. I didn't feel my content was making any novel conclusions etc. and certainly didn't violate the spirit of the policy although it may be technically poor. -- Banj e  b oi   02:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. When it comes to a minor basic fact like this which is verifiable, one that doesn't interfere with or contradict, miscast, etc., the analysis or conclusions of the event given in the sources you do have, and there's nothing contentious about except in terms of policy wonkish exactitude, this is what IAR is meant is to address. So although it technically violates NOR, whether or not this is a big enough deal to wage revert/talk page battle over is a question I will leave to the editors involved. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I re-read this a few times and it seems clearer to me. Any other imput is welcome. -- Banj e  b oi   04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Here's a definition of discount and a table of BART fares. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Whoops, I may have spoke too soon. After looking all this over again it seems like "discounted" is the point of synthesis? My impression is that the editor who had the original concern, did so because the Flash passes weren't mentioned formally in news articles about the shooting that we're aware. No telling if it was brought up in television news coverage. They did mention it was very crowded, etc. My effort was to simply document that it was not a regular night on the trains. I also found another article BART sets record, to stay open late on New Year's. Given this, would this be policy compliant?


 * BART offered extended service and a special "Flash Pass" for the New Year's Eve holiday.


 * Again, thank you for walking me through this. -- Banj e  b oi   05:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "BART offered extended service and a special "Flash Pass" for the New Year's Eve holiday." - Looks fine to me and it's supported by the source [2 ].


 * Note that the type of synthesis that is prohibited by Wikipedia guidelines is only if something is taken from one source, combined with something from another source, and coming up with a novel conclusion that is in neither source. Your current proposed edit is taking info from only one source so it's not a matter of this type of synthesis. Check out WP:SYN for this guidelines's use in general. Also note that other types of synthesis of two or more sources isn't a violation of WP:NOR. For example, almost every article in the Wikipedia is a synthesis of sources since that is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. The problem is when one makes a novel conclusion that is not in any source. On the other hand, note that in the last paragraph of WP:SYN, a conclusion involving a simple calculation is OK.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the guidance! -- Banj e  b oi   04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oath of office of the President of the United States
Myself and User:Arodb have been batting back and forth over some reference to the Obama inauguration and CJ Roberts use of "so help me god" for nearly 2 weeks now I think, where he wishes (or has wished) to include various statements to the effect that Roberts use of 'so help me god' was specifically phrased as a question, that this is different from every previous occasion, and that this might have been due to the Michael Newdow lawsuit. The specific problem comes down particularly to referencing a youtube video that contains audio of all the inaugurations since 1933, and whether this alone constitutes sufficient sourcing for the various statements and inferences that have been added and reverted or edited several times. The discussion between us (and an intervention by User:Dayewalker is here. I'm basically wondering, am I being overly restrictive with regards to sourcing? I stand by the beleif that the inferences that previously been included were OR, but is what he's claiming self evident from the video and does that constitute enough of a basis to allow some of the statements to stand supported? - Chrism would like to hear from you 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Perpetual motion device"
I'm wondering if this statement is acceptable in an article on a very fringe area:


 * Greer has also started free energy projects, including the Orion Project and the Advanced Energy Research Organization. The Orion Project takes donations in order to fund various free energy and perpetual motion devices. reference

The last three words are being challenged. The problem is that the source doesn't directly state "perpetual motion device". However, the article is a straightforward claim of research toward perpetual motion. Example from the link:the system would run utilizing only the heat from the environment, which is a claimed violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, equivalent to saying "will run perpetually" or "overcoming the second law". Per WP:NOR, I would consider this reference directly supporting the text "perpetual motion device". You may need a science background to appreciate the obviousness. The trouble is that there are no other sources which discuss the activity of this organization (they fail notability), so does WP:PARITY give a bit of leeway to state the obvious? The alternative seems to be not mentioning the organization since no RS exist (which some SPAs are fighting) or using the organization's own (biased, unclear) text, since that's the only source. Phil153 (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Irish War of Independence


Amateur "historian" Pat Muldowney, who has previously caused major problems attempting to rewrite Killings at Coolacrease using all sorts of primary sources and his own opinions, is now trying to do the same to this article, ably assisted by Nomath, who for the past nine months has only tended to edit in support of Pat Muldowney. Pat Muldowney's version of the section under dispute is here.

To the average reader, it would suggest that people had voted for the "use of any and every means available" (ie - including war) to secure an Irish Republic. It then mentions the shooting of RIC members at Soloheadbeg, and that this is seen as the start of the war. So people voted for war, two RIC members were shot, and war began. However this omits key points about the incidents, and the selective quoting of the manifesto ignores what sources have actually said about the elections. Pat Muldowney's version implies that Sinn Féin had a mandate for an intended war, when this was not the case.
 * "Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA" by Richard English (ISBN 0-330-49388-4) says "It did not matter to the IRA that in the 1918 general election Sinn Féin had not campaigned for a mandate to use force in driving the British out of Ireland" (page 23)
 * "Irish Freedom" by Richard English (ISBN 978-0-330-42759-3) says "What had people actually voted for? Not necessarily the republic sought by separatists (Sinn Féin had actually been rather ambiguous rather than doctrinally committed, on that point)" (page 283) and "It was not the case that IRA violence was legitimated through popular mandate (it simply was not)" (page 291)*
 * "The Irish War" by Tony Geraghty (ISBN 978-0-00-638674-2) says "In a rhetorical flourish which some people took all too seriously, the assembly that day reaffirmed an 'existing state of war between England and Ireland'. This surprised most voters who had supported Sinn Féin a month before, when party spokesmen specifically promised that no more offensive action was required to win Irish freedom" (page 330)
 * "Michael Collins' Intelligence War" by Michael T. Foy (ISBN 0-7509-4267-3) says "However, in early 1919 this belief was confined to a small minority, because most republicans, let alone the population as a whole, neither desired nor expected a conflict. But manipulating a reluctant nation into war without a democratic mandate hardly troubled Collins" (page 18)

The incident at Soloheadbeg also omits key facts, one of which being that the two RIC men were shot and killed. It also omits that it was an action not sanctioned by Sinn Féin, the Dáil, the IRA/Irish Volunteers or anyone else except the participants acting on their own initiative.
 * "Michael Collins: A Life" by James Mackay (ISBN 1-85158-857-4) says "On that very day [21 January 1919], a party of Tipperary Volunteers led by Dan Breen and Seán Treacy decided, on their own initiative, to raid the quarry at Soloheadbeg and seize a consignment of gelignite which was to be stored there. They ambushed the explosives wagon and its escort of RIC constables, two of whom were shot dead at point-blank range in the ensuing scuffle. These shots triggered off the Anglo-Irish War." (page 106)
 * "The IRA" by Tim Pat Coogan (ISBN 0-00-653155-5) says "The Volunteers however had their own executive and constitution, and though there was some overlapping of membership between individual volunteers and other national organizations they had a largely autonomous existence from Sinn Féin and the Dáil. The first shooting of policemen, for instance, was not sanctioned by the Dáil. It took place at Soloheadbeg, Co. Tipperary, on the day the first Dáil met. A number of volunteers, led by Seán Treacy and Dan Breen, decided to strike a blow for Ireland and shot two policemen dead in a hold-up for gelignite" (page 24)
 * "Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA" by Richard English (ISBN 0-330-49388-4) says "On the same day [as the Dáil met], by chance, a Volunteer ambush in County Tipperary saw two Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) men fatally shot. The coincidence of timing might give an impression that parliamentary and military republican forces were seamlessly one at this point; in fact, the Soloheadbeg ambush in Tipperary was the product of local initiative rather than political or central command" (page 16)
 * "Michael Collins' Intelligence War" by Michael T. Foy (ISBN 0-7509-4267-3) says "But, although historians almost universally regard Soloheadbeg as the start of an Anglo-Irish War, the ambush contravened Volunteer GHQ's official policy, and Mulcahy privately denounced it as an irresponsible attempt by extremists to bounce the army leadership into open warfare" (page 17)

The version implies that Sinn Féin, the Dáil, and the IRA/Irish Volunteers were all acting in unison, when this was not the case, even by their own admission;
 * "The IRA" by Tim Pat Coogan (ISBN 0-00-653155-5) says "Throughout the course of the Anglo-Irish War the Volunters and the Sinn Féin party pursued separate though complementary courses of action" (page 24), "During all of this period the question of the Dáil's control of the Volunteers remained one of some doubt and even controversy...Collins rejected the idea of trying to run an army under a civilian council. (Michael Collins was president of the IRB, the Dáil's minister for finance, the Volunteers' director of intelligence and adjutant-general) The clearest statement of the positio, which de Valera felt free to make a few months after the setting up of the Dáil, was a statement to the Dáil on 10 April that the 'Minister for Defence is of course in close assocation with the Voluntary military forces which are the foundation of the National Army' - 'in close association with' only, not 'in control of'." (pages 24-25), "Brugha, who disliked and mistrusted Collins, tried again on 20 August when he proposed to the Dáil that the Volunteers and Dáil deputies alike should take an oath 'to support and defend the Irish Republic and the Government of the Irish Republic, which is Dáil Éireann against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same'...However under pressure of the military situation the Volunteers never made a similar formal acceptance of the oath" (page 25), and "It was not until March 1921, only a few months before thetruce which ended the Anglo-Irish hostilities, that the Dáil agreed with de Valera that the Dáil should take public responsibility for the Volunteers' military actions, and formally accept the fact that a state of war existed" (page 25)
 * "Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA" by Richard English (ISBN 0-330-49388-4) says "The IRA long retained an ambivalent attitude towards the Dáil, and not until August 1919 was a serious effort made to bring the Volunteers under its control. The Volunteer Executive then agreed that their soldiers had to take an oath of allegiance to the Dublin Dáil, but the military and political wings of the movement continued substantially separate lives. It was not until the spring of 1921 - by which time the War of Independence was almost over - that the Dáil agreed that it should publicly accept responsibility for the IRA's actions" (page 24)
 * "The Irish War" by Tony Geraghty (ISBN 978-0-00-638674-2) says "Only the IRA could make good the threat of renewed violence. But which faction of the Republican army? The hard fact was that two 'armies' as well as two governments claimed the right to rule Ireland. One was the inner circle of the Fenian Irish Republican Brotherhood, headed by Michael Collins who manipulated the Irish Volunteers (soon renamed the IRA) from within. The other was the general body of the IRA - loyal to Sinn Féin, Arthur Griffith, the idea of moral force and the Dáil - when it was not supportin the Fenians" (page 330)

Any request for sources to support their version is just met with their own opinions (at length), repeatedly claiming the manifesto itself is the only source needed, dismissal of any source provided that does not support their unique view of history. More eyes welcome. O Fenian (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

YouTube video views
Part of an artist's notoriety is the amount of YouTube views he's received, this fact has been mentioned by many a reliable source. However, all of those sources are (at best) a year old, and we'd like to update the statistic. Can we go to the user's YouTube home page, compile the individual video hits listed, and cite that in the article with the updated number? Part of me worries that that's original research or synthesis, but it seems reliable, and it would be cited to the original source of information. Hence, I'm here. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is OR, but acceptable OR... since there are already sources that discuss the number of Youtube hits this artist has, all you are doing is updating the number. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "Can we go to the user's YouTube home page, compile the individual video hits listed, and cite that in the article with the updated number? Part of me worries that that's original research or synthesis, but it seems reliable, and it would be cited to the original source of information."


 * Please note that WP:NOR applies to Wikipedia editors, not to sources. And you should cite the source where you got the info. However, I'm not sure if the user's Youtube home page is a reliable source. Perhaps another editor can help clarify. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I may be able to offer some insight. Article seems to be Bo Burnham; here is his YouTube video summary page.


 * The statement is Burnham's videos have received over 32.6 million hits.


 * I think you should qualify this a bit better. As of January 2009, Burnham's videos on YouTube have been viewed over 32.6 million times. MySpace, where he also posts videos keeps a running total for you but I would keep these separate, As of January 2009, Burnham's videos on YouTube have been viewed over 32.6 million times while similar videos on MySpace have been viewed over 1.5 million times. See Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) for how we sussed it all out.  -- Banj e  b oi   11:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Leeds, UK
The page Leeds doesnt discuss what 99% of sources suggest is the interpretation of the word "Leeds" (a city in the UK - Leeds means the City of Leeds, pop 761,000), instead it says "Leeds is the administrative core of the the City Of Leeds, with a population of 423,000" The probem with this is that no sources are given to prove that "Leeds" means the core of "city of Leeds", because all other sources suggest Leeds infact means the City of Leeds. No sources have been have been forthcoming for several years now. Yet, 99% of other sources, from government, media, internet, and other encylopedias state Leeds in its common, popular, and official interpretation means the whole city (city of leeds). Therefore the article in its current state is representing a minority view point that has no reliable sources, and constitutes original research and has resultantly caused much confusion for readers of the page. Surely minority point of view can not take precedence over the core polices WP:NOR WP:V WP:RS, or can it?. Some feedback would be appreciated (i am learning here)? --Razorlax (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am another involved editor who is more or less on Razorlax' side, but I will try to give a neutral explanation. Compared to the kind of conflicts that this board is made for this is probably a rather trivial matter. Basically it is a content dispute caused by conflicting interpretations of an ordinary English word. (We earlier had a similar dispute at the same article, about whether the word "city" can be applied to a huge English settlement that does not have formal city status and is in fact not even a legal entity.) It is complicated by the fact that once we have decided what "Leeds" means, it's still not clear how to structure the articles on the formal entity City of Leeds, its administration and its urban core. (I.e. which of these should have an article, and how to name the articles.)
 * It seems clear to me (and a few others) that in ordinary language the word "Leeds" is a bit fuzzy. In one newspaper article a unit within the City of Leeds may be treated as part of Leeds in one sentence, and as "near Leeds" in another. The Collins dictionary entry for Leeds reflects this, giving population numbers first for the ONS urban core of Leeds, then for the City of Leeds.
 * It has emerged that in practical terms the Leeds article should be about the City of Leeds, while of course focusing on its urban core. A small number of editors is categorically against that, does not engage in meaningful discussion, and reverts any compromise versions back to the longstanding version that our readers don't understand. (Some statements make it appear that these editors' position is due in part to suspicions that people from Leeds want to inflate the population numbers.) The "original research" argument is an attempt to resolve this without a huge RFC or something.
 * While this may look like mostly a content dispute, it is a fact that we currently have a huge article Leeds about a statistical construct of questionable significance, and a very small one about the City of Leeds, whose mayor the citizens of the statistical construct elect. We currently claim (albeit implicitly) that "Leeds" "really" means a subdivision of the City of Leeds, when we have only one source saying it can mean both (Collins), plenty that are ambiguous, and a lot of sources that say "Leeds" means the "City of Leeds". --Hans Adler (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

article on Benjamin Warner family
I have cited an article on the web that has not involved a peer-reviewed organization, and because of that, its validity is being challenged. While it appears to fall into the "original research" catagory, I wonder if the nature of the information there would nevertheless make it acceptable in certain contexts. The information is based on research into primary records, with conclusions based on that research. Although a bit complex in its reasoning (necessarily so), the core of the article is a pretty simple statement about immigration dates, family structure and associated geography. All sources are cited. I'd appreciate some comments about it. Apparently it's the only source of its type available for this family (the Warner Brothers of film fame, although the dispute is specifically at the Jack Warner bio page), and if it is deemed inadmissible, it leaves a part of the Jack Warner page with questionable credibility - in my opinion. I have raised the question of reliability of the other sources used at the "reliable sources" discussion page. The Benjamin Warner family article is at http://dougsinclairsarchives.com/benjaminwarnerfamily.htm. Ultimately this may be an issue of whether or not this part of the article is even needed, but that would be someone else's editing situation to deal with. I'd still like some input. Thank you! Declair (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple Mathematics
If I have a source that gives data like,


 * 56 pigeons
 * 21 sparrows
 * 13 eagles
 * 12 cows
 * 14 dogs

Is it original research, or otherwise forbidden, to merely add them, like,


 * 90 birds
 * 26 mammals

or


 * 89 primary predators
 * 27 secondary predators? Ninguém (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The first sums are ok. The second aren't. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't they?

And about this:


 * blue 17%
 * yellow 11%
 * red 22%
 * brown 8%
 * gray 7%
 * other colours 35%


 * blue, red, and yellow (or primary colours) 50%
 * all other colours 50%

Is it OK? Ninguém (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * These are interesting questions that look into the boundary between acceptable interpretation of sources and unacceptable OR and unverified conclusions. Regarding the calculation aspect, there isn't a problem according to the last paragraph of WP:SYN. But there are other aspects that may be a problem. In my opinion, one way to set the boundary is by considering what is clear to the typical reader. I think your first example of birds and mammals is clear to the typical reader. The second example of primary predators and secondary predators isn't clear since, at least, those terms need to be defined according to a reliable source. (Just an aside, but from your math, it looks like you're calling eagles and dogs secondary predators, whereas you're calling pidgeons, sparrows and cows primary predators.) The third example of blue, red and yellow is fine.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. The problem would be with the definition of "primary predators" and "secondary predators". I suppose a source would be needed to make the point that eagles and dogs are "secondary predators" - eaters of other animals - while the others are "primary predators" - eaters of plants. Is this how it works?

Anyway, I'm going to step from theory to practice. I have edited article White Brazilians to insert the following table:

Another user removed the "Portuguese+Brazilian" and "All Others" lines, arguing that they were not part of the table in the source (which is true). Was I wrong to insert the lines, which are merely an addition ("Portuguese+Brazilian" is the sum of the "Brazilian" and the "Portuguese" lines) and a subtraction ("All Others" is the difference betwee "Total" and "Portuguese+Brazilian")? Or is the other user wrong in suppressing them (and writing "Removing "Portuguese + Brazilian" category, because it's not even listed in the original resource (stop manipulating numbers" in the summary)? Ninguém (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First, the fact that the Total is 137% strikes me as something that should call into question the reliability of the source. Second, what is the purpose of compiling the OR (acceptable or not)... why does the article need sub-totals for "Portuguese+Brazilian" and "All Others"? Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the question about the total being more than 100% is answered in the article:

"Notice that the total is higher than 100% because of multiple answers."

About why does the article need the subtotal, it brings to the main discussion between me and the other user. I have been maintaining that most White Brazilians are of Portuguese ancestry, while the other user thinks this is no longer the case. In general, "Brazilian" ancestry can be taken to mean, "of ancient, pre-independence Portuguese ancestry". If it is the case that there are more White Brazilians who report either "Brazilian" or "Portuguese" ancestry than the double of "All Other" ancestries, this would be strong evidence that most White Brazilians are indeed of Portuguese ancestry. Ninguém (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For background to this dispute, see RS/N. Jayen 466 21:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't there also a maths error in the above table? In the middle column, there are more Italians than Portuguese. In the right-hand column, it's the other way round. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Having separate rows for "Brazilians and Portuguese" and "All others" is OR if that is an editor's decision and such rows are not present in the source. Otherwise, why not have rows for "Brazilians and Italians" and "All others", "Brazilians and Germans" and "All others", etc. These are the types of decisions that sources should make, and not the editors presenting them. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably there are more non-White people of Portuguese descent than non-White people of Italian descent. This would explain more Italians in the first column and more Portuguese in the second.

Why Brazilian+Portuguese, and not Brazilians+Italians? Because people of "Brazilian" descent are of Portuguese ancestry, not of Italian ancestry. Ninguém (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninguém, I looked at the table in the article and I wasn't even able to get to the math aspects of the issue because there are problems with the sources. Source 19 is in portuguese so it's not understandable to the typical reader of this english Wikipedia. I'm not sure how foreign language articles are handled. It seems like translating them by an editor violates WP:NOR, but I'm not sure. Maybe some other editor can clarify. Source 20 is only a wikipedia stub that says that IBGE takes a census every 10 years. It doesn't give any specifics about the table. So I think you need better references than these for any of the info in the table.


 * Re "I see. The problem would be with the definition of "primary predators" and "secondary predators". I suppose a source would be needed to make the point that eagles and dogs are "secondary predators" - eaters of other animals - while the others are "primary predators" - eaters of plants. Is this how it works?"


 * Yes, "primary predator" and "secondary predator" need to be defined by a reliable source. Without the definitions, it's not clear  that a "secondary predator" is  an eater of other animals, while a "primary predator" is an eater of plants, and it might not even be correct. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That there are multiple answers given by respondents makes any summing of the results meaningless. OR or not, it's just misleading presentation to include those sums. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The table you propose involves more than "simple math". As others have said, it involves grouping in categories that are specially defined, the same as "secondary predator" (says who that a cow is a primary predator? says who that Brazilians in this count will all have Portuguese ancestry and weren't one of those to check both? Says who that no Brazilians in this count will have Italian, indigenous, African or Spanish ancestry unless they checked multiples?) Additionally, it probably won't pass the "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source" test. If you're already getting challenges about demographic classifications or sources cited, this can't be a backdoor work-around. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I will try to fix the sources. But, then, most sources in that article are in Portuguese. If the sources I gave aren't valid because they are in Portuguese, then I suppose all sources in Portuguese are invalid? Should the information then be removed? Taged for "citation needed"? Or? Ninguém (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources in Portuguese are perfectly fine if no English-language sources of equivalent quality are available. See WP:NONENG. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK.

About the math again. Only 39.97% of Brazilian Whites have reported ancestries different from both "Brazilian" and "Portuguese". This necessarily means that at least 100-39.97=60.03% have responded either "Brazilian", "Portuguese", or "Brazilian and Portuguese". Evidently, if there were double answers of the kind "Italian and Japanese", or "German and African", this would mean even more than 60.03% of Brazilian/Portuguese/Portuguese-Brazilian ancestries. If I'm wrong, please show me where, because I certainly am not seeing it. Ninguém (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's look at it. Imagine I were to include two rows as follows at the bottom of your table:


 * Italian+Brazilian 98.83% 96.50%
 * All Others       38.75%  37.02%


 * Then I could say, 'only 38.75% of Brazilian Whites have reported ancestries different from both "Brazilian" and "Italian". This necessarily means that at least 100-38.75=61.25% have responded either "Brazilian", "Italian", or "Brazilian and Italian".'


 * That too would be borne out by the maths above, would it not?


 * Basically, I think I agree with Opinoso that we cannot claim or imply that a person who chose "Brazilian" has Portuguese ancestry, any more than we can imply that they have Italian ancestry. We'd need a clear statement to that effect in the cited source. Hope this makes sense. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The category "Brazilian and Portuguese" that Ninguéms wants to include in that table is not even listed in the table of the source. Moreover, it would be more correct to include "Brazilian + Italian", since the main ancestry reported by White Brazilians (besides "Brazilian") according to this resource is "Italian", not "Portuguese at all. Of course Ninguém is once again trying to manipulate the numbers, since he's trying to prove most white Brazilians have Portuguese ancestry, when his own source shows that Italian is the main self-reported ancestry. Of course, he is trying to claim that the white Brazilians who reported to be of "Brazilian" ancestry are of Portuguese ancestry. This is another theory made by himself, since nobody can prove a person who reported his ancestry as "Brazilian" is of Portuguese ancestry (a person can be of German ancestry and simply report to be "Brazilian" because he/she does not feel conected to Germany anymore).

Many Americans claim to be of "American" ancestry, according to the American census. Nobody can assume they are of English ancestry. They can be German, Irish or Italian. The same goes for Brazilians. Opinoso (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Opinoso has a point here. Looking at http://br.monografias.com/trabalhos/fora-diversidade-identidades/fora-diversidade-identidades2.shtml#_Toc143094348 which is given as the source of the data in the article – though the figures don't match (why is that?) – of the people who ticked "Brazilian" in the closed question where they were allowed multiple choices, 2.2% had said they were of Italian origin in the open question, and 1.99% had said they were of Portuguese origin. Extrapolating from that, it would seem that people of Italian and Portuguese descent might be equally well represented among those who identify as "Brazilian". I confess I am still somewhat confused here. Where do the figures in the table above actually come from? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I never heard about this resource about ancestry in Brazil. I found this table some time ago (and I even used it in some article), but then I realized it was not a reliable source, then I removed them from the articles. Opinoso (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Those numbers come from the IBGE Pesquisa Mensal de Emprego (Monthly Employment Research) of July 1998. The IBGE is the Brazilian government's demographic office. The article linked is a paper by Professor Simon Schwartzmann, analysing the data. If this is unreliable, I don't know what would be called reliable.

Jayen, you will notice that while 2.2% of people who answered "Brazilian" in the closed question said "Italian" in the open one, still 85.71% answered again "Brazilian". And as we know that multiple answers were allowed in the closed question, it would be certainly possible, even probable, that those 2.2% had answered "Brazilian and Italian" in the closed question.

I would like to point that Opinoso's way to refer to me is a breach of WP:AGF. Whether I'm right or wrong, I am certainly not "manipulating" anything. Moreover, I would like to recall that Opinoso has actually agreed that "most white Brazilians have Portuguese ancestry", as can be seen in the articles Talk Page:

The Portuguese are still the main European ancestry of Brazilians of all races and of White Brazilians in general.

(posted by Opinoso in 18 January 2009, at 19:21).

So I wonder why he's making such a fight against an idea he knows and acknowledges is true. Ninguém (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said "most" white Brazilians are of Portuguese ancestry. I said Portuguese is the "main" ancestry. The word "most" means "majority", or over 50% of the population. Nobody knows if over 50% of the White Brazilian population is of Portuguese ancestry, because there are no resources avaible about this subject (even though the user Ninguém is frequently claiming the "majority" is Portuguese, one of his many theories").

Moreover, even if I had writeen the "majority if Portuguese", you cannot use my personal opinion as a source. What I wrote in the talk page is my opinion and, different from you, I do not use my personal theories as source. Then, you cannot use my personal opinion as a source or theory to support your point of view.

Most white Brazilians do not have a single ancestry, like Ninguém is trying to claim it is "Portuguese". Most white Brazilians have multiple ancestries, which includes Portuguese, Italian, German, Spanish, and many other and, in many cases, non-white ancestry (chiefly African and Amerindian). Then, your obsession with a "pure" Portuguese ancestry is a complete nonse. That's why these "ancestry" census would never work in Brazil, since a person would have to choose multiple ancestry, that's why most people claimed to be only "Brazilian", rather than write "Portuguese, German, Ukrainian, African and Japanese".

Then, you cannot claim a person who choose "Brazilian" has any Portuguese ancestry. Moreover, cannot claim he/she is "pure Portuguese", since a full-blooded Portuguese in Brazil is very rare (they mixed a lot during our History). Opinoso (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, haven't read the latest posts above yet)
 * From what I can see, anyone can upload their orginal research on br.monografias.com. While this particular study certainly gives the impression of someone having put some considerable work into it, the website it's on is not ideal. Do we know if it's been published anywhere reliable? It would be better to locate this material in a book. Having said that, the author (Simon Schwartzman) seems to be very reputable indeed: . So if the study has been published elsewhere, and the br.monografias.com copy is just a convenience link, then it is potentially an excellent source. But we can't go further than the source and make claims or summaries that are not expressly made in the source.  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So, if I correctly understand, what I would need to do now is to prove that eagles and dogs are secondary predators, ie, that "Brazilian-Brazilians" are of Portuguese ancestry? Ninguém (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll never prove that, because this resource (if it in fact ever existed) does make theories that people reported as "Brazilian" are in fact "Portuguese". This is your theory. Opinoso (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct, Ninguém, you would need a source for that. And if you wanted to apply it to these figures here somehow, your source would also have to link its statement explicitly to these figures here. A generic statement about Brazilian whites having predominantly Portuguese origin couldn't be linked to these figures (although it could be quoted by itself elsewhere in the article). Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Oh, and back to predators, Wikipedia seems to acknowledge the distinction I made, though it calls them "primary consumers" and "secondary consumers". Here: Predator. On the other hand, the article does not give sources for the classification. Should it have them? Ninguém (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, could you take a look at this source please, and tell me if it can be used in this context? Ninguém (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninguém, As an example of your calculations for the table, could you explain how you got for the Spanish row, % of whites = 6.42% ? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What am I? I was born in America, I have ancestors from England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Canada (French-Canadian Jewish lumberjack), and the Netherlands. If I didn't have some records, I probably would have assumed I was English as my name appears to be English (but is in fact German). This is anything but 'simple mathematics'. dougweller (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The figure for the Spanish row was taken from the source cited,. There was no calculation of my part. The same goes for all the other rows. The only calculations I did were those that were suppressed by the other user. Ninguém (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that if it is impossible to define what is a Brazilian of Italian (German, Spanish, etc) descent, then we should not give any figures for them. The only reasonably reliable figures are the numbers of immigrants arriving, and the population of 1872, before the immigration wave. The others are guesstimates. Ninguém (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninguém, Thank you for the clarification. I see that you got your data from Quadro 6 (Figure 6) of . It appears that you calculated from this data the entries in the row for Portuguese+Brazilian. Sorry but the calculation for % of Whites in that row is  incorrect. It's a subtle but significant error that I will try to explain by making the calculation correctly.


 * From Quadro 6, the total number of people is 34,155,009 . Of these, 86.09% (29,404,047) are of Brazilian ancestry, and 10.46% (3,572,614) are of Portuguese ancestry. If in these two groups people didn't claim to be both of Brazilian and Portuguese ancestries, then the total number of Brazilian+Portuguese is 32,976,661 . This is 96.55% of the total number of people, which is what you got, so this part is OK.


 * For those of Brazilian ancestry, the % of whites is 83.11%, which is 0.8311 x 29,404,047 = 24,437,704.
 * For those of Portuguese ancestry, the % of whites is 14.50%, which is 0.1450 x 3,572,614 = 518,029.
 * Then, for Brazilian+Portuguese the number of whites is 24,437,704 + 518,029 = 24,955,733.
 * And finally, for Brazilian+Portuguese the % of whites (i.e. the % of Brazilian+Portuguese that are white) is found from dividing the number of Brazilian+Portuguese whites (24,955,733) by the total number of Brazilian+Portuguese (32,976,661) which results in 24,955,733 / 32,976,661 x 100% =  75.68% . Note that this differs from the wiki's table entry of 97.61% which is incorrect.


 * However, there is still a problem. Recall that for the above calculation that I made, there was the assumption that people didn't claim to be both of Brazilian and Portuguese ancestries. From the wiki, "Notice that the total is higher than 100% because of multiple answers." Thus, even the result that I calculated can't be used in the wiki because it assumed there weren't multiple answers.


 * So the row for Brazilian+Portuguese in the table is incorrect and so far there does not seem to be enough data (i.e. re number of multiple answers) to support even the calculation that I did.


 * In any case, the Brazilian+Portuguese row in the table should be deleted simply because it is wrong. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that you are calculating the percent of Brazilians of "Portuguese" or "Brazilian" descent that are white. In fact, these numbers suggest that 75% of Brazilians of "Portuguese" or "Brazilian" descent would be White if there were no intersection between the two groups.

But what I am trying to discuss is the percent of White Brazilians that are of either "Portuguese" or "Brazilian" descent.

The column "% of Total" isn't supposed to show the percent of people of each of these ancestries that are White, but the percent of the whole universe that is from each of those ancestries. For instance, the figure for "German" in that column is 3.54%; it does not mean that only 3.54% of people of German ancestry would be White, but rather that 3.54% of the whole universe, regardless of "race" would be of German descent (see, this is why "obviously White" ancestries such as German, Italian, and Spanish, have a higher figure in the left column, while "obviously non-White" ancestries, such as Black, Indigenous, or Japanese, show a higher figure in the right column: people of "German" descent are 5.51% of Whites, but only 3.54% of the universe; people of "Japanese" descent are only 0.62% of Whites, but more than twice that, 1.34%, of the universe, mainly because they are 70.79% of "Amarelos").

Thank you for your patience. Ninguém (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I didn't understand everything in your last message, I do see that I misunderstood your table and Quadro 6. So I'll try to start over again but with the right understanding.


 * If there is no intersection between Brazilian and Portuguese groups, your calculation of 97.61% for the percent of White Brazilians that are of either "Portuguese" or "Brazilian" descent (denoted "Brazilian+Portuguese" in table) is a correct upper bound. If there is complete intersection, i.e. all Portuguese are also in the Brazilian group, the lower bound is 83.11%. So the actual percentage lies somewhere in between, i.e. 83.11% < Brazilian+Portuguese < 97.61% . Correct?


 * P.S. So far it's an interesting problem to sort out. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. If, on the side of caution, we assume complete intersection, and, on the other hand, no intersection at all among all other ancestries, we would get a minimum of 83.11% "Portuguese", "Portuguese-Brazilian", and "Brazilian" ancestries, vs 39.97% of "All Others". Seems a significant difference. What remains to be done, now, is to substantiate my claim that a "Brazilian" ancestry actually means "remote Portuguese ancestry". This seems easier than it probably is; excessively obvious ideas tend to be underdocumented (how many sources state that the sky is blue? Probably not many, because few people would dispute it).

I'm happy that my sources are being so strictly scrutinised. But I would like that the sources to the other side of the argument get the same level of scrutiny. As it is, my sources refer to actual field research, conducted by an actual, and official, demographic office. So they result in figures and tables that can be confronted, compared, dissected, plotted against each others, etc. The sources on the other side, on the other hand, seem to be mere claims by political entities (Embassies), or even broken links (such as the source for the number of Spanish Brazilians). Thence it is difficult to discuss their methodology, their internal consistency, etc. It looks like some methodological version of Gresham's Law: good sources get trumped by bad sources because bad sources are more difficult to assess. And so we get a Wikipedia article that states that there are 25 million people of Italian descent, and 10 million people of Arab descent (!) in Brazil, while the scientific, official, and internally consistent data of the IBGE point to some 17 million people of Italian descent (10.41% of the population, and not even all of them White) and less than one million people of Arab descent (0.48% of the population). Ninguém (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested, the overlap between "Brazilian" ancestry and the other categories can be assessed through Table 5. In it, each line stands for the % of people that have stated some other ancestry that have also stated "Brazilian" ancestry. For instance, 56.30% of people who reported "African" ancestry have also reported "Brazilian" ancestry.

Unhappily, it is not detailed by "race", so while we know that, say, 55% of people who reported "Spanish" ancestry have also reported "Brazilian" ancestry, we don't know how many of them consider themselves "White" or "non-White". Ninguém (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Perhaps we should get back to the original reason you came to this talk page for opinions re WP:NOR, viz. the specific table and specific entries displayed above, Brazilian Population, by ancestry, 1998. Also, may I suggest that discussion of other aspects of the article should be done on the article's talk page. Otherwise it would be more difficult to focus on your question regarding the table and WP:NOR.


 * With that in mind, it looks like the entry of 97.61% for Brazilian+Portuguese is inappropriate and should be deleted since so far, we only know from the data that it lies somewhere in the range 83.11% < Brazilian+Portuguese < 97.61% . Correct? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Similarly, there is a range for "all others", but at first sight, finding that range looks complicated. For example, the range of "all others" and the range of  Brazilian+Portuguese are interrelated since some people may have "multiple answers" that include either 1) the Brazilian group and groups in "all others",  2) the Portuguese group and groups in "all others", or  3) the Brazilian+Portuguese group and groups in "all others".


 * BTW, all of this is looking like a violation of WP:NOR if it were included in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see... thank you for your patience and interest. If I may continue to disturb you about this issue, am I allowed to project the percents of the tables upon actual population, such as "the total population of Brazil is 170 million people; the percent of people of "Jewish origin" in this research is 0.20%; since 0.20% of 170 million is 340,000, it would seem that there are about 340,000 people of "Jewish origin" in Brazil"? Ninguém (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. A possible problem is, "the percent of people of 'Jewish origin' in this research is 0.20%". So far, I don't know that the 0.20% in the research correctly reflects the percentage in the general population. I would suggest checking whether the reliable source for the 0.20% result gives some indication that the 0.20% correctly reflects the percentage in the general population and note that they would be referring to the population at the time of the research.


 * I don't think the math part is a problem according to the last paragraph of WP:SYN. The possible problems are the conditions that I mentioned above, so those need to be checked. Also, I presume the facts that you presented are an accurate representation of the info in the reliable sources. Good luck.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was a massive research, with about 90,000 interviews. The problem is, it was conducted exclusively within metropolitan regions, which may differ, demographically, from the population at large. Evidently, results wouldn't differ too much, but still.

When I tried to inform that Germans (whose immigration was more rural) would be underrepresented, and Jews and Arabs (whose migration was more urban) would be overrepresented, the other user, in his sympathetic, agreeable, and charming style, reverted my edit. :( Ninguém (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Boy Scout's Oath in Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)
There is a dispute at Talk:Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) regarding whether or not the inclusion of the Boy Scout's Oath is OR or not. All input there would be much appreciated. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if it is OR... but it does strike me as being a non-sequitor. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Scout Oath was introduced as a real-world example of something consistent with the "lawful good" alignment of Dungeons &amp; Dragons. The contention is whether the claim in the article, that the oath contains phrases consistent with "lawful good", are self-evident or require sourcing. Originally the article made a somewhat stronger claim that the oath "expresses a lawful good ideal", and for that, a demand for sources may have been justified. With the current version it is unlcear whether sourcing is still required.
 * And of course there's also the question of whether real-world examples add encyclopedic value to the article. =Axlq 20:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the same claim with more evasive wording, the original claim is still implicit. Furthermore, if it was purely a descriptive statement about the content of the Boy Scouts' Oath, it would obviously have no place in an article about Dungeons and Dragons.bridies (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Shahak vs. Jackobovits
In 1965 Israel Shahak claimed that someone had refused him the use of a telephone during a medial emergency, because it was the Sabbath. In 1966 Immanuel Jakobovits, later Chief Rabbi of the U.K., published an article stating that Shahak had fabricated the incident. The article on Shahak states exactly that, noting that it was an assertion by Jackobovits. However, an editor has now inserted the following argument into the article: "Jakobovits provided no evidence to substantiate his claim and Shahak did not deign to respond." I've been removing the material, noting that this argument is one made only by a Wikipedia editor, not by the sources. In response, the editor has stated that WP:NOR doesn't say, "switch off your brain" - I made a perfectly reasonable clarification, since the sentence doesn't reflect the fact that there is no evidence to support the claims of Jakobovits. and ''I simply drew attention to the FACTS AS THEY ARE. That is not original research.'' I strongly disagree, since, in my view, the editor is clearly making an argument in order to discredit Jakobovits's claim. I've brought the issue here for additional views. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the answer here, but I note that there was a 15,000 word discussion on just this topic here. One party ended up saying: "The debate is about whether the disputed edit constitutes "analyzing and arguing with," as some here assert and assume but do not demonstrate; or whether it constitutes "summarizing and paraphrasing," as others here have demonstrated exhaustively" and another party informed us that: "My edits have, in fact, been quite impartial, and WP:NOR is a rather subtle rule that a number of people, including most inexperienced editors, simply do not get." It seems extraordinary that throwaway allegations of dishonesty or worse with no substantiation ends up shoe-horned into some biographies whereas other biographies are protected from even the most serious allegations. PRtalk 21:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why on earth have you again brought up a two and a half year old discussion that doesn't even mention Shahak or Jackobovits? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I've done my best to understand whether these objections were really OR or IDONTLIKEIT, and I read up on an extensive discussion on the topic. 2.5 years after we were told "WP:NOR is a rather subtle rule that a number of people, including most inexperienced editors, simply do not get." I've still not seen any consistent explanation of what to avoid. Maybe I should ask an admin, who is bound to both understand "Original Research" and want to guide editors to write better articles that don't break the rules. PRtalk 22:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayjg is right, PR. Accept it. Your edit was inappropriate, for the reasons given.Nishidani (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's go back to facts - what do we have?
 * 1. Jakobovits claims Shahak admitted the story was a fabrication.
 * Now, what do we NOT have?
 * 1. Any WP:RS admission from Shahak supporting his claim.
 * 2. Any reliable 3rd party to whom Shahak has also made this admission
 * 3. Any evidence of this admission, in the form of transcripts or witnesses.
 * Now, let's replace Jakobovits with PR, and the admission of fabrication with "... is Elvis' love child". You're sayint that you would accept it unquestioningly and repeat it verbatim, without any clarification to the missing points, in Elvis' article?
 * You're stating it's OR, to clarify for readers that the claim has no support, has no evidence, has no witnesses and Elvis' estate nor descendants have bothered to reply to PR's love-child claim?
 * WP:OR specifically states, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."
 * 1. no use of original thought/research - it's using exactly what Jakobovits said - it's a claim.
 * 2. no use of unpublished facts - nope, nothing new in the clarification
 * 3. no new arguments - nope, again not making a new argument. Just repeating what he said.
 * 4. no new speculation - nope, didn't say it was false. Didn't claim Jakobovits lied about it.
 * 5. no new ideas - nope, nothing new there.
 * 6. no new synthesis of published material - nope, not making any analysis of it. Just repeating the facts
 * So, please clarify how exactly it is WP:OR - you've lost me. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be OR unless you have a RS commenting on the fact there is no evidence or no witnesses that back up PR's accusation that X is Elvis' love child. If there are RS refuting the claim it wouldnt be, but as I understand Wikipedia you are not allowed to use your own common sense as a source, you need to use others common sense as published by a RS. Nableezy (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This should be pretty straightfowarard, GOM. According to which reliable source is it the case that "Jakobovits provided no evidence to substantiate his claim and Shahak did not deign to respond." Please quote the source that makes those claims/arguments. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's now a moot point. Primary source. Can't be used without supporting sources. Issue is irrelevant now. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I was wrong - not clear at all.... *sigh* GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I've only looked briefly at the article (and equally briefly at the source), it's fairly apparent that the edit which Jayjg describes is original research. At the very least it appears to be unverifiable using currently-cited sources.  The most obvious way to show that it's not original research is to include attribution: "According to [source X], Jakobovits provided no evidence to substantiate his claim and Shahak did not deign to respond."  But in this case, I'm not sure whether that's possible.
 * If a source does not explicitly make these claims, then they are original research. In this sense, NOR does indeed say, "switch off your brain", and for good reason: all brains are prone to flawed reasoning, from time to time, and Wikipedia lacks any kind of process (eg., academic peer-review) to prevent serious errors from being published.  Now I don't claim to be an expert in the subject matter, but the problems with these claims are obvious even to me.  Neither claim is provable as stated; both probably rest on the fallacy of negative proof.  What is almost certainly meant is something like "I, a Wikipedia editor, have not seen any evidence provided by Jakobovitz, nor am I aware of any response by Shahak."  And unless the Wikipedia editor is omniscient, the possibility remains that there may be gaps in his/her knowledge (he/she might, for example, have overlooked something in one source, or he/she might be unaware of the existence of another source). Jakew (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so given that - a source that meets minimum WP:RS standards needs to be included, if an one editor so chooses. So what's stopping one editor from flooding an article with partisan sources, on the basis that they're WP:RS - and twisting the article, for example, in such a manner that it demonizes the subject? Given strict interpretation of Wiki guidelines, where is the check, to ensure that the article accurately reflects (to the best of our ability) the subject matter? Or is that completely irrelevant? Include whatever any editor contributes unless they're clearly violating some rule - is that the gist of it? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A relevant formula is "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." Just because we don't know if something happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. It only means we don't have a source for it.   Will Beback    talk    19:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Will beback hit the nail on the head. We add all significant views from notable sources.  If there is a notable source that provides a significant point of view that the allegation is unfounded or whatever, we can add it.  But you can't add ... nothing.  The worl dof unsourced views is, well, infinite.  And all of it is original research or soapboxing, it is argumentative and specifically inserting an editor's argument which we just do not do, period.  It has to be a significant view expressed in a notable source.  PR seems to have no source. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Will Beback - I wish I could get you to come to one particular talk page to disseminate that view. They keep arguing that if a source mentions XYZ's name and don't explicitly state that they were known as being an ABC, that proves XYZ is not an ABC. ^_^
 * It would absolutely be OR to assert that "Jakobovits never substantiated the claim that blah blah blah," which PR's original wording could be arguably read as asserting. But given that he doesn't do so in the article, would it not be an accurate characterization to say that "Jakobovits wrote in Tradition that blah blah blah, but did not provide substantiation for the claim in the article."?
 * Question - what was Shahak actually known for? The impression the article left was that he's only known for running around pissing on Torahs. arimareiji (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Putting unreferenced claims in footnotes
See for instance footnotes 51-61 in Moses - some of these are ok, others are claims that might easily be contended.Canaan has a number of similar footnotes. I think this is inappropriate and makes it difficult for the reader and for editors who want to make it clear what claims need verifying, etc. Comments? Thanks. 09:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)dougweller (talk)
 * I can't comment on these specific footnotes except to confirm that they are indeed unreferenced. I find this troubling.  I think that readers (and editors) have come to expect that "little blue superscript underlined number in square brackets" means that a source is provided, and I'm concerned about violating that expectation.  It's unfortunate, I think, that we have the same symbols for both references and notes.  It would be nice if they were visually distinct. Jakew (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "putting unreferenced claims in footnotes" - They are subject to the same Wikipedia policies as the main text, in my opinion. I would suggest treating them as if they were in the main text, i.e. where appropriate deleting them immediately, or adding templates and deleting them later if no reference is provided. If the editor can provide a reference for a claim, it can be put  alongside in the same footnote and prefaced with the phrase "according to".  --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I very much agree that footnotes need to be referenced, no less than other text. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Most are from the same editor I believe, an editor whose edits are mainly original research. dougweller (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor arguing at the Village pump (policy) that the Bible is not a primary source
(who has been contributing OR to Wikipedia in large quantities for 3 1/2 years, see his block log, talk page including archives, and edits) is arguing at that the Bible is not a primary source. I'm not sure why he's raised the discussion there, but editors reading this noticeboard might be interested in the discussion. dougweller (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Location of Aram
Location of Aram seems very ORy, but discussion on the talk page has focused more on whether the Bible is used as a primary or a secondary source, which seems a bit off as that doesn't really matter if the editor synthesizes it to make a point, does it? Any input on the talk page appreciated. — JAO • T • C 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just saw the section above. This article is written by that very editor. I'll just take my header down a notch to make this a subsection. Sorry for not paying attention. — JAO • T • C 22:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is pure OR and I want to make it a redirect as it is just a OR POV fork from Aram-Naharaim. The editor in question is a serious problem. A lot of his articles have been AfD'd in the past as OR. Another is up right now which is pretty typical of his edits to existing articles: WP:Articles for deletion/Western Semitic Calendar. dougweller (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Jienum
''Moved discussion from WP:AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)''

Jienum has been repeatedly warned for violating original research and vefiability policies by myself, user:Sesshomaru and others, including a final warning last month. It would be nice if an admin would step in and do something about the situation. Thanks for your attention, and I apologize for the brevity. I have never used this particular forum before and am not sure of the etiquette, and to be frank I do not have the time or inclination to read through 306,398 bytes to learn it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

author's own work WP:OR for quotes?
If you cite a quotation from an author's own work and the work's dedication - without drawing any inferences from it - is it considered WP:OR to do so?

Without going into the distasteful nature of the work: "David Duke mourned Shahak, stating he had exposed 'numerous examples of hateful Judaic laws... that permit Jews to cheat, to steal, to rob, to kill, to rape, to lie, even to enslave Christians,' and dedicated his book Jewish Supremacism to him."

Another editor argues that the citation at the end of that sentence should refer to sources on which comment on the book almost exclusively.

Given that the article is not about David Duke, but rather Israel Shahak, it seems to smell of coatracking to tag on sources which only refer to the article subject in passing.

So,
 * 1. Can an author's own work be used as a WP:RS for a quotation?
 * 2. If an author dedicates a work to someone, and it is verifiable in the book and on the author's own web site - is it WP:OR to use such (book or site) as a reference when indicating such - given that no inferences or conclusions are drawn - but merely presented as statements of fact?

I see many examples of quotations from people such as Mark Twain or Shakespeare, where their own work (a primary source) is used as a reference for quotations.

GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with this. There's nothing to prevent us from using primary sources as long as we don't draw our own conclusions from them. If a published work explicitly says that it is dedicated to someone, then that's not only a valid source for that work's dedication, but quite obviously the best source. Same for the quotation. People seem to miss why secondary sources are generally preferred—namely, for reasons that don't apply in these cases at all. — JAO • T • C 21:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * After taking a look at the article's talk page, I'd point out that there's also a relevance issue under discussion, so the specific example is a little more complex. But as for factual sourcing of the text as it currently stands, there are no issues. — JAO • T • C 21:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes *deep sigh* the talk page discussion is... extensive. I was addressing this reference in isolation, and not referring to anything else in the article. Too messy to do so. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslav wars - unsourced POV statements in the lead
Hi, editor removes source requests from lead statements, and fails to provide sources - Talk:Yugoslav_wars. Editor was blocked for edit warring before. What the correct action should be? --windyhead (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Critic of Wikipedia
There is a disagreement at the Larry Sanger page over the description of Sanger as a "critic of Wikipedia". There are five different references given for Sanger's criticism, as well as two other sources.

Are these references sufficient to justify the description of Sanger as a critic of Wikipedia? If so, how many references are appropriate in the lead to support the statement? (A half dozen references for such a straightforward statement strikes me as a bit silly.) Rvcx (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems obvious. He's clearly a critic, critical towards, and offering criticism of Wikipedia, and there are copious sources supporting it. Phil153 (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the references state Larry Sanger is a prominent critic of Wikipedia. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A few of the sources are clear enough. When feature articles are written about his opinion of wikipedia, and the opinions given both are criticisms and are called criticisms, it's suffiently verified. This is not OR.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So you object to "prominent"? Is there a section on the article talk page where this is dicussed?   It's clear and obvious to me that he's prominent - his critical thoughts on Wikipedia are the subject of numerous news stories, he's a co-founder of the thing he's critical of, and has founded a rival encyclopedia.  A single word clearly supported by the facts isn't OR to me - it's good editing and a more accurate description than the alternative.  Phil153 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia we edit according verifiability and not truth (personal opinion). There are articles written by Sanger. Sanger does not call himself a Wikipedia critic. The sources presented do not say Sanger is a Wikipedia critic. I have asked for verification. Please provide verification and a reason why it should be in the lead. Please explain which journalist is calling Sanger a Wikipedia critic or it failed verification. See WP:Consensus, not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Read WP:NOTOR. I think that this falls under the old quacks like a duck rule.  If sanger criticizes, calls what he writes criticizm, then the one who does the criticizing is called a critic.  This is not research merely drawing an elementary logical conlcusion.  Like having a source that says I live in Chicago, then writing that I live in Illinois. Understand?--Hfarmer (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When you read WP:NOTOR it is an essay and not official policy. Sanger does not say he is a Wikipedia critic and none of the journalists claim Sanger is a Wikipedia critic. As previously stated, please explain which journalist is calling Sanger a Wikipedia critic or it failed verification. I ask for verification. See WP:V. Not even one editor is able to cite any reference to verify anything. Personal opinion or editorializing is not part of WP:V. I am not interested in the opinion of editors. We write according to the source presented. None of the sources presented claim Sanger is a Wikipedia critic. We don't draw our own conclusions. QuackGuru (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest that the fatest way to resolve this dispute is to verify it yourself? Honestly, it took me 10 seconds on a google news search for "Wikipedia Sanger critic" (plus an extra 5 minutes to write up this post)


 * The very first source you gave says
 * Until 2002, Larry Sanger was editor-in-chief of Wikipedia, and is one of its most outspoken critics today.
 * ZDNet Asia says: One of Wikipedia's closest critics...
 * The Australian Newspaper says: Mr Sanger parted ways with Wikipedia in 2002 and became a vociferous critic of its accuracy.


 * So multiple sources use this exact term, critic, and they further qualify it with terms expressing the prominence of this criticism. I only looked at a couple of pages, so there should be more.   But even if they didn't exist, it would be right to call him a critic if multiple sources note his criticism.  Just like we can call someone a track and field athlete if there are articles about their running, high jumping and long jumping, but no particular source that calls them a "track and field athlete".  I'm really struggling to understand your angle here. Phil153 (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Joan of Arc
This is an FA article so I don't want to charge in, but I can easily spot some OR. Look at the trial section for instance, the bit about demonstrating her intellect, the subtlety, etc. The last paragraph says "The twelve articles of accusation that summarize the court's finding contradict the already doctored court record" -- but it's referenced to the trial itself, a primary source, not to a reliable source making the claim. There's quite a bit more. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuity
In the season one episode Solitary, Rousseau told Sayid that it was the Other's that infected her crewmembers with "the sickness" and claimed it made necessary that she execute them in order to keep the disease from spreading to the outside world. In This Place Is Death, it was revealed that Rousseau's crew was not infected by the Others, but by whatever was inside the ancient Temple that Monstad was dragged into by the Smoke Monster. Why this change in continuity took place was not shown in the Enhanced version of the show.

For fans of the show LOST, this is a pretty major error in continuity on the show, as thru season 5, THE OTHERS and the SmokeMonster have not neccesarily been related. Like many LOST fan's I noted it right away. I did a few edits to it, which were turned back over the ORIGINAL RESEARCH when I was using Wikipedia's own episode summary's (which are taken generally from ABC.COM). However, I wanted to see what would happen on the Enhanced version of the episode when they showed it in repeats a week later, to see if the creators of the show would comment on it (in ENHANCED Lost, during the repeat, there is a bar at the bottom of the screen where the show creators comment on things regarding the episode).

During the enhanced version of the show, the show creators did not mention this change in continuity of the show, meaning either they did not catch this error either, or they approved the change in continuity from the OTHERS to the TEMPLE/SMOKEMONSTER.

To try to keep Jackyboy from claiming I was using original research, I cited the direct episode summary for the show at ABC.COM, but he is still claiming it is original research when it clearly is not, as I am using the offical episode summary now from ABC.

I'll pause to go to work and let Jacky say what he has to say here. Thanks for the overview Whippletheduck (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Whippletheduck can provide no secondary sources that discuss the continuity problem. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh...how is the offical ABC website's OFFICIAL episode summary not the absolute most Prime Source possible? I can go to other lost pages and find them, but going to ABC.COM for the official episode summary should be the absolute gold standard here for a TV Show. Whippletheduck (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Centre for Social Cohesion
I was wondering if these edits contituted Original Research? Could someone check them out please? It's rather beyond my knowledge of these matters. Thank you,  almost - instinct 03:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Era of Scorpio
This is someone's personal theory for blending western and eastern zodiacs. This was previously deleted - see Articles for deletion/420-year cycle, and the editor has also added his theory to Origins of the Chinese Zodiac (see this difference ) Edward321 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation
This list has grown hugely unwieldy and now is full of broken links, unverifiable statistics (citing a list of faculty rather than anything claiming total affiliates), outdated information, dubious sources (like wikipedia itself), inconsistent procedures for inclusion/exclusion, and absolutely hideous non-MoS highlighting. It's used repeatedly on other university articles as a citation or a piped link/psuedo-citation. With such a classic case of synthesis run amok, where does one even begin? Madcoverboy (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes, this looks unfixable. Maybe take it before AfD? Phil153 (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinions or advice on SYN
Hi I would like your advice or opinions on some text below, and would like to know is this an example of WP:SYN. I’ve raised this issue on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dunmanway_Massacre#Corrections_and_references. article talk page here] and place a tag on the article here, but would like your opinions before I change the text.

'' This suggests in my opinion, that the IRA burned all the homes of British loyalists in revenge for the burning of two republicans homes. However the source says "Some of those burnings were reprisals for the destruction of houses like O’Mahony’s of Belrose, Tom Tom Kelleher’s of Crowhill, and others which the Essex destroyed a few hours after they had captured and released me [Tom Barry]."
 * The text reads: ''In addition, they responded to the British burning of republican homes by burning those of local loyalists. For example in June 1921, in revenge for the burning of two republicans' homes, Tom Barry wrote, 'The IRA extracted a heavy price in return...we burned to the ground in that district all the homes of British loyalists. (Tom Barry, Guerrilla days in Ireland p. 214)

The Barry quote is also misrepresented, it suggests in my opinion that the price exacted was the burning of all the homes of British loyalists, however the actual quote "The value of those homes [the Republicans] would total approximately three thousand pounds, but the I.R.A. exacted a heavy price in return, and destroyed property of active British supporters valued at least one hundred thousand pounds" suggests that the heavy price referred to was financial, and did not say "the homes of British loyalists" but said "active British supporters."

Here is the full quote from Tom Barry, Guerrilla days in Ireland p. 214: Some of those burnings were reprisals for the destruction of houses like O’Mahony’s of Belrose, Tom Tom Kelleher’s of Crowhill, and others which the Essex destroyed a few hours after they had captured and released me. The value of those homes would total approximately three thousand pounds, but the I.R.A. exacted a heavy price in return, and destroyed property of active British supporters valued at least one hundred thousand pounds. First we burned to the ground in that district all the British Loyalists’ houses. Colonel Peacock’s home, Stephenson’s of Cor Castle, Brigadier- General Caulfield’s, Dennehy’s and Stennings’, all in the Inishannon district.

The text as it appears in the article: In addition, they responded to the British burning of republican homes by burning those of local loyalists. For example in June 1921, in revenge for the burning of two republicans' homes, Tom Barry wrote, 'The IRA extracted a heavy price in return...we burned to the ground in that district all the homes of British loyalists. (Tom Barry, Guerrilla days in Ireland p. 214)

Should you require any additional quotes please just let me know? Thanks, -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't appear to be a violation of WP:SYN since only one source, the Barry book, was used. "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." The other issues may be outside the province of WP:NOR but instead may or may not be a matter of statements unsupported by a source. Maybe some other editors might care to comment on that. Good luck.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I do think that the statements are unsupported by the source. For example linking "The IRA extracted a heavy price" and the burning of the homes, the heavy price referred to was financial. Therefore I do think you can have WP:SYN even with only one source. I would not however consider "the burning of two republicans' homes" and leaving out the "and others" as WP:SYN, that's just very bad citing. I do think that the use of "British loyalists" in place of "active British supporters" in the context of the articles subject matter is very bad indeed. I agree though that some other editors comments would be welcome, so thanks for that Bob K31416, regards -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  22:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't WP:SYN, but it does seem to be failed verification. Either change the sentence to conform with the source, or tag it for deletion if it isn't fixed in a reasonable time. THF (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Interview on The Wall Street Journal
Is this: 'In an interview in The Wall Street Journal, the interviewer wondered why "most of the press [was] under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, [was] so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson?" Warren said that "it's a matter of tone" and, according to the interviewer, seemed "unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagreed."' a synthesis / Original Research or not and can it be added into Rick Warren article? Issue is being discussed here: Talk:Rick_Warren Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

List of space agencies
I am having problems with both BatteryIncluded and Jesusmariajalisco (who, perhaps inadvertently, helped the former circumvent the three-revert rule) in List of space agencies. They keep adding the Mexican Space Agency to the list when the agency has never existed; it is just contemplated in an initiative still being discussed at the Mexican Congress. I've provided plenty of evidence at User talk:BatteryIncluded (which is mostly in Spanish, because the agency doesn't exist yet) but he keeps insisting that 1. It was created by a vote in the Senate (which is ridiculous) and 2. They have gone as far as providing an "official logo" (which is an amateurish draw found at a fan's website) and a "date of foundation" in the Spanish Wikipedia (Agencia Espacial Mexicana). - José Gnudista (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Lucraft
Could editors with some interest in resolving issues of original research take a look at Benjamin Lucraft? The article appears to have a number of problems, but I think they mostly stem from original research. A look at the edit history reveals this edit summary, explaining the creation of the article: "I now want to publish my prepared work and can only find this way to do so." Thanks, ClovisPt (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The page is a mess, and it needs footnotes, but the references are cited at the bottom. Possibly OR, but that's why we ask for footnotes rather than a list of references. Seems to meet N, if the list of references isn't a hoax. THF (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this article is clearly OR, in view of the characterization as "my prepared work" and some of the material in the References section. I have prodded it. --Unconventional (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

gravity, 101
A well known fact in the scientific community is that the basic constituent particles of matter are the proton,neutron,and electron. Also,every individual electron produces its own electromagnetic field as it orbits the atom and or molecule. Atoms and or molecules,(mass),in the far reaches of outer space experience no,or minimal effects from the magnetic fields produced from large bodies,stars,planets,moons,etc.,are affected minimally,electromagnetically,thus the electrons orbiting said mass are being disbursed evenly around the nucleus with no net electromagnetic output. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chongonzalez (talk • contribs)
 * And you have informed us about this because... ??? Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hala Sultan Tekke
I am here asking for assistance not to complain about anyone. The following article Hala Sultan Tekke contains this section Significance, following are my reservations on this section:
 * 1) This is forking POV and you can check this out through reviewing this user page User:Chesdovi.
 * 2) This section is in violation with reliable sources
 * 3) This section is in violation with verifiability
 * 4) This is section is a hoax
 * 5) This section  is in violation with OR

I know in wikipedia we can edit any section of any article if we find out that it is in violation with any of the above policies, but the thing is user:chesdovi is insisting on having all of those violations, and refused all of my edits.

Now let us move to the other part of reservations of the contents of the section:
 * 1) This section claims that this is a holy place in Islam, while all of the resources used are authored by non-mulsim scholars (or soemone with no theology background) and without refering to muslim books, texts, Qoran, or Hadith. How come that a non Muslim authors (or someone with no theology background) can say this place is holy for Islam while it is not verified by Muslim scholars? This means that this is not more than a claim since it is not verified by Muslims. I tried to add this word "claim" to the title of this section but was removed by the same user.
 * 2) Concerning the sources that are used to support the claim of the holiness of this article, please note the following issues:
 * Reference No. 1: Freedom of religion and belief: a world report: is authored by non Muslims (or someone with no theology background) and the paragraph that grants the holiness of this site is not even referenced in his book by Islamic books, text, Qoran, or Hadith.
 * Reference No. 2: "Study of building stones and mortar from Hala Sultan Tekke mosque": the page can't be found. Even when using the web archive site it can't revert the calimed page, u can see that here.
 * Reference No. 3: Financed Restoration of Church and Mosque on Cyprus Supports Cultural Heritage and Tolerance, once again is authored by non Muslims (or someone with no theology background) and without referring the holiness of this site to any reliable source.
 * Reference No. 4: Purcell, Hugh Dominic (1969). Cyprus. Praeger. p. 367, once again the author is not Muslim (or someone with no theology background) and is not using in this section to any Islamic reliable sources. P.S. the same user didn't even bother to add the ISBN nor the related URL for this book, but after I spent long hours searching for this book I was able to locate it.
 * Refence No. 5: Syneleusis, Hellēnikē Koinotikē; Hypourgeio Paideias, Grapheion Dēmosiōn Plērophoriōn, I was not able to locate this sources, and I doubt the reliablity of it, not to mention it is authored by non Mulsims.
 * Refenece No. 6: once again is authored by non Muslim (or someone with no theology background) and is not using any Islamic reliable sources.
 * Refence No. 7: Daniel, Geoff; John Oldfield, Christine Oldfield (2004). Landscapes of Cyprus. Is a tour guide, and despite the same user:chesdovi agreed that it is not reliable sources as per reliable sources, still he is insisting on adding it to the list of the references.
 * Reference No. 8: once again a non Mulsim author (or someone with no theology background) is granting the holiness to an Islamic site without using Islamic reliable sources, and by the way, I think that this sources is not a relaible source.
 * Reference No. 9 once again is authored by non Muslims (or someone with no theology background) and is not referring to any reliable Islamic sources. Moreover, I doubt the reliablity of this source. Not to mention that the sources does not say that this site is the 3rd holiest place for Muslims, nevertheless, the same user is saying that this site is the 3rd holiest place for Mulims thourgh referring to the mentioned site, this might be an indication of forking POV.
 * Refernce No. 10: once again doesn't use any Islamic reliable sources, and I don't think it is a reliable source in this context. Moreover, the source is used to support the claim that this site is the 3rd holiest place in Islam, but the website, doesn't show this information, again this shows forking POV.
 * Reference No. 11 once again no referral to Islamic reliable sources.
 * Reference No. 12] This might be the only Islamic resource that is used, but once again, in the context of saying this is the forth holies site in Islam it doesn't quote any Islamic reliable source, qouting is very important in Islam, as well as other religions. Moreover, I was not able to identify what is website is about, ok it contains Islamic information, but what is the reliability of this site is doubtful.
 * Refernce No. 13: The page didn't open, I am not sure why.

I want to add one important thing, I am not saying that Islam is the only correct thing in this world, all what I am saying is that: If there is a holy site in Islam then Islam through it’s designated channels (Qoran and/or Hadith) should indicate to the holiness of this place, or at least through reliable Islamic scholars and through reliable and verifiable Islamic resources, not through unreliable and unverifiable NON MUSLIM scholars and books. This is my main point. The usage of reliable Islamic sources in the context of the holiness of this site is not available in this section whatsoever.

Last, I want to tell you that I was trying my best to solve this issue without asking for assistance but with no use as the same user is insisting on the usage of his unreliable sources. The required assistance is: How best I should handle this issue, I thought of nominating this section to deletion but there is no such process at wiki, could you please assist me here.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback. And please forgive me for the long thread.

P.S. This thread is posted at Reliable sources noticboard as well. Yamanam (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yamanam, you have raised this issue at ANI, and at RSN as well as here... This seems like "Forum Shopping" and it is frowned on. In any case, your concerns are not Original Research issues ... the article accurately reflects what the sources say. You may disagree with what those sources say, or question their qualification for saying it... but that is not an OR concern.  The fact that these sources are secular in nature, and not Islamic, does not matter to this policy.  The oppinions expressed are sourced. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The last sentence was awkward, but i fixed it. other than that, everything in this section is attributed to the sources - it even says "described by secular contemporary sources" as a holy site, and "prof so and so of wassamatta u said it was the 3rd holiest." i havent read the sources, but unless you are saying that the sources are misrepresented then i dont see the problem here.  non-muslim scholars are perfectly acceptable sources, this seems like a non-issue to me.  untwirl (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Summaries of books
Are summaries of books Original Research? Regarding a, say, 500 page work, should Wikipedia rely on Wikipedia editors to accurately summarize the important points in the book, or should they instead rely on what secondary sources (i.e. book reviews) say? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish the world was black/white :) I guess it would depend (doesn't it always :) ). If there is a dispute then yes, I would defer to what RS say and use there "summary" ect, otherwise, what is an "important point" would be an editors POV or OR. Haven't we been here before :) Anyways, this probably doesn't help much, but good luck, --Tom 18:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This really depends on what you say in the summary. Writing a basic descriptive, narrative, plot summary of book is not considered OR, since you can cite the book itself as your source. Writing such summaries is fairly easy to do for works of fiction. It is much harder to do with non-fiction.  The key is whether you have to engage in interpretation to write the summary.  The second you start to interpret something, you need a reliable source for that interpretation. Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Saviours' Day
This short article is about an event celebrated by the Nation of Islam to honour its founder Wallace Fard Muhammad. I have been reverting additions to the page by user:LoveFest in which LF wants to inform readers that the NOI's spelling is incorrect because they have misplaced the apostrophe. LF's edits had previously been removed by another user. While I strongly believe that LF's comments are inappropriate, might there be a better and less ORish form of words? The matter is complicated because NOI doctrine apparently accepts that more than one 'saviour' has existed. Paul B (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether this question should be here or at the POV board so I've asked it there too. Paul B (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't think it's worth much real estate in the article. SD is important for a variety of reasons. Though, if there's solid research indicating it is a mistaken spelling/punctuation it might be worth maybe a line. For what it's worth, there is a theory that Fard came from a commonwealth nation, New Zealand, and survived long after 1934, so maybe HE came up with the spelling! Njsamizdat (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Britishness isn't so much of an issue as the 'misplaced' apostrophe, a subject of which I see you have some knowledge ("the least of which is it's unusual spelling")! Paul B (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Right to keep and bear arms
there's been an ongoing dispute at this article regarding inclusion of homicide statistics. it's been shown - three ways to sunday by multiple editors - that user Hauskalainen's inclusion of these statistics in the article constitute original research, because no supporting cites are provided linking these statistics directly to the article. we are merely to 'assume' that they're connected, because user Hauskalainen states that it is 'obvious that they are'. today i removed the two disconnected sections of homicide statistics pertaining to the UK and US, and user Hauskalainen has restored them, with the statement "There is nothing synthetic about this- your claim had gone to independent review". the only review proferred has been at WP:EA, which ended unresolved. i'd like to get formal review of this matter here, where it's an appropriate issue. there's been a short novel's worth of verbiage expended on this matter on the talk page. it's a lot to wade through. sorry. Anastrophe (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * oh - i should add, i reverted the restoration of the material. since it's in dispute, it seems to me it should remain out of the article until such time as it has been independently determined what the status is. if that's incorrect, i can revert myself. Anastrophe (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This issue (the claim of WP:OR on the connection between gun violence and the Right to keep and bear arms) and others such as WP:POV and WP:SYN is still active at the Editor assistance/Requests. I would strongly suggest that we let that one run its course before anyone here comments. The matter is hotly contested.--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * the primary problem is one of OR/synthesis. this is the OR/synthesis noticeboard. the editor assistance discussion had died off without resolution. the last commentary by an involved editor was on february 26th, a week ago. you can debate it whereever you want, but this is where resolution is most likely to be found. Anastrophe (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * as with this group, there is a backlog of requests there. I strongly urge anyone seeking to respond to the current request here, to read the material at Editor_assistance/Requests and take note of my request that this matter be handled by a person outside the United States (in view of the highly charged political views there one way or the other on the matter of gun control).--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i must point out again, your request that it be handled by persons outside the united states is overtly contra assuming good faith. you are assuming that those in the united states are not capable of unbiased address of this matter. you are assuming that those outside the united states are capable of unbiased address of this matter. that's an egregious view, but also a digression from the matter at hand, i admit. Anastrophe (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused. I know for a fact there has been authoritative research on the relationship between violent crime (including homicide) and gun availability.  so either Hauskalainen isn't using that research (and should be) or is using that research (and is getting removed incorrectly).  I don't think there's any debate about whether the relationship between gun ownership and violent crime is a notable issue - it always comes up when gun laws are discussed.  so which is it?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * the article in question is not Gun Politics, where such information and statistics are of interest. the article in question is Right to keep and bear arms. homicide statistics - presented bare, without any references connecting them to the article topic, are synthesis by assumption - we're to assume that homicide statistics are relevant to the article. statistics correlating gun ownership, or gun availability, with gun homicide rates are similarly not directly connected to the topic at hand. i repeat from the NOR policy: "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". it is simple and obvious synthesis to just dump homicide statistics into this article without providing a reliable source that links the statistics to the right to keep and bear arms. mere "gun ownership" is not equivalent ot "right to keep and bear arms". homicide is not an activity protected by the right to keep and bear arms. Anastrophe (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have referred to several reports but one was by the United Nations and written by a criminologist (see http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publications/books/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf). But there are others. You can follow the main thread here Gun politics is mainly about the right to keep and bear arms. There is a direct relationship. The right to bear arms is not just about firearms though and I have pointed out that knives are also a controlled weapon in the UK (where violent death from knife crime is about 4 lower than that in the United States). We have been discussing knife crime on the Talk page. --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * nowhere in the cited material (the UN report) is 'the right to keep and bear arms' ever mentioned. you are conflating 'gun ownership' with 'right to keep and bear arms'. that's synthesis, pure and simple. your assertion that "gun politics is mainly about the right to keep and bear arms. there is a direct relationship." is noted. where is your WP:RS that makes that assertion? Anastrophe (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've responded over there - no sense dragging this debate out here, as well. -- Ludwigs 2  05:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The right to keep and bear arms is not a mandate that one must do so. Rather, it is an elective.  Somewhat analogous to the right to apply to get a driver's license doesn't imply one actually applies for a driver's license and then goes on to the next stage of actually buying a car, at which point car ownership occurs.  Yet, following the same logic, because car ownership is related to car accidents that are horrible, we should put car accident information into an article on the right to apply to get a driver's license, being that everyone knows that car accidents are related to driver's licenses.  Total synthesis.  I fail to understand the reasoning behind inserting homicide statistics into an article on the right to keep and bear arms.  Yaf (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Encarta
Hey, several users and I have been having a dispute with another user, who claims that this article claims that it states that India and Italy are economic great powers. However, he's getting it from this line, "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India", however, the full line says "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power.". If we added India and Italy as economic great powers according to this source, wouldn't that be OR or SYN? Deavenger (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not SYN... but it does misrepresent what the source says, which falls under the general OR banner. To say that India or Italy are "economic great powers" you need a source that says this. Encarta says they are comparable, but it does not say they are. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis project
Sor some time I periodically removed various unreferenced and how-to stuff from articles like bong etc., only it to pop up elsewhere. Today I see that this is not just some random pot smokers share their skills: it looks like a concerted effort to turn wikipedia into a vehicle for publicshing various stuff because, citing ". Any researcher thinks twice before publishing any positive information about cannabis", see Talk:Cannabis_smoking and the surrounds, which was reaction to my deletion of yet anouther batch of original research. I would suggest to set up a temporary task force to put the whole subject under control and ensure strict enforcement of WP:NOR, as it is done in some other topics, prone to creeping propagation of dubious stuff, such as List of ethnic slurs. - 7-bubёn >t 03:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Burke Group
An editor insists that his "decades of experience" justifies the inclusion of discussion of an unrelated lawsuit against a client of the Burke Group, though neither the cited source nor the underlying primary court opinion mentions The Burke Group. THF (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bumping. Can I get an opinion? THF (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bumping. Can I get an opinion?  Editor is edit-warring, even after consensus of outside editors in the RFC was against him. THF (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a bit confused as to the issue here. Can you expand? Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor is adding discussion of a lawsuit that neither mentions The Burke Group or has anything to do with any of the Burke Group's activities to The Burke Group article. I argue that it is WP:OR and WP:SYN; I still can't figure out why the other editor thinks it's policy-compliant. THF (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the disputed edit. THF (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree that this edit is a Synt violation (as the lawsuit does not involve the Burke Group or its activities). However, I also think that the entire "opprations" section needs to be reorganized and rewritten... it reads like advertizing for The Burke Group.  I tend to be warry when I come across bullet pointed lists such as this in an article... it is often a red-flag that someone is trying to "prove a point" by listing "proof" in favor of a particular view.  This may not be the case with this article, but the taint is there by association.  Is it really necessary to include a list of clients and what TBG (successfully) did for them?  Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with an article like this is that the group will only be covered in the context of their involvement in particular union-organizing votes. The section in question has certainly operated as a battleground between a series of TBG-affiliated socks who seek to use it as advertising, and a couple of pro-union editors who seek to use it as a COATRACK.  THF (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I have been BOLD and removed the section. My removal will probably will not last, but if it gets people thinking about the section and working towards a re-structuring, it will help. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Although there is much relevant information in the list, it needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic format.--Anderssl (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of OR over direct quotes
Hi, recently I had some edits reverted based on unspecified claims of 'OR'. The passage is here. I should note that I opened a section on the GAO87 report that is mentioned over on RS noticeboard. To try to find out if the GAO87 is considered RS or not. I apologize for the overlapping subject matter but I seem to have had the book thrown at me and I am trying to find out what is 'actual' wikipedia policy. Thank you. Unomi (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is likely WP:PRIMARY. Quote-mining primary sources for material not recognized as notable by secondary sources can often be indistinguishable from original research. THF (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Quote Mining is bad. I do not think that this applies here however, the GAO87 is a secondary source in regards to these passages and the GAO found them important enough to warrant mention in their report. I would welcome other editors to qualify or give context to those quotes so they are better understood. The issue is not entirely about quote mining btw, I reproduced a series of tables published in the GAO87 verbatim, and for that also accused of WP:OR. Unomi (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * THF is correct. The reliability of the source has never been in question. Rather, Unomi's quote-mining and data-mining of the primary source has been questioned. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As for quote mining? How could it escape the eye of anyone that read the website summary, let alone the report, that 3 out of 5 panelists did not agree that Searle had shown that aspertame would not cause brain tumors. Same goes for the information regarding the responses from surveyed researchers, its right there in the web page summary. It is true that the direct quote regarding the FDA Task scientific opinion on the quality of the Searle studies is  *buried* on the 2nd line of the first paragraph of the first page of the section dealing with the findings of the FDA Task force. If there was some problem with the surrounding text or placement in the article, that should be discussed on the aptly named discussion page, not unceremoniously deleted, but thats just my opinion of course.
 * I don't understand how you can call the full reproduction of the questionnaire data 'data mining', we already cover the data but currently in a form that is borderline WP:NP. I first tried my hand at rewriting the entry in question but was quickly reverted, without proper explanation.
 * Then in an attempt to avoid contentious wording I reproduced the tables verbatim and added them in good faith, this was promptly reverted. In an attempt to find consensus I proposed a section on GAO87 and tried to move forward. To which I received this response.
 * I am opening a section on NPOVN as per the recommendation of the editor who responded over on WP:RS please do not try to frame this as forum shopping I am simply trying to counter the attempts at Policy shopping that I seem to be facing. user:orangemarlin clearly tried to shed doubt over the use of GAO87 as a NPOV source. This could all have been averted if any of the involved editors chose to be less brusque and more constructive.