Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 9

Delmonico's restaurant
A dispute exists regarding the following text:

It is agreed that the facts cited are indeed wrong. The disagreement centers around whether citing them as such to substantiate the claim that "it is not uncommon for profiles in media reports to confuse the present incarnation [of Delmonico's] for the original" constitutes synthesis/original research. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. I'm the other party in this dispute (over on the talk page), and basically what I was saying is that it's synthesis to source the reviews and draw a conclusion about them that's not directly stated. To come to the conclusion stated in the quotation, a reliable source that says something to the effect of "reviews made by Time Out and ABC News are inaccurate." A third opinion was given in this case and agreed that it was synthesis. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and my contention is that for a synthesis to exist, under the guidelines it must be shown that the author is attempting to "advance a position" that might reasonably be contested by others, which is not the case here. It entirely permissible to make an observation about the material cited that is uncontroversial and verifiably true.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Responding to a note by the other party in WikiProject Food and Drink: While Sylvain1972 is correct, and could probably say that about a lot of other revived restaurants, I think policy plainly requires that a reliable source make this statement and not a Wikipedia editor. The "position" he/she is advancing is that reviewers often are wrong on a key fact concerning this restaurant. That is undoubtedly true, but the policy does not say "advance a wrong position." Truth and falsity are frequently in dispute. I think it is an open-and-shut case of synthesis. I've removed the passage, but request that other editors keep an eye on this article and this passage. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Truth and falsity are not in dispute here at all, synthesis is. If a X magazine states, "Michael Jackson was born in 1960," it is perfectly permissible for a wikipedia article to say "X magazine erroneously reported Michael Jackson was born in 1960." The editor does not need to get a third source to state that. Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. From WP:SYN:
 * What you're doing in the text is essentially stating that (A), "Delmonico's opened in 1827", (B), "Time Out says Delmonico's opened in 1831," and therefore (C), "Time Out is wrong." And you can't do that without a third source to state C. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to include a statement saying that "X is incorrect" in an article, you do need a source for that statement. Otherwise, how do we know that X magazine is incorrect? The only way to demonstrate that fact is to provide a source for it.
 * Now, if we are talking about talk page discussions, we are allowed to venture into OR (within reason). If we are discussing a source on the talk page, we can say things like: "no, no, no... Source X is wrong... look at what sources Y and Z say... they have it right".  Then we can try to determine how to account for the discrepancy in the article.
 * When sources disagree, we have several options... In most cases, the best is to mention what both say, per WP:NPOV, by saying something like: "According to X, Delmonico's first opened in 1827, &lt;cite to X> while according to Y it opened in 1831. &lt;cite to Y>" Another option (assuming there is clear consensus that one source definitely is incorrect, and everyone on the talk page agrees) is to simply ignore the incorrect source, and rely on what all the other sources say.  But what we should never do is say "X is incorrect" unless we have a source that specifically points out this fact about X. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, there are sources in the article confirming that X is incorrect. No one is disputing that X is incorrect.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "confirming that X is incorrect"? Do they actually say "X is incorrect"? If so then it is ok for us to say so.  If they simply give a different date, then it is ok for us to assume that X is incorrect on the talk page, but it is not ok for us to explicitly say so in the article (as saying so would insert our own analysis into the article).
 * It sounds like you are dealing with a reliability issue and not a NOR issue. If it is clear that one source contains an error, such as disagreeing with all others as to something like a date, it is ok to simply assume that there is a typo in the odd man out. We can reach a consensus and determine that the odd man out is unreliable on this one date (it can still be reliable for other information).  For the date, we can rely on the other sources and simply ignore the source with the erronious date.  There is no need to explicitly point out the error in the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I think that pointing out the error in the article would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the first outside observer who commented that this is a synthesis and should not be included, I also agree with the independent commentators here. --Jeremy (blah blah) 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the two supposedly "independent" commentators to which you refer indicates that he was recruited to join the discussion in WikiProject Food and Drink, but nonetheless I consider the matter closed for the time being.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I responded to a neutral posting requesting participation in the discussion. I had never edited that article before. To imply that I was not independent is not warranted. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I responded to a neutral posting requesting participation in the discussion. I had never edited that article before. To imply that I was not independent is not warranted. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheeseburger
The cheese in a cheeseburger substantially changes its nutritional value. For example, in comparison to their standard hamburger, which only differs by the slice of cheese, a McDonald's cheeseburger has 20% more calories, 33% more fat and 25% more protein. Other types of cheese would have varying effects, depending on their nutritional content.

This paragraph is from the lead of the cheeseburger article. I removed this passage as I believe it to be a violation of WP:Synth because it takes facts about a McDonald's cheeseburger and hamburger and makes a comparative analysis of the nutritional makeup of the two, which I contend is synthesized original research.

NJGW contends that is simple calculations and thus is exempt from the original research guidelines.

I would like some comments from independent contributors on the matter. --Jeremy (blah blah) 08:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also consider it OR. The source cited does not state that all differences in figures between the two are due to the cheese - as per the notes at the end of the document, "Variation in serving sizes, preparation techniques, product testing and sources of supply, as well as regional and seasonal differences may affect the nutrition values for each product. In addition, product formulations change periodically." IMHO, editors need to be very careful of 'differencing' calculations; they can vastly increase relative errors.


 * There are also issues of rounding/false precision. For instance, representing 12/9 as "33%" implies a precision of one part in a hundred, which is far beyond what the data supports.


 * Here's another 'simple calculation': the entry for the hamburger has 2 grams of fiber equalling 6% of daily requirements, and the cheeseburger has 2 grams equalling 7% of daily requirements... from that we can conclude that 0 grams of fiber equal 1% of daily requirements. --GenericBob (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the sources to nutritional data of American cheese and a plain hamburger, removing all connection to McD's and their nutritional mistakes. This should also eliminate any questions about differences in preparation.  A + B = C ... B / A = %-increase.  NJGW (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed it once again, as the new paragraph is still SYN, in that it is your personal math regarding the available variables. Unless you can cite a reliable source for that, it will not be included.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a suggestion. Instead of reverting me, please address the problems here and wait for people to respond before continuing further.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is you're still doing original research by doing your own math from material you have read, instead of a published source that cites it directly. We are not publishers of original thought.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For any who care, below is the new paragraph:

"The cheese in a cheeseburger substantially changes its nutritional value. For example, an ounce of low cholesterol American cheese will add to large prepared hamburger almost 25% more calories, about 45% more fat and over 25% more protein. Other types of cheese would have varying effects, depending on their nutritional content." As far as I can see, it still presents problems of OR/SYN. Please discuss.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, nevermind.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of striking through Daedalus969's comments given the following reply on my talk page after I asked for clarification: "I've reverted my own edits to CB. Surely that is enough to figure out, I'm busy irl, so I'm not going to be able to explain further, you should be able to figure it out for yourself." NJGW (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It'd be ideal to find a secondary source that discusses this directly, but the math is so simple and the conclusion so straightforward that I don't think this is a violation.   Will Beback    talk    19:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This version is a lot better - providing a source specifically for cheese fixes the differencing problem. I've taken the liberty of rounding those numbers a bit to avoid implying excessive precision; with that change, it looks reasonable to me. --GenericBob (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have to agree that the new version still presents a synthesis/OR problem. Surely a reliable source can be found on the shift in nutritional characteristics after tossing on a piece of cheese. This is not a massive issue, for the math is clear, but still, it seems a bit prominent in a rather brief article and it would be best for Sanjay Gupta or someone like that to make the point.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty in SYN with Weird Al song and its implied location
For Weird Al's lastest song, "Skipper Dan" (which is currently listed at Internet Leaks in lieu of a full article due to lack of coverage), there's an issue in OR-ish nature. The song's lyrics, which tell of a man in charge of a jungle cruise ride, do not cite the location, though it mentions "Adventureland" and uses direct quotes from Disneyland's Jungle Cruise. The associated video for the song asserts this further; the person is seen living near the HOllywood sign, and guests on the ride are clearly wearing mouse ears, though again, no specific mention of Disneyland is named. I believe that presuming that the ride is the Jungle Cruise line at Disneyland is original research barring any source that suggests it is only that, as because plenty of other theme parks have similar rides, and such we cannot eliminate all others by process of elimination. Others suggest it's the case that it's the only obvious solution given all of the above. Now, I've been watching for sources, and plenty of blogs and sites dedicated to Disneyland state this, and certainly if a reliable source states this, then, no further questions, but until then, this is the type of SYN that we need to avoid, I believe. (It may be that I've never been to Disneyland and thus the "this is exactly how it happens" approach others suggest doesn't ring any bells with me, but I think that's a stronger point that it's not patently obvious and thus SYN.)--M ASEM (t) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources are appearing – – but well done for waiting for them. ;)  JN  466  15:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles Fields of science and Science and the Bible
Fields of science looks like entirely OR. Everything under the sun seems to be a field of science. And now it's being use to structure Science and the Bible, which although it has references still has a lot of OR. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you give us some examples of the problem... at a quick glance Fields of science looks ok to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced, looks like a list drawn up by a committee. The link at the bottom just goes to a UK codification of all subjects. Will our readers really consider law to be a science? Why are military history and economic history sciences, but not history? And if it is then used in articles such as 'Science and the Bible', we end up with everything but the kitchen sink, whereas I think our readers will expect such articles to relate to what are called the natural sciences. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I do think you have a point here... In fact, now that I look deeper, I have a problem with the what is included and excluded in the entire Social Sciences section... why isn't History listed (it is noramlly considered a "Social Science")? As for Military Science, what about Ballistics (which invloves the application of physics and mathematics)?
 * I think part of the problem is that there was a trend (common in the 1960 and 70s) to reclassify what used to be called "Humanities" and "Liberal Arts" as a science... you had every accademic department wanting to rename themselves with the word "Science" in their name... the Theater Arts dept suddenly wanted to be called "Theatrical Sciences" and the History dept wanted to be dubbed of "Social Sciences"... I suspect the trend had something to do with where the grant money was directed. This trend was reflected at the Grade school and High school level... where subjects underwent a name change as well... History class became "Social Studies", while English class became "Language Studies".
 * In any case, you are right... that list needs a clear criteria for inclusion... and that criteria needs to be based on a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you could take a look at Science and the Bible I'd appreciate it - it's changed quite a bit recently thanks to one editor. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Lead may or may not be OR. I couldn't determine whether it was OR because it is not clear what the "sourced" statements were saying. It thus wasn't clear whether the sources being cited are all talking about the same thing. If they aren't all discussing the same thing, then the statements for which they are being cited are OR.
 * 2. Content is completely OR. The only source that addresses the topic/theme and is being used properly is Gould, but which only appears in the lead. The only other potentially-valid source at all is Schroeder, but that is being misused to regurgitate an argument rather than being summarized for its conclusions. The rest of the ostensibly sourced statements are all off-topic, and hence OR.
 * It would seem that the editors have not understood that they are not supposed to do any arguing. They need to be told that they are not to write essays. They need to learn to regurgitate sources that have already covered the topic. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible synthesis in Sam Fuld
Question here is whether his religion is adequately sourced or is synthesis, with regard to the three sources given as sources in the second paragraph of the article, where he is referred to as "Jewish" and cites three sources. None of the three sources explicitly state his religion, and that is contradicted by a Q&A with Fuld cited in the "Personal" section, which more accurately refers to him as "half-Jewish." --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Original Research Question at Criticisms of CAIR
Admin User:Athaenara suggested I post an inquiry here:

There has been an on-going content dispute at Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations over original research, BLP violations, plagiarism, and other issues.

However, my issue revolves around original research.

User:PelleSmith reverted an edit I made claiming it was original research. User:PelleSmith and User:Commodore Sloat have been edit-warring out all my additions following a failed AFD started by Pelle.

Here is a link to the beginning dispute: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_the_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#Identified_plagiarism. Identified plagiarism.]. The paragraph crafted by Pelle and Sloat was practically copy and paste from the original source. I rewrote the paragraph to better represent the source, while paraphrasing and attributing quotes accurately. Then I added a corroborating source from the SFgate to affirm what is being said. I also copy edited because the original draft linked the same source 2 or 3 times. Pelle's reversion also included minor grammar and syntax fixes in other paragraphs.

For comparison of the drafts, I summarized the issues and posted the paragraphs in a sandbox. Drafts can also be found in the talk discussion but they are accompanied by intense arguments and name-calling. This just seemed easier for the lazy: User:Wikifan12345/cair dispute

I tried other dispute resolutions such as collaborative discussions and 3OO, but the edit-warring continued and I probably won't edit the article again till there is a mutual understanding or admin intervention. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - As I've explained to Wikifan numerous times on the talk page, I did not intentionally revert his version of the paragraph as "original research". I am also not the author of any of the material therein. I was attempting to remove other material that does not belong in the entry because it does not present actual criticism attributed to a third party but instead piles on supposed "facts" about the organization being criticized which are meant to make the reader think critically of it or to further substantiate the criticisms of its critics.  After he brought the issue of this paragraph to my attention on the talk page I reverted it to his version.  Despite this good faith revert and despite my explanations he keeps on claiming falsely that this particular edit has been contested as original research.  The OR issues with some of his edits are more straightforward and represent what the rest of us feel is WP:SYNTH.  If you are actually interested in these please take the time and read through the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the place and you claimed the entire paragraph was original research, and there is no "us." You claimed I was editing against consensus which is total bullocks. Anyways, experienced editors please review the draft and tell me if it is OR. If not, I'll restore it. I know OR when I see it and I know policy shopping when I see it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Related Question
This might be more of a WP:NOTE or WP:RS issue than a WP:NOR issue but I wonder if using primary sources of criticism is in line with our various editing policies and conventions at all, especially if the specific criticisms sourced to primary sources have not been mentioned in secondary or tertiary sources. How do we decide they are notable enough if they come from a primary source? Does the publication itself establish notability (if lets say it is an editorial in the NYT), if so what about self-published sources? One might contend that unless a critic is made notable by mention in reliable secondary or tertiary sources as a critic of ... their criticisms should not be included. Perhaps it is not enough either that the critic shares the critical perspective generally mentioned in such sources. Hundreds or thousands of people might share those perspectives, but what makes them notable? Or maybe sharing a critical perspective that is notable and publishing in a reliable venue is enough? I think problems arise relating to "criticism" sections and articles because we do not have policies that are clear enough dealing directly with criticism. Instead we rely on related policies like WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:RS, etc. I do note that we have an essay on the topic, WP:CRIT. Please move this to a more appropriate space if it does not belong here.PelleSmith (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The concerns mentioned in the above question have not been raised at the entry at all. At no time has primary sourced criticism been removed as not notable or as any other violation.  I am however wondering if it should in this and related entries/sections.PelleSmith (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuing to post policies doesn't mean anything. An admin suggested I post this here so no nothing should be removed. You claimed the paragraph was original research several times, and we'll see if it is. If not, I'll restore the edit because it is far superior to your copy/paste/poorly sourced/practically plagiarized paragraph. All these questions mean you clearly have no understanding how policy works and should therefor not be including rules in your summary rationale. As I've said before, practice somewhere else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You claimed the paragraph was original research several times - Please provide diffs for this.PelleSmith (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. I was clearly referring to my subsection "Related Question" only when I asked for it to be moved if it doesn't belong.  I don't want to clutter this space with unrelated questions.  That comment has nothing to do with your question.  Calm down.PelleSmith (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder: This ANI is strictly about Original Research. Pelle and the other editor stood by the claim for pages in discussion, and I told him several times I'd seek an admin if things weren't resolved. Here I am. Most of Pelle's other issues have already been talked to death in discussion, my latest post (in talk) summed things up quite nicely. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User created maps
Maybe this should go on the policy talk page, but I'll start here. Take this, for instance File:Aryavarta wiki.jpg which I've just found, although there are many other examples. It's clearly OR, why do we all these to be used? Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See: WP:NOR. We allow user created images as an exception to NOR.  This is because we can not always use images that are published (due to copyrite laws, and other considerations).  That said, I don't think we can determine whether an image is OR on its own... we have to see it in an article... I am of the opinion that an image should never stand on its own in an articel ... it should always relate to something that is discussed in the article (otherwise it is not relevant to the article). Essentially, I see image as visual illustrations of things discussed in the text of the article... and since that text is sourced, those sources carry over to an illustration of that text. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had some discussion before (for example with User:Wobble, and on the Human Genetics Project discussion page) about this subject. Recently Dougweller and I were both looking a map being proposed (still by a newbie User:SOPHIAN. I think it is hard to develop a single clear rule. For example:
 * If someone makes a map which is based on published maps, this is not often not going to be a case of OR, and might even be closer to a copyright violation. (But I understand a "similar" map, even if just self made to give the same basic idea, is not the same as a copyright violation?)
 * What if someone is writing an article about ancient migrations, and wants to make a map showing arrow where sourced references say they were. I have done such a map, here: As it happens there was some debate that then went on between editors, and some adjustments were made, all with the aim of making the migration routes uncontroversial reflections of sourced materials in narrative or other form.
 * The type of controversial case I have come across the most is concerning "contour maps" built up from data taken at particular geographical points. A purist might I think argue that these should be avoided unless they are basically copies of published maps, and the reason for this is that:
 * a. The published versions use, or should use, something like the Kriging method in order to decide what the best GUESS is about the areas where there is NO DATA. In other words, what colour do you paint the gaps between the points where really measurements were made? Using such a technique seems to me to go into the area of OR or synthesis.
 * b. They can normally be replaced by maps with pie charts at places, without any loss of information, but avoiding the interpolations.
 * Having said that I must say that these maps are popular and they help readers visualize complex subjects in a simple way. I frequently see the makers of such maps get thanks from other Wikipedians, and I understand why. So I do not like the idea of loosing them altogether. I have played with criteria for what is acceptable and discussed them in some of the discussions I've cited. Let's say you have a published contour map, or maybe two, but you want to combine them, and make an adjusted version which combines all the latest data. In this case I think you might arguably get away with it, if you check the data collection principles to make sure you are working correctly of course, and then the final version should be compared to published version to get a common sense confirmation of whether the changes are minor and only as per the data being added. In the end of course you'd be needing to convince other Wikipedians that you'd done this right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The italics portion of the images part of the OR policy is key: "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" One can think of this in exactly the same way as writing prose: simply rewriting a verifiable statement using different words does not make it original research, as long as it does not introduce unpublished ideas or arguments.  An image is just another way of expressing an idea, and simply having drawn it yourself doesn't make it original research.  But that is where the OR "exemption" ends (I don't think Blueboar's reply makes this clear).  The map in question seems to have been deleted, but if it was implying anything that cannot be verified in a reliable source, it's original research and should go ASAP.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's take as an example a map about the genetics of Europe, using a variety of journal articles published over a 20 year period. How is that not OR? (or synthesis). It shouldn't be hard to create a map based on peer reviewed articles that looks convincing and yet is very pov. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is this map? It's not OR if it cites the journals on which the information is based, and makes no claims over and above or contradictory to those that the journals do, and does not attempt to combine any of the individual claims of any of the journals to put forth a position that is not explicitly reached by any individually.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you can make a distinction. If you take a table to data which says that in Paris there is 30% A, 40% B, and in Rome there is 20% and 25%, and then based on this source you make a map of Europe with pie charts on Paris and Rome, then in effect you are just "writing" the table out in a graphical form. I see no OR. But if you make a contour map shows levels of % by different shades, then the question arises as to what colours you put in between Rome and Paris where you have NO data. In such cases I think you need a source for those "clines", and this could for example be a published contour map. Does this make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking long and hard about this issue with regards to maps illustrating the spread of swine flu (but my thinking might be useful elsewhere). I think there are three significant issues that can cause a map to violate wikipedia's principles. Firstly if we calculate our own data (even if the calculations are routine) the variable displayed needs to be notable. Some variables may not give meaningful information or can even be positively misleading. Secondly if there is any doubt that the calculation of the variable may have significant biases in it then there should be a source that performs the same calculations and displays the numbers for comparison in some form (say a table). Otherwise we are essentially choosing a methodology in not making an attempt to correct for these biases. Thirdly if there are significant concerns that the display in map form would be misleading then we should have a source which displays the variable in map form (where the map has the same projection properties).

As examples (made up) of problematic maps showing each of these three problems consider:

1) A map displaying harvested carrots in kilograms per homicide. Both data sets are available and the calculation is trivial but the map is not notable.  For a less obvious example consider reported incidents of domestic violence.  The makers of the British crime survey view police recorded crime as almost useless with regards to measuring domestic violence (as reporting procedures and budgets are always changing).  The figure is accurate as a reported figure but the comparison of these figures is not notable (even if the figures themselves are).  Placing figures such as this in a table will mislead and gives the comparison a status it does not deserve.

2) A map that displays government estimates of cohabiting gay couples. Here many countries may erroneously report no gay couples cohabit.   The data may be available but the biases introduced need to be dealt with by social scientists not wikipedians (violates NOR).  When the experts are happy with the quality of the data we can then display it in a more conveniant form.  If they have published comparisons of the data but are unhappy with its potential biases then their concerns should be expressed alongside the map.

3) A map that displays population by country. We may have accurate data here and the figures are certainly notable but larger countries will appear to have higher population density because there is no correction for the area of the country (violates NPOV).  Other problems can be caused by using map projections that distort areas.

Of course the data on which any calculations are based must be adequately sourced and those calculations must be trivial to perform. The first two points apply to tables as well in my opinion.

I hope my thoughts are helpful. Barnaby dawson (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Privy Council Orders
I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 about UK Privy Council Orders. I did not get everything I asked for but I did get a list of Privy Council Orders since 29 July 1994 in csv format.

I did not create the list it was created by the Privy Council Office but is essentially factual in nature.

Would it be OK to add this list to Wikipedia?

It would in principle be similar to this list List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 2008 that is already on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cross (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 July 2009


 * Direct quote from WP:OR policy. "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."Thus the problem boils down to this. Can we consider information released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as reliably published? I plead complete ignorance about the matter. If no other use (such as supporting some claim) apart from a list article is utilized then I see no problem nor do I imagine a situation where the said information would be challenged.--LexCorp (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry I should have signed my question John Cross (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * thank you John Cross (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue here is whether we can call the primary document "published" or not. By sending this list to you, in reply to a FOIA request, the Privy Council has essentially distributed the document to the public.  So yes, the document is published. If anyone desires verification, they can write to the Privy Council Office and request the same document. However... as a primary source, we must be very careful not to analyse the document in any way.  We can discribe it's contents, but not analyse it or draw any conclusions from it.  For that, we would need a secondary source.  If all you are doing is listing the orders (the way the other list you mention lists Statutory Instuments) with no commentary about them, then I think you are OK as far as OR goes.  Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles
Hello all. I'm having a bit of a problem with matters relating to original research at Talk:British_Isles. The article contains a statement that certain publishers have replaced the term "British Isles" with other terms. (Background: "British Isles" is a contentious term for some Irish folks). Yet, the sources put forward in the article to verify that claim are merely front covers of atlases. Furthermore, when I did some Googling to show that these publishers still use the term, I was then told that my Googling constituted "original research". Input would be appreciated.... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then there is the other "background": "British Isles" is a contrived politically-motivated British nationalist term designed to make a British claim upon Ireland. Furthermore, the term "British Isles" is only dated to 1577 (according to the Oxford English Dictionary). All of which makes the term rejected by far, far more than "some" Irish "folk" - and indeed the term is officially and explicitly rejected by the democratically elected government of Ireland, avoided in all agreements between the governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom and by the overwhelming majority of Irish journalists. "Some" indeed - nice try, though. 78.16.146.218 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To many people the term "British Isles" ceased to be in 1922 when Ireland left the United Kingdom. Of course the term is contentious to many. Much of the stable version, the 'one' you want to change, has come about because editors in the past have compromised. Read the archives please, all 30 gigabytes of them. Tfz     15:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, to the editors at this page, no one at the article would have a problem with a reference that explicitly states "XYZ publisher has dropped the term 'British Isles' from its atlases". My post here is merely a matter of adhering to policy, not an attempt to espouse one or other view on the subject of the name.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tfz's comments are irrelevant to the point at issue. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  16:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What "point at issue"? Tfz     16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this article has been flagged up here, could I ask for a third opinion on the section immediately above. It has been tagged with a "synthesis" tag, although the editor responsible has not seen fit to explain why. Is there anything which conflicts with any of the cited sources? Or am I entitled to remove it? Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The content of the article doesn't concern me. However the article-title must remain, at the very least for historic usage reasons. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To simply say that a specific map or atlas uses a particular label is not OR. It is an easily verifiable fact. Citing to the work is an appropriate use of a primary source. (yes... I know a map or atlas would normally be considered a tertiary source... but in this instance it is the primary source for a statement as to what is on the work).  However, it would definitely be OR to even hint that there was a reason why they chose this label.  For that you would need a different source. Blueboar (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably it is synthesis to combine your first point with your second point? Whoever inserted the claim has provided references pointing to Amazon so the reader sees an image of a front cover which bears a particular title. However, to suggest that this is de facto evidence that a publisher no longer uses the term is synthesising from a very flimsy evidence base. Indeed, it is not supported by a search through the publisher's work. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, from his response, whether Blueboar actually read the sentence in question and the references provided to support it.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't... For what I was trying to say, I don't think I need to. Let me try to clarify.  I do not think it is OR to state that a specific map or atlas uses "British Isles", or does not use "British Isles"... but to go any further would be.  To say that a publisher has chosen not to goes beyond saying that a specific map or atlas does not.  To say that the publisher has chosen not to use the term, you need to cite a statement from either the publisher saying this or from a secondary source that has noticed it. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree. The problem is that it is exactly the latter which this article is doing.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the publisher not using the term, I'd rightly rightly say that the publisher choose not to use the term. Anyway, it's the en.wiki, and not the brit.wiki and there is a whole world out there who never use the term, and never will.  Tfz     11:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there's a whole world out there that does use the term. Within that world there's a small part (an unknown (probably small) number of (opinionated) people in Ireland) that doesn't use it. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  16:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I cannot speak for the rest of the World, I would just like to make the point that I am British and I do not use the term; I object to comments such as RHoPF & MBM above which give the impression that all British are ignorant. Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Many people use the term... many do not... our job is to not insert our own opinions, and simply report on what reliable sources say on the subject. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Tfz     19:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reform Act 1832
I noted This Entry on my watchlist. I double checked and I think the IP has a point. I suspect that the IP is a newbie and would ideally liked to have tagged the section. I would also like to know what would be the most appropriate Boilerplate/action (Sorry, this excludes reworking the references as this is not a core interest of mine). Þjóðólfr (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just post a warning in the talk page that the reference and citation is been challenged as to not supporting the statement been referenced. Maybe an active editor will look into it. Also you may want to embed a comment using --LexCorp (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

School corporal punishment
In the article school corporal punishment I added a direct quote from the position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Another user affixed this with a criticism of the paper's findings.

Is the second edit OR? I mean, it does quote the original source for some of its assertions, but wouldn't this kind of criticism require a specific source? Gabbe (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks like WP:Synthesis to me. The statement that "However, the paper starts off by drawing a far wider definition for 'corporal punishment' than is usually meant by the phrase in an educational context:" is either WP:OR or WP:SYN and needs to be substantiated by a source. --LexCorp (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the reference state Nearly all of those things, other than moderate spanking and paddling, have nothing to do with what U.S. educators...refer to corporal punishment in schools? Þjóðólfr (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the statement"Nearly all of those things, other than moderate spanking and paddling, have nothing to do with what U.S. educators are talking about when they refer to corporal punishment in schools, and many of them would clearly constitute unlawful assault whether or not corporal punishment proper was permitted. Also, the paper cites many research studies which in fact relate not to school corporal punishment at all but to corporal punishment in the home by parents, a quite different subject. Furthermore, cases mentioned are of paddling in the classroom, whereas most school corporal punishment in the U.S. nowadays takes place privately in the office."is mostly WP:Synthesis that cast doubts on the conclusions or applicability of the paper in the subject at hand. For all we know the authors of the paper answer all these objections in the paper or at the time of making the conclusion limit its appropriateness to a narrower set that fall into school corporal punishment. Either way it is not Wikipedia editors who should be challenging how a paper is written, nor is methodology or conclusions. That is the job of other secondary sources.--LexCorp (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the paper is available in toto here. Gabbe (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "For all we know the authors of the paper answer all these objections in the paper.." But the reader can click on the link and see the paper for him/her self and immediately see that the paper doesn't answer these objections! On the contrary, it starts off with this wildly offbeat definition of "corporal punishment", which includes all sorts of things that are obviously assault or abuse (kicking, electric shocks, denial of toilet use, punching, choking) and which are absolutely not what is meant by school corporal punishment, and then proceeds to say that school corporal punishment is a bad thing, etc. Well of course it is a bad thing if that is how you are going to define it! It is completely unacceptable just to leave this as it was originally cited because it is so misleading. I added the gloss that I added because I was astonished when I actually managed to find the paper on line and read it for myself. It seems utterly irresponsible of the Society for Adolescent Medicine to define their terms in such an incredibly tendentious manner.


 * "Either way it is not Wikipedia editors who should be challenging how a paper is written, nor is methodology or conclusions. That is the job of other secondary sources". So what do we do if no secondary sources have in fact challenged it, even though anybody with any common sense can see that it is absurd? Maybe the potential secondary sources have treated it with the contempt it deserves. At all events, if we cannot draw the reader's attention to the uterly bizarre definition they are using of "corporal punishment" then we must delete reference to this paper altogether. Alarics (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The claim that the definition in the paper is offbeat is WP:OR and not shared by the authors of the paper at all given the title of the paper. If you believe this source to be either a POV actor or a WP:UNDUE problem or for that matter no a WP:RS then challenge the edit on those grounds. If not find a source that while it does not address this paper directly makes conclusions quite different from it then add it to the article on grounds of balanced views. But what is seems to be occurring here is that editors aren't happy about the conclusion and criticize them by way of WP:OR and WP:SYN. This while done in good faith is not how it is done and breaches Wikipedia Policy. Finally you concede that readers of the article can follow up the paper link and draw their own conclusion, then why would you breach WP:SYN and do that for them. A factual information is given and readers are welcome to use their brain (some of them out there do have some).--LexCorp (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Finally you concede that readers of the article can follow up the paper link and draw their own conclusion, then why would you breach WP:SYN and do that for them." Because the vast majority aren't going to go and read it, that's why -- so they will assume that the paper cited uses the normal definition of the phrase in question. We seem to be in Alice in Wonderland territory here. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' My preferred solution to this is to delete all reference to the paper in question, unless a secondary source from a WP:RS can be found which explicitly challenges it on the grounds I have set out. If we want to include some rather less hair-brained opposition to school corporal punishment in the article, there are several other possibilities we could use instead. Alarics (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You will have to discuss that with the editor that made the edit or anyone who opposes. My opinion is that Wikipedia policy supports his edit and clearly does not support yours. Again who is to said what the "normal definition" is. The warning at the top of the article is irrelevant and I may add ludicrously POV and should be removed ASAP. It clearly says if you think School corporal punishment is something else from what it is stated here then beat it even if you are a reliable source. That is a blunt attempt at ownership of the concept.--LexCorp (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is simply defining the universe of discourse for that particular article. That is not POV at all. Any reliable source would take it as read that that is what we are talking about. If someone else wants to write an article about illegal brutality in school, they can do so, but we can't have people going around conflating disparate phenomena. No coherent human discourse is possible if one cannot define the terms of the discussion. Alarics (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree but it is the sources and not you or I who should define the concept. I don't known if the source discussed here is a WP:RS or its views are WP:UNDUE. What is clear is that the author seems to define the term more broadly than other sources and it does not fall with us, the editors, to choose one over the other on grounds of merely a definition stated as an aside at the top of the article. The overall definition must be inclusive of all view to meet WP:NPOV. All views but those that the editors consider do not meet WP:RS or fail WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. I hold no position one way or the other with this particular source (other than that it doesn't seem to be WP:OR) but it is my opinion that the statement at the top of the page is preemptive POV and concept ownership.--LexCorp (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Ad Hoc Corporal Punishment Committee do seem to be a pressure group formed by a particular branch of the the academdic sciences. At present, it would seem to me they have 'Raised the bar' aboved Wikipedias, current, unreferenced definition of what constitutes Corporal punishment. It now includes the use of electric shock (which I would have thought is assault) and use of excessive exercise drills (ie a few press ups in my case). I do not think that it would be hard to find dissenting views to the commitee but I agree with LexCorp that the statement at the top of the page is preemptive POV and concept ownership Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Society for Adolescent Medicine's Ad Hoc Corporal Punishment Committee and the explanatory note at the top of School corporal punishment are two different issues. The former issue has now been dealt with by deleting the paragraph in question (because not WP:RS on this issue) and replacing it with a more WP:RS representative of the same point of view. As for the explanatory note at the top of the article, I believe that it does in fact represent what WP:RS on this subject would assume to be the proper definition, and I have now added WP:RS citations to it to that effect. Alarics (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Alarics, I'm not convinced that you have addressed the issues of preemptive POV and concept ownership Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is even worst with the citations as now they are singled out as to the authority to define the concept over any other source. I fail to understand why editor Alarics thought this an improvement, especially over the concept ownership which now with the citations included can and is attributed to the said sources..--LexCorp (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought people were saying they wanted reliable sources, so I added them. It seems nobody is going to be satisfied here, so I will delete the whole thing. When I first created this article as a fork from Corporal punishment (as part of wider attempt to unravel the incoherent muddle involving a whole range of disjointed CP-related articles, for which nobody was taking any responsibility), it was as I have defined "school corporal punishment" that I assumed it would cover and in fact as the article stands at the moment, that is what it pretty well does cover. The fact of the matter is that, where school corporal punishment is concerned, in most of the places where it is lawful, it is properly regulated and certainly doesn't include the manifestly unacceptable things that have been mentioned as falling under this definition. Alarics (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS It's quite an amusing sidelight on the way Wikipedia works, is it not, that for ages there was a completely anarchic chaos prevailing over all the overlapping and uncoordinated articles related to CP, and all sorts of unsourced crap masquerading as serious articles, and nobody ever intervened to say that it wouldn't do according to the rules, but when somebody who knows a little bit about the subject comes along and tries to gradually sort it all out, suddenly there is a tremendous fuss about what is or isn't a reliable source, and what is or isn't NPOV. Alarics (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement may have serve its function in the past and it is to the credit of the active editors of the page and those involved in the clearing the muddling of the CP area that it is no longer needed. You should be happy and proud that it is no longer needed.--LexCorp (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles (again)
I am conducting a straw poll on Talk:British Isles as this is the only way to get past the ridiculous deadlock there.

The problem paragraph, which I am repeating here so everyone interested can easily read it, is: A number of international publications have abandoned the term...Publishers of road atlases such as Michelin, SK Baker, Hallwag, Philip's,  Reader's Digest and The Automobile Association (AA)  have replaced British Isles with Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland in their recent maps.

This is pure original research. The references are links to front pages of atlases. They are not references to support the claim that these publishers "have replaced British Isles with Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland in their recent maps". This is not only original research, it's wrong. Let's pick Philips. The map is titled "Philip's Britain and Ireland Reference Map". Does this mean they have dropped the term? No. Further down the same page in the map description we see a reference to "British Isles". Same goes for the Rail Atlas.

An attempt to remove this information was met with the response "don't remove others' hard work".

The straw poll is here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have Michelin renamed their Guide from British Isles to Great Britain & Ireland? Þjóðólfr (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant... unless the fact that Michelin has renamed their guide has been noticed and commented upon by someone outside of Wikipedia (ie a reliable secondary source) then it is OR for us to point this fact out in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia should not be the first place of publication for any fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Michelin Guide to the British Isles was published in 1911 and was relaunched as the current Great Britain and Ireland Guide in 1974.Ref The Bath Chronicle, Restaurants over the moon at their Michelin star status 24 January 2008. Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... since there is a reliable source that discusses this fact, then it is not OR to state that fact... if that is all you do. However, we must still be careful. There is the direct relevance issue to consider... In what context are we mentioning this fact? Why is this fact worth mentioning in the article on the British Isles?   We can slip back into OR by implying that this fact means anything.  Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of a misrepresentation of the truth. Shame on you Þjóðólfr.  Here is the actual wording from Michelin.  You can read it yourself at www.michelin.co.uk:
 * "1911: The first Michelin Guide to the British Isles (including Ireland) is published and ran for 5 editions including 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1920 (there was naturally a break in production during the First World War). Production resumed in 1922 when the title was changed to Great Britain (Ireland was not included) and this ran until 1930 to include 1923, 1925, 1927, 1929 and 1930.
 * "1974: The current Great Britain & Ireland Guide was re-launched and has been published continuously ever since. The 1974 edition did not include London which was published as a separate booklet but this was integrated into the main guide the following year. There were 25 one star restaurants in this first edition.
 * This illustrates exactly the problem at the article. Without a direct statement from the publisher, anyone can read whatever they like into the title of an atlas.  As we can see from Michelin themselves, they dropped stopped using the term British Isles in 1922 when they also dropped Ireland.  Þjóðólfr has utterly misrepresented the situation to suggest that they dropped it in 1974 and replaced it with another term.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My quote is VERBATIM - Using exactly the same words; This illustrates exactly the problem with The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick Þjóðólfr (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever, we have the full details now from the publisher. Regardless, you are inferring from it that Michelin stopped using the term.  Not true.  They are still using it, on the web  and in print (2007 publication).  The web quote there is very interesting, because you and others are portraying that publishers have "dropped" the term because of issues relating to Ireland.  Yet, we can see that Michelin are describing Trinity College, Dublin as being "in the British Isles".  This totally and utterly refutes everything you are trying to argue.  Michelin have done no such thing as drop usage of the term.  No such thing.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. I am sympathetic with both sides here. (I acknowledge the relatively recent but important historical reason not to imply that Ireland is "Little Britain". I am also aware that the two islands were once a single inhabited island, one big cultural area – which it still is to an outsider –, and that the politically correct ways to refer to that unit are all a bit defective. Of course some other cultural areas such as Benelux have similar terminological problems even when there is no dispute.) But the more complete quotation clearly establishes that the title was dropped because it no longer applied for a reason unrelated to the dispute, and then 54 years later, when the old title would have applied again, a different title was chosen instead. That's hardly the same as renaming. If there is a general trend you should be able to find better examples. It's not as if this is a very obscure topic, after all. If there is no general trend, it would be misleading to mention a single, weak, example. Hans Adler 09:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Red Hat makes a very important point... While it does seem that, since 1922, Michelin stopped using the term "British Isles" on the cover of their guide, they continue to use the term on the inside of their guide. Thus, it is incorrect to say that as a publisher they no longer use the term.  Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Factual accuracy is not pertinent here. Looking at data set X to establish Y is always original research. And, if no one has previously said something to the effect of " a number of international publications have abandoned the term ", then suggesting it is again original reasearch. Saying something that has never been said before is -- by definition -- original research. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would remind everyone that I have never ever made any claim other than the Bath Chronicle states "The Michelin Guide to the British Isles was published in 1911 and was relaunched as the current Great Britain and Ireland Guide in 1974" I am told regarding this verbatim use of a (secondary? source), This is a bit of a misrepresentation of the truth. Yet the Primary Source states. .."The first Michelin Guide to the British Isles (including Ireland) is published and ran for 5 editions including 1912... The current Great Britain & Ireland Guide was re-launched and has been published continuously ever since."... Wots going on ere then? Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when are they not the British Isles? That's what they were called when I was in school, which was a lot more recently than 1922. And if not, what are they instead? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * British Isles Until 1949 a collective title for Great Britain, Ireland, and the numerous islands surrounding the two larger islands, including the Isle of Man. In 1949 the Republic of Ireland left the British Commonwealth and so could no longer be included in the title. Ref "British Isles" Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names. John Everett-Heath. Oxford University Press 2005./Ref  This would indicate to me that the British Isles are still existence - its just that we should remember to add "and Ireland," if applicable. And yes there are dissenting WP:RS and these should obviously be included in the article juxtaposed the above. But it is confusing and my preference is to avoid the term wherever possible; the context of the sentence normally determines the alternative terminology.   Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Your formulation is misleading in two ways. 1) Since it omits the information that before the relaunch there were 54 years in which it had a third title because it covered a different area your formulation suggests a sudden change of terminology. The reality is much closer to a new, independent choice of title than that. 2) If an encyclopedia article mentions a fact, readers will assume it is either noteworthy in itself (this one isn't) or indicative of a general trend. If that's not true, as seems to be the case here since you are grasping at straws instead of offering proper sources, the article would have to make it clear that this is an isolated example.
 * E.g. the following is justifiable at British Isles naming dispute (but not British Isles, where it's too off-topic): "... The most straightforward solution is the term Great Britain and Ireland as e.g. in the Michelin Great Britain and Ireland Guide, a title that has been used since Michelin extended its coverage to Ireland in 1974. [Footnote: Until 1920 there had been a Michelin Guide to the English Isles]". But that's about the maximum you can get out of this little fact. Hans Adler 14:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mislead believing there were 54 years in which it had a third title and yes I do believe it is indicative of a general, notable, trend - possibly even the earlist example. PS if Your formulation refers to the top of the page I reiterate that that is not my work. Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've inadvertently hit upon part of the problem. British Isles is 3 syllables and Great Britain and Ireland is 6 syllables. That may sound trivial, but people tend to abbreviate things. I'm sure that's part of the reason "British Isles" persists as a name. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't carry your naming dispute over here. The issue in this section is specifically Red Hat's question re: " A number of international publications have abandoned the term ... ". The only thing under discussion on this noticeboard is whether claims like that one are OR or not. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments requested at Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry over synt issue
I am involved in a debate regarding: Catholicism and Freemasonry. We could use some third party involvement to break a stalemate. My contention is that the section under dispute relies on very outdated Catholic sources (such as the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia) to discuss this issue. More to the point, it juxtaposes these outdated sources against modern Masonic statements, as if they are connected. I think this is a WP:SYN violation... my opponent disagrees. Please read the section, the arguments on the talk page at Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry, and comment at the RFC. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Boy-Scoutz n the Hood
recently added the following sentence to the article Boy-Scoutz n the Hood: "The episode title is a play of the film title Boyz n the Hood." He did not provide a source to back it up so I removed it as original research. However, he then brought up some good points on my talk page,, that made me change my mind. So my question is, is that line really original research, or is it okay to use it in the article without citing a reliable source? Thanks,  The left orium  10:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(psst: this is a clue to the solution of your problem :)
 * You don't have a WP:NOR violation in the article. You have a WP:V violation. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Erdős–Bacon number
Can I get some advice on this article? See Talk:Erdős–Bacon_number and my talk page

I removed all the examples given, one at a time, as they appeared to fail WP:NOR. The Erdos-Bacon numbers listed were calculated from supposed Erdos and Bacon numbers; in most cases, the original Erdos and Bacon numbers were not previously published, but were calculated by editors using data from IMDb, or other cast listings, or from academic papers.

None of the resulting Erdos-Bacon numbers were published in reliable sources. The article was a long list of examples of Erdos-Bacon numbers which in no way reflected the coverage of this concept in real-world sources, so breached WP:NPOV.

I took some care to review and remove these individually, but Ward3001 has restored them all without reviewing them, and isn't up for much discussion of the policies. Thanks in advance for any input. --hippo43 (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of the numbers were based in part on IMDb, which for cast lists in a movie is not forbidden as a source on Wikipedia. All the search engine (at University of Virginia) does is use the data from IMDb to do the calculations. So the source is actually IMDb; the search engine simply simplifies the calculation process, just as someone can use a calculator instead of calculating by hand. The Erdos links mostly were calculated using a search engine that finds links among authors of scientific papers. And the claim that I am "not up for much discussion of policies" is a falsehood. I have repeatedly told Hippo43 to please adhere to the policy of consensus, which he has consistently ignored.Ward3001 (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell at the article talk page, there has been no consensus established to keep these examples. Those editors who support including this stuff have not engaged in discussion about the original research. Calculating Bacon numbers from IMDb data via a search engine like this seems like obvious OR to me, as none of the Bacon numbers are published anywhere. Using the results to calculate Erdos-Bacon numbers (or Hippo-Bacon numbers...) seems even more like OR to me. --hippo43 (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No no no, Hippo. The discussion about removing the information is occurring here and on the article's talk page right now. You need consensus to remove legitimately sourced information. No one needs consensus to leave it in the article. If that was the case, most Wikipedia articles would be virtually empty. Ward3001 (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No no no Ward, you don't need consensus to remove original research. You are assuming that the material is adequately sourced, rather than actually reviewing it before reinserting it. Discussion should surely occur before reinserting challenged material, no? --hippo43 (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes yes yes Hippo, you need consensus when there is legitimate disagreement about whether it is original research. And one of my major problems with your edits is that you made them repeatedly with very little discussion, even after you were challenged. Ward3001 (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clear WP:OR here. From WP:OR"This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."Do people even read guidelines or policies anymore?--LexCorp (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can someone tell me where I can find a published authoritative source allowed by Wikipedia guidelines that I can use to cite the following info; 1+1=2? Because apparently under some people's INTERPRETATION of the guidelines in this discussion that too would be not allowed in an article.Camelbinky (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Camelbinky, good to hear from you. When you say "guidelines" you mean "policies", right? And by "INTERPRETATION" you mean "direct quotation"? --hippo43 (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently Camelbinky you might be able to say 1+1=2 if and only if you perform the calculations by hand instead of a calculator in front of a notary public and upload the notarized calculations to Wikipedia and have it verified by an administrator. Maybe. That might also be considered original research. Then you would have to find a published paper by a notable mathematician in which he states that 1+1=2. Ward3001 (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Camelbinky and Ward3001, see this. I wouldn't classify the calculation of the Erdős–Bacon number as routine. Given that there is a certain subjectivity as to how to define the links as stated in the article. Maybe I am wrong.--LexCorp (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "I wouldn't classify the calculation of the Erdős–Bacon number as routine": But I would classify it as routine if done by a computer programs from a computer science department in a major, reputable university, and if the calculations are derived from a reliable source. So you and I disagree. Which gets me back to one of my earlier points. There is legitimate disagreement, thus we need consensus to make a decision. And Hippo's unilateral decison to repeatedly remove information with very little discussion was inappropriate. Ward3001 (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:V, the burden of evidence is with the editor who inserts or restores the material. Consensus about sourcing and methods would need to be reached before you put this rubbish back in. --hippo43 (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And that burden was achieved by the editors who inserted the material with proper sources to begin with. It was then your burden to get consensus to remove it when there was legitimate disagreeement about the adequacy of the sources. And it is your opinion that it is rubbish. You seem to assume that if you consider it original research, there is no further discussion. And if you don't consider something a reliable source, there is no further discussion. And if you consider something rubbish, it should be considered rubbish by everyone. Well, in addition to being incredibly arrogant, that is not the way things work on Wikipedia. We operate by consensus, not by Hippo's decrees. Ward3001 (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How the Oracle of Bacon works is clearly not in the same ballpark as "adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age". --hippo43 (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion. Contrary to your assumption, it's not everyone's opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully admit that I may be wrong but I still fail to see how this can be a routine calculation when the very quantification of the links is subjective as stated in the article. Any programmer of a computer programs from a computer science department in a major, reputable university, will admit to the fact that when he defined how to quantify the links in the program language, he exercised some subjectivity in the matter.--LexCorp (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Any programmer of a computer programs from a computer science department in a major, reputable university, will admit to the fact that when he defined how to quantify the links in the program language, he exercised some subjectivity in the matter.": Let's see the verification from the programmer at the University of Virgina that he/she thinks he/she did anything subjective. Ward3001 (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But I don't need to verify anything. Who calculated the disputed numbers?--LexCorp (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You said "any programmer ... will admit ..." etc. I asked for verification of that from the programmer at UVA. Ward3001 (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NORN states "...provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." Clearly editors do not agree in this case, so it is not acceptable.
 * Given that its application is in calculating Erdos-Bacon numbers, and the sources used don't actually mention Erdos-Bacon numbers, I fail to see how its application "correctly reflects the information published by the sources". --hippo43 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And when there is disagreement on Wikipedia, despite your stubborn unwillingness to accept a core principle of Wikipedia, decisions are made by consensus. The last time I checked the policies, it didn't say that decision by Hippo take precedence over consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. Per WP:NORN, routine calculations are not permitted when there is no consensus that they are kosher, so in this case it is not admissible. --hippo43 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More twisted logic. It says that when there is no disagreement consensus is not needed. It does NOT say that a calculation cannot be accepted by consensus. Your aversion to consensus will not remove it as a policy. It's a core policy. Ward3001 (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I gave my opinion. I am not going any further into the matter as IMHO is neither contentious nor encyclopedic. It is just plain stupid. Let them enlarge the example table ad infinitum for all I care. After all this is a free encyclopedia not a repository for banal information or the reverse is true. I forget which one is the correct definition of Wikipedia.--LexCorp (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion about what is stupid and banal. Fortunately, Wikipedia's policies and procedures are not determined by your (or my) opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to it and free of charge at that.--LexCorp (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing. You are presuming that IMDb data and the Bacon numbers calculated by Oracleofbacon.org are correct. Do you have any basis for this assumption? Where is the consensus that IMDb has correct and full details of every film and every actor? Where is the consensus or evidence that Oracleofbacon's methods are correct (never mind its data set) and that it actually produces the correct Bacon number for a person? --hippo43 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't come up with some solid evidence that the calculations are not accurate, then the acceptability of the calculations is determined by consensus. Once again, your speculation about a calculations inaccuracy does not trump consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, per WP:V, the burden of evidence lies with the editor restoring the material, so unless you can achieve consensus that the material you have restored is acceptable, it will have to go. You seem to be assuming that there is a presumption in favour of material being acceptable until proven otherwise. That's not my understanding of policy. --hippo43 (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And 'again, that burden was achieved by the editors who inserted the material with proper sources to begin with. I'm not repeating that again. You need consensus to remove properly sourced material, or consensus that the sources are not adequate. Repeating your same arguments over and over does not strengthen them. It's as simple as that. And I don't intend to repeatedly respond to the same argument over and over, so this is likely my last edit unless or until a consensus is achieved. Your attempt to refactor this into something improper that was done after you removed information without consensus is meaningless. Otherwise, anyone could wreak havoc on most Wikipedia's articles by removing all of the content and demanding that consensus must be achieved to restore it. That, again, is incredibly arrogant and flies in the face of the way things have been done on Wikipedia time and time again. Ward3001 (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't 'refactored' anything. My reasons for removing this stuff haven't changed. On the other hand, you have offered very little in the way of argument for keeping it, apart from jumping on LexCorp's mention of routine calculations. Can you point me to the section of policy that explains that challenged material has to stay in until consensus is reached one way or another? --hippo43 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Same stale arguments endlessly repeated. I have no obligation to repeatedly respond to the same argument. My final comment: Wait for consensus before making changes. If you don't, I won't hesitate to make a WP:ANI report for edit warring and violating the policy of consensus. And I don't think your fourth block will be for just 24 hours. I'm finished unless there are new arguments. If you want to argue with yourself with the same arguments over and over, be my guest. Ward3001 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And still no answers? A strong argument, elegantly presented. Nice work. --hippo43 (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am always willing to stand up to a bully who thinks his opinion is more important than anyone else's opinion or Wikipedia policies. I'm glad I did nice work. Ward3001 (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My argument all along has been about the policies WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. If you're inclined to address those issues, the discussion might move on. Unless you'd prefer it to get nowhere. --hippo43 (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Already addressed, again and again and again. End of discussion on this particular matter. Ward3001 (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Addressed? Where? --hippo43 (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given my 2¢ over on the talk page, I'm not convinced that a calculation is OR. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside whether a list of previously unpublished Erdos-Bacon numbers is notable, my concern is that the majority of this article is based on a number of assumptions which are at best questionable, or for which there is not currently consensus: This last point strikes me as blatant synthesis - as the Erdos-Bacon numbers are not published anywhere, they seem to be a clear "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material". Moreover, I can't see that a list of previously unpublished Erdos-Bacon numbers reflects coverage in published reliable sources, per WP:NPOV. Likewise, as far as I can tell, none of these Erdos-Bacon numbers are verifiable, per WP:V ("the source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article".) Am I missing a compelling reason to leave this stuff in? --hippo43 (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IMDb is a reliable source in general
 * IMDb is an exhaustive source of film and actor data for the calculation of accurate Bacon numbers
 * Oracleofbacon is a reliable source (rather than a personal site)
 * Oracleofbacon's machinations are 'routine calculations' ("such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age", per WP:NOR)
 * Oracleofbacon produces accurate (i.e. minimal) Bacon numbers
 * the Erdös Number Project is a reliable source (rather than a personal site) and its Data Files produce accurate (minimal) Erdos numbers. Most of the specific examples listed there are qualified by 'at most', yet only two examples in this article are. Why the assumption that the Wikipedia numbers are definitely correct?
 * the AMI's collaboration distance tool (http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/freeTools.html) produces accurate Erdos numbers
 * editors 'citing' unpublished Erdos numbers by listing academic papers (when there may be other, closer links between collaborators) reflects accurate Erdos numbers
 * calculating Erdos-Bacon numbers from these Erdos and Bacon numbers somehow correctly "reflects the information published by the sources from which it is derived" (and would therefore be a routine calculation per WP:NOR).
 * From the linked policy: "This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position." That's the key here.  Synthesis is to avoid leaps in logic and rhetoric.  However, with this mathematics, there is no such leap.  As was said two years ago during one of many prior discussions on this topic (including the attempted deletion three years ago), "I don't see how looking their names up in the AMS database, or an equivalent, is advancing a position of any sort." Calbaer (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SYN is very clear - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."


 * If source A says Calbaer's Erdos number is 5, and source B says Calbaer's Bacon number is 3, then stating (C) that Calbaer's Erdos-Bacon number is 8 is itself "a new position" - a position that is not stated in the sources. --hippo43 (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two factors to consider ... I would agree that simply adding up two numbers is not OR ... however (and this part is the key for me), for us to perform this calculation on Wikipedia those numbers must come from reliable, verifiable sources. In the case of Erdos-Bacon numbers it is necessary that both the Bacon and Erdos numbers are taken from reliable secondary sources. I do not see any evidence that this is the case with the examples that were removed by Hippo. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Hippo removed every example except for Daniel Kleitman, when many others, such as Danica McKellar, are well-documented.  I'm totally for removing unreferenced content, but pruning it to a stub because you don't like the topic (and edit-warring to keep it that way absent any supporting consensus) isn't the way to go. Calbaer (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Danica McKellar's Erdos-Bacon number is not well-documented; there is not a single reference to a reliable source quoting it - it has only been calculated by editors here. It fails WP:V ("The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article"), fails WP:NPOV (as it in no way reflects the subject's coverage in reliable sources) and is a blatant example of original research, specifically synthesis, as I explained above. Moreover, it is at best questionable that her Erdos and Bacon numbers are reliably sourced.


 * I removed these examples individually after checking them, and gave edit summaries referring to policy. They were reinserted en masse, without being checked individually, and without any discussion taking place, so I fail to see why I'm being castigated here. This has nothing to do with not liking the topic. This is about not liking badly edited material. --hippo43 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Hippo43 made a good summary of the necessary elements above.

I don't personally have experience with assessing the reliability of IMDB, but I figure this link is a good start toward establishing that. Additionally, having good information (where it exists) is different from being comprehensive—I don't know the degree to which IMDB has gaps in coverage. With that said, I think that we would need to have some assurance that the data is reasonably good and reasonably complete in order to use it as a source for the input information to the Bacon number calculator. (Without that assurance, it's as if we, the editors, are vouching for its completeness—IMDB explicitly does not vouch for its own accuracy, so we need another way to meet the burden of verifiability.)

The Oracle of Bacon seems to be the one doing the calculation, and would seem on its face to be acceptably reliable. So, I would think that we should cite the Oracle (source of the calculation) and IMDB (source of the input data) when publishing a Bacon number. (If it was obtained from another source, then cite that instead, but don't attempt to duplicate the Oracle's calculation—synthesis or not—because it's probably impractical to assert that in one's capacity a Wikipedia editor, one is in a position to be as thorough as the Oracle claims to be.)

There's also the issue of methodology. This isn't just calculating a standard statistic for which there is no dispute on how to make the calculation—there seems to be debate on which credits to include. That obviously complicates the matter of calculating the numbers. For example, some information can be found here regarding the reliability of certain methods of finding Erdős numbers. There's also a distinction between E#s of the 1st and 2nd kinds (see here). I'm not clear on the calculation method that's been used for Erdős numbers in this article: is it what was described at the Oakland University Erdős number project, using their datasets? Is it using MathSciNet?

If we assume that MathSciNet and/or Oakland's datasets are comprehensive and reliable, it would still be necessary to cite them (as data and calculator, as appropriate).

Within the article, there should be a reference to some reliable source describing the particular implementation of the E-B# algorithm, in addition to the existing sources regarding notability. There should also be a statement that a valid methodology is (for example) IMDB→Oracle+MathSciNet.

I also have to disagree with the way that some of these were cited—namely by citing journal articles themselves. Without even considering the possibility of people with the same name throwing things off, all that's showing is that the E-B# ≤ x, rather than demonstrating with certainty that the number is x. (On the other hand, I think I see what was done: MathSciNet was used, and those were the results, but there was no way to directly cite MathSciNet's output, so the decision was made to cite the articles themselves.) Something needs to be done to clarify whether this is intended as a minimal number, or just an upper bound.

Finally, I'm a little concerned about the purpose of the list: what's the basis for inclusion? TheFeds 19:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard
The real problem is that this is the wrong noticeboard. This way of combining Erdős number and Bacon number is good for a few laughs, but that's it. The huge number of individual references for either someone's Erdős number or someon's Bacon number is obscuring the fact that these numbers were only discussed in blogs and a very small number of newspaper articles that referred to these blogs. This is much clearer in the version without the borderline orginal research, which has only 5 references: 3 to blogs, a defunct one to the Daily Telegraph (updated link: ) and one to a BBC programme about six degrees of separation. 

Since there is no real information out there to base a thorough discussion on, Wikipedians have started making up their own information. Also, the references that I have seen for actors' Erdős numbers were all improper original research because There is no information to support the contention that the actor is the same person as the person of the same name, or with the actor's birth name, who wrote the paper. Even within mathematics, the MathSciNet database is, and has to be, very careful because there are many cases of different people with the same name. But for more obscure people, which probably includes many immediate collaborators of actors, errors are less likely to be found and corrected.

The right way to treat this topic is with at most a paragraph in each of the Erdős number and Six degrees of separation articles, like almost everybody else does. Or perhaps add a very short section about it to collaboration distance (which currently doesn't mention it, which is also fine), as a redirect target, and restrict mentioning it in the other two serious topics to a half-sentence or the See also section. Hans Adler 13:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible OR in Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
An editor added a section to Examination of Apollo Moon photographs based on versions of a NASA photo that were made available at a website. The WayBack website shows that different versions were uploaded over the years - no dispute about that. However the editor interprets this as NASA "doctoring" the photo. An outside editor gave a third opinion, and he agreed that the section should be removed. The editor refuses to accept this. In fact, the editor states that he is the primary source for it. Please read the comments on the talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to mention the idea that NASA has "doctored" the photo on the website, you need a source that says they did this. Without such a source it is indeed OR to say so.  Suggest you also raise this debate at WP:FTN (the Fringe Theory Noticeboard). Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK folks... I think I need some back up. We have a stubborn POV warrior here.  I examined the section in question... and the section has some very serious problems (not just OR... some of the sources being cited don't actually support the claims being made).  I posted a long explanation of what the problems were (as far as OR goes... lack of reliable secondary sources, and using primary sources to support arguments).  Waited three days for a reply (none was forthcoming) ... and deleted.  Only to have the section reverted back in by it's creator.  I don't want to edit war... so I would appreciate it if others would review the situation and help out.
 * (Note... the entire article has similar problems as well. I concentrated on this one paragraph because of Bubba's comment above, but others may want to approach this on an article wide basis... it may be that the best solution is to zap the entire thing.)
 * Thanks Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Update... the article has gone to AFD... and some are making the argument that you have to accept NOR and WP:RS problems in order to achieve NPOV. I don't buy it, I don't think one Policy can trump another... all must be complied with.  Please swing by the AFD and share your views. Blueboar (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Update to the update... AfD result was KEEP. No explanation was given.  So... we are left with an article that is full of OR (as well as serious problems with WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:V and WP:RS).  Please help fix it. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Another map issue
I have a problem, I am working on an article about a railroad bridge that no longer exists, and hasnt since the 1960s. Even though Wikimapia has coordinates for the bridge I can not find any source that shows those are the correct coordinates (though they are obviously very close if not correct). Now, I assume I dont need a source for something like coordinates, but my question is this- is it possible to state in the article that the bridge went from "x street across the river to y island" and use a map from the period in which the bridge existed as a source. Since there simply does not exist (at least not online) ANY source stating that the location on either side and I have looked at every hit from a search on Google and Google Books. Would it be "Original Research" to use a map in this instance.Camelbinky (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It would seem reasonable to just cite the map...presuming it was published by some authoritative source in the first place. If the bridge is obviously labelled on the map, and the streets and islands are named, I don't think there's any possibility for confusion. TheFeds 06:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reading a map is not Original research. Blueboar (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When a source (i.e. the map from the '60s) shows a bridge going from "x street across the river to y island", then it is perfectly fine to state something like "Map M from 196x shows a bridge going from x street across the river to y island". -- Fullstop (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NB (addressed to a certain cretin wikilawyer is often looking over my shoulder): Sources have to be used in context; e.g. one can't use a map of town A when the context is town B.

Falun Gong
The topic area is afflicted with source selection and misuse problems. I am attempting to help mediate the dispute. The current phase of mediation is focused on pointing serious problems and soliciting outside input. I have invited some seasoned uninvolved editors to participate in the editorial process, hoping it will steer things back on track. However, further specialized outside input would be thankfully appreciated. If some regulars from this noticeboard could review the main Falun Gong articles for improper synthesis, source misuse, and original research, it would be very helpful. Correcting the problems and/or a report of the issues at the main article talk page are particularly desirable. Thank you! --Vassyana (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * and related articles (including but not limited to:, , and ).

Lapot (custom)
There are some issues in verifying the claims on this article. Some assistance in getting it up in quality would be appreciated. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, the article has greatly improved. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A specific map issue
Please see File:Av wiki.jpg. Its creator,, is adding it to various articles with an edit summary stating "This is based on latest human migration data and genetics of SE Asia, sourced from Wikipedia itself. This is not fringe theory, but accepted theory,discussed & settled in Wikipedia.". What do we do about such an image? I'll revert him pointing out we don't use Wikipedia as a source, but that still leaves the image and problems if he replaces it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A user created map should be seen as an illustration of things stated in our ariticles... those statements, of course, need to be sourced to reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the guidance. For the Wikipedia audience and contributors it was mentioned image is from Wikipedia source, which I presumed lends more credence. I did not know we cannot source from Wikipedia. However, the image depiction from resources such as Human Evolution Deptt in University of Cambridge etc. In any case, a simple google search will tell any user that latest genetics and human migration research is depicted by the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellSpence (talk • contribs) 02:16, 23 July 2009
 * In other words, it fails our verification criteria at WP:Verify and should not be used in any articles. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As per the message above, the image depiction is verified by the latest research in archaeogenetics of SE Asia in particular. Reliable research mostly done in UK and USA, and some in SE Asia countries, which also to some extent can be relied in conjunction. In fact most of these papers are well cited in Wikipedia itself. (unsigned contribution by User:116.12.240.93)
 * Doug... I think you are taking this too far by saying it can never be used. A map (like any other image) is an illustration.  An illustration is not a source... but neither is it a statement that needs sourcing.  You have to look at where and how it is being used.  If a map is illustrating Wikipedia text that is itself based on reliable sources, then the map is OK.  If it is illustrating Wikipedia text that is OR then it is not.  And if it is illustrating something that is not in the text of a specific article, then it should not be used in that specific article. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Blueboar. I do not get it why anyone would invent anything when it is going to be verified, as we all are trying to make Wikipedia the most reliable information storehouse. The image depiction is based on reliable sources and supports a topic which needs information.
 * Well... unfortunately, not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is trying to make it a reliable information strorehouse. There are some who are contributing in order to push an agenda.  This is especially true when it comes to articles on the history of various peoples and regions of the world... I could definitely see POV warring editors creating a map that shows a disputed region as clearly "their" territory (or historical maps that show that the disputed region has "always been part of their territory").  The key as far as OR is concerned is to be sure that these maps are based on what is stated in the text.  For example, say we had an article on the migration of the Blahblah peoples...  And in the article is text discussing the pro-Blahblah contention that, around the year 200 the Blahblahs inhabited the Disputed River Valley, it is not OR for a user to create a map illustrating that contention.  That said, I would agree that the map should be captioned in a way that makes it clear to the reader that it is illustrating a contention, and not universally accepted fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor (who is the IP above logged out of his account I presume), has replaced it with the caption "The most current accepted theory about the origin of Aryans being in the Indus Valley Civilization itself, and then spreading to India and Iran ca. 3200 BCE.". This is contentious and pov, as well as unsourced. I still maintain that without clear, explicit sources we should not have such maps as they fail our verification criteria. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Without taking any sides, I would like to ask Doug if the map would be ok if the captions were different? Something along the lines of "Here is illustrated one theory about the origin of the Aryans...blah blah blah" and it shows what is talked about in the article, and I stress that it must show what is already SOURCED in the particular article it is being used in. I agree with Blueboar that a user created map does not need a source itself as long as it illustrates SOURCED information already in the same article in which it is being used. Oh, and on a tangent and for the person putting that particular caption that Doug mentions in his last posting- the "Aryans" (ie- Indo-Europeans) WERE NOT the same people who were the creators of the Indus Valley Civilization so the caption is WRONG not to mention POV and OR. The "accepted theory" is not what that user is trying to make it seem in the first place, but that user can take that up with me, and every history and anthropology professor I have ever had, somewhere else.Camelbinky (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dougweller is correct. The image reflects the notorious "Indigenous Aryans" fantasy. No reliable sources support it. Moreover: RussellSpence's repeated attempts to place this image (and a similar one before that) at a number of articles articles is the usual sort of tendentious editing that we are all familiar with. All but two of "RussellSpence"'s edits are attempts to propagate his favorite myth. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Fullstop, you are totally correct in that it is a MYTH as I stated in my post (which you may not have gotten to read, we may have had an edit conflict). The indigenous Aryan fantasy has its supporters and I have no problem with it being mentioned as the belief of "some" but not as the accepted version, and I have no problem with those supporters having a map showing their belief, because it illustrates a belief that has been published and is out there, it is an incorrect belief, but we still have articles and sections on other make-believe fringe theories elsewhere. They are allowed to mention their theories if they are sourced as long as they frame them as they are, fringe theories not accepted by the mainstream. The most common theory I have seen is that the IVC was by the same people we now call Dravidians though this too may be false and is only speculation by archeologists, a fringe theory I have also heard is that they were ethnically similar to the Elamites. Who knows what will be correct? Maybe in a hundred years we will find out that they really were Aryans, but I doubt it, and for now it is only a fringe theory.Camelbinky (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Camelbinky, if a map is created using sources I can check (which hopefully would be in the article), and described accurately -- in other words if it follows our guidelines and policies in the same way a text description does, and if it is clearly supplementing/complementing text in the article and not instead of text, that sounds like something that would enhance an article. But in this case the editor just says he's based it on various Wikipedia articles and other unspecified research and makes a false claim about it -- including on the file itself. File:Av wiki.jpg - oh, that's funny, just hit preview -- I was going to write 'says' but the blue link turned red while I was writing this edit, so it said "Image depiction based on latest human migration data and genetics of SE Asia". Which is just not true. I expect the editor will recreate it, we'll see. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The map matches what is written in the articles. We hardly have any evidence of the concept of Aryans in our literature, except for maybe some fleeting glance, whereas the literature of Ancient Persia & SE Asia is replete with all the detailed Aryan concepts. In the last couple of years, lot of misconceptions have been cleared by researchers in UK, USA, and Japan regarding the IVC culture and its continuity to present times, which is quite remarkable, as it proves any Aryan migration theory was wrong and posits the Persian & SE Asian population to be Aryans themselves. Fortunately, one can read most of these updates here in Wikipedia itself, which is good. I guess Dougweller should update with the latest through a simple Google search on work done by University of Cambridge etc. And I guess we are making Wikipedia as a reliable one-stop source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellSpence (talk • contribs)


 * This would be "remarkable" if it was true. Except, you are just making this up. This isn't "what is written in the articles" on Wikipedia either. Unfortunately for you, you come some four years too late, this entire thing has been debunked as simple Hindutva political propaganda since at least 2005. We even have an article about it, which you should perhaps bother to read, at Indigenous Aryans. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that RussellSpence is never able to be specific about his sources or name any of his researchers. It's probably wise of him not to try, but since he won't, his comments can be ignored. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to read the article "what is written" and the corresponding map. What for did you study in Yale? Just passed exams in low ranks? This Hindutva political propaganda is quite well known and is not 4 years late as you say. Its some 70-80 years old and still exists in some form or the other. This has nothing to do about any notorious "IndigenousAryans" as User:Fullstop writes. If you read the articles carefully with open eye you will see references there itself - about human migration and gentics - scientific work done in University of Cambridge and some from SE Asia with many names; not pseudo-fringe theory. Now can you check those references? Users cannot pull references for your ignorance. You are not the owner of Wikipedia to guide or scuttle any discussion. Or are you assuming this role? In fact this Camelbinky and Blueboar are reading it quite well in an academic way. Fullstop is again ignorant unaware probably just spending wasted time in Wikipedia. Most users here I can see has nothing to do with human genetics or human migration. They are pseudo-readers of philosophical fringe theories. Be scientific and read articles in detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellSpence (talk • contribs) 14:05, 26 July 2009


 * The issue specific to this map is that the justification for it is that "it's based upon the latest research". This is deceptive and on that basis alone it cannot be accepted. It could be accepted with the qualifier that it represented a fringe theory, but that clearly would not be accepted by the contributor. By the way, is the paragraph above from the contributor, RussellSpence, because it fairly insulting! BashBrannigan (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Unable to give any specific references or names, he's resorted to insults. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller...it has nothing to do with references. All references are there in Wiki and internet as such. The map is depicting wht is already written in Wiki. As I said users dont need to pull references to prove it to you. Its a picture accompanying what is written in text in the concerned article. Wherever the picture is placed there is relevant supporting article text. Is that now clear? I am not insulting you, but your area of interest probably does not lie in this domain and you are just policing it without knowing anything about anything. Wiki policing and Wiki contributing are different things. Try to understand this simple difference. No one can fool around in Wikipedia. Everyone knows this since Wiki was born.
 * You're making the "I'm an expert and I know the truth" argument. That doesn't cut it. You need to provide specific citations for facts. Everyone knows this since Wiki was born. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite correct Bugs... a map is an image, not a fact. We allow user created images.  This really comes down to which article you are using the map in...  is the information the map is based upon discussed in that article, and is that information cited in that articles.  If so, then it is not OR to include the map.  Now, there may be other issues that relate to other policies: For example, is the map captioned properly? (that is primarily a WP:NPOV question); Does the map accurately illustrate what is discussed in the article? (this is a WP:V issue).  etc. ... but as far as OR goes, as long as the map is based upon what is said in the article, it is not OR. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No one can make 'I am expert type' of article in Wiki. This is not a private publication. Everyone knows this. Wiki is in public domain. Baseball Bugs, if you do not have any idea of the subject domain, then please make your comments thoughtfully. Don't just type in a few words because you have a text box to type in. It has been told multiple times that the image is a depiction of the written text, is related to the article, where references are already there to see, and is placed in all articles wherever it matches the text.
 * Yet they're not buying it. Maybe you should try using actual citations. Oh, and please sign your posts using 4 tildes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actual citations are mentioned in the articles where the map relates. Do you want to mend Wiki rules by repeating citations. And stop commenting like a backside Baseball match spectator. You probably have never handled a Baseball bat properly. Play it, then you will know. For your simple brain, don't type in a few words, if you do not have any idea about the subject domain or have not read what the articles are saying and have not seen that all citations are given in the relevant articles. The map will be uploaded in the relevant paragraphs of articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

the image is a home-grown (idiosyncratic) illustration of the general Out of India scenario, adorned with a few home-grown (idiosyncratic) comments and clip art. A scenario that is thoroughly debunked as pseudoscientific propaganda in the dedicated article, but which is neverthless notable enough to at least be discussed in a dedicated article.

If the image was unambiguous about whose scenario it illustrates, e.g. "illustration of the Out of India scenario acccording to K. Elst (1999)", it could obviously be used to illustrate the Out of India article. As it stands, it is unencyclopedic as just some guy's attempt to draw a map about his personal understanding of the topic. The image was correctly deleted as unreferenced and unencylopedic. If the image was re-uploaded as just the map with the arrows, leaving out the naive commentary and the cheesy clip art, we could with some charity accept it as a bona fide illustration of Elst (1999) and include it in the Out of India article. As long as this editors editor insist on uploading the map "watermarked" with text making wildly inaccurate claims, there is no way this image can be put to any encyclopedic use. --dab (𒁳) 14:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dab, I am confused... on one hand you say that with an appropriate caption it has an appropiate use (ie as an illustration of the Out of India theory)... but then argue that it has no encyclopedic use. You can't have it both ways. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotes
I would like to find out if direct quotes can ever be original research. I can understand that someone can be quoted out of context, or that an editor can string together a series of quotes in such a way as to advocate a certain point of view. But is a direct quote from a reliable source ever in itself original research. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We would need to see the specific quote and how it appears in the article to know if there is an OR issue with the specific quote in question. That said, in general terms... simply qouting someone is not OR, while quoting out of context, providing unsourced analysis or commentary about the quote, or stringing together several quotes to argue a position would be. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will provide some examples. But this is a general question, since the term "original research" is the most often used quote that editors use when they disagree with content. I personally believe that a direct quote is never original research, if indeed the quote is accurate and is attributed correctly. This doesn't mean that direct quotes are infallible material, there may be other problems with direct quotes or how they are used in an article, but original research shouldn't be one them. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some statements and quotes that I used in the article Genetic history of Europe. They have been dismissed as original research, not neutral and unreliable by other editors on the page.

statement in article Footnotes and quotations to support this statement include:

Wapondaponda (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It may not be OR, but it's definitely POV because you're using older research, and ignoring newer findings, in order to deliberately mislead. Europeans don't have haplogroup E or even E3b. They have recently discovered subclades of E3b (E-V13 and E-M81), which are now considered unique haplogroups whose origins lie in West Asia and North Africa, respectively. Hence, they're not Sub-Saharan African, and you're manipulating outdated sources to draw a false conclusion.  Small Victory (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Haplogroup E, technically is "Macrohaplogroup E". Because there is no single clade that defines haplogroup E, all are subclades that have accumulated their own unique mutations. So E-V13 is no more, or no less haplogroup E than say E1b1a. What defines haplogroup E is simply two mutations called M40 and M96. If these two mutations are identified in any y-chromosome, it is assigned to macrohaplogroup E. There are of course other mutations that will define the subclades within Haplogroup E. For example, the M215 and M35 mutations define E3b. If any y-chromosome is found to possess these two mutations, in addition to M40 and M96, it is assigned to Haplgroup E3b. E-V13 just has an extra mutation that occurred after its carriers left Africa. A mutation on the Y-chromosome occurs something like every 5,000 years, so even when humans left africa, Haplogroup E continued to generate new mutations, this doesn't disrupt the phylogenetic relationship it has with other Haplogroup E subclades. So it is wrong to say the Europeans don't have haplogroup E or E3b, because they have all the aforementioned mutations. Specifically Frudakis states:"Specifically, Europeans contain the E3b subhaplogroup, which was derived from haplogroup E in sub-Saharan Africa and currently is distributed along the North and East of Africa." To cut a long story short, the quotes are still accurate as the articles continue to be referenced.

Wapondaponda (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Consequently, the Berbers would be improperly labeled as Sub-Saharan Africa because they currently are Saharan and super-Saharan, and from a recent ancestry perspective, their genetic markers identify them as being on paleo N. African ancestry. There are even recent papers suggesting backflow from Europe to N. Africa. Consequently the E1b1b1b migration as most recently presented in the literature is parsimonious with much older studies. These papers indicate the contribution of European markers to the N. Africans that can be dated to the Last Glacial Maximum thereofore it would have been difficult for that contribution to have occurred if this people were not in the Strait of Gibralter region and loosely stayed in that region for a duration of time.
 * I can explain the problem. Suppose you have a genetic marker I will call hY-A Y for human Y chromosomal marker and researchers use Y-A to discuss the dispersion within a population. So for example in human Y-A is found along the upper nile, Europe and SW Asia. So that papers that discover and characterize Marker A can claim there is a recent genetic relationship between peoples who bear Marker A. Now lets say another study (often the same researcher) finds that Marker A can be refined into hY-A1, -A2, -A3, . . . .-A7. And that new research shows that only marker A1 and Marker A2 are found between say Africa and Europe. IN addition they find the most likely point of Exit for A2 is Morocco, and the Most likely point of exit for A1 is Egypt via the Middle East via Neolithization.
 * In this example hY-A is equal to E3b the old ambiguous name for E1b1b. E1b1b gave rise to E1b1b1 which then gave rise to E1b1b1a to E1b1b1b.(IOW hY-A is not one, but two levels removed from the A1 and A2, the Y-chromosomes known to have left Northern Africa for points elsewhere (along with other Ax markers).  E1b1b1b is modal in Central and Southern Morocco and there is a secondary mode in N Iberia (Basque). E1b1b1a is found through out the mediterranean and appears to have entered Eurasian via the Sinai corridor. E1b1b* the name for the ancestral form has only been found in 3 individuals in East Africa, the ancestral form had not apparently left Africa. There is known dispersion of genetic markers from NW Africa to Western Europe A30-Cw5-B18-DR3-DQ2 (HLA haplotype) and the Basque, Portuguese, S. Iberians are frequently elevated in these markers. The markers are enriched in a people known as the Berber which are of mixed paleoN.African/Afro-Asiatic/Subsaharan African origin (mostly the first by HLA markers).
 * Editor X wants to wants to selectively use information, the new phylogenetics points to an origin of Marker A in the region of the nile close to the horn of Africa, but he wants to use this information but then disregard the information on the distribution of A1 and A2, which does not suggest direct admixture of SSA with Europeans, but admixture of A1 and A2 with other North Africans, and then admixture of these North Africans into SW Asian or Middle Eastern population. Editor X has done this on several pages turning those pages into train-wrecks, because other editors feel compelled to counter quote creating a battle of quotations. In this particular case, since the argument was failing with E1b1b, Muntuwandi decided to go back to using the outdated (and confusing) nomenclature so that he could draft outdated research and quotations to provide support for his claims, again in his general effort to turn other pages into train-wrecks.
 * Don't feel bad if this information is hard to understand, I was called into to help solve a dispute on the E1b1b page where an edit war between Muntawandi, Sophian, and others had been going on for quite some time. I eventually ended up rewriting half the page so that it would be minimally comprehendable to a high-school graduate (at least the lead sections). The page was a wreck of trivialities and quotations that really made the page difficult to read. There is an overall problem on the Genetic history of Europe because conflicts of interest between editors and thier desire to promote certain ideas (In the case of Muntawandi, these ideas are often supported by outdated research based on techniques that have been abandoned) and the constant bickering between anti-'afrocentrist' to deal with the problem. Muntawandi's use of these older and less definative research results is a major problem with this page, IMHO.PB666 yap 15:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Muntuwandi|Wapondaponda and Small Victory, most of us have no idea what the hell you two are talking about. If you are going to get into topic specific debates, may I suggest that you take the discussion back to the article talk page... where others who do know the topic are likely to see it and opine.  Focus the discussion here on OR issues. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to go off track, but you did ask for some examples. The main issue is direct quotes that are correctly attributed generally do not constitute original research, since they are not an original idea created by the editor who has added them to an article. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pdeitiker, I think we should stick to a discussion about when and when not direct quotes are original research. Specific issues should be discussed on the talk page, not here. So I have moved the long discussion into the collapsed section above. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When you quote, the source where you got the qoute is a primary source (for the quote). Primary sources may be used... but only with care because it is very easy to misuse them. Quotes can be taken out of context.  They can be used to imply things that are not stated in the original. In other words, we have to be very cautious about how we use quotes... On its own, quoting is not OR, but the misuse of quotes can be.  As for the specifics of your article... the subject matter is too complex for me to know if the quotes are being misused, so I will not opine.
 * However, it does seem from the comments you collapsed (correctly in my opinion) that there are more issues here than just OR here. I'll give two examples: 1) I gather that the source you are quoting from may be considered obsolete, if so then quoting from it would probably be inappropriate. 2) Even if the source is not obsolete, quoting to such an extent may give undue weight to a particular viewpoint.  In short, I would think twice about the quotes if I were you. Find a way to summarize the information. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with what most of what you state. Firstly, what I am quoting is not obsolete. One study is widely referenced through the article. . I don't want to get into too much detail, but if need be, I can even provide quotes from 2009. In fact one of the direct quotes that I have proposed is from a 2009 study . I agree that quoting to a large extent may give undue weight, so like you suggested, I provided summaries in the text, and links using the group/note feature to direct quotes. Pdeitiker, don't take too much credit for the E1b1b article. As far as I can see the only major rearrangement was forking E1b1b1a article, which was essentially a copy and paste move. Much of the article remains the same as before. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your right about about one thing Muntuwandi, I should not take credit for E1b1b, Andrew Lancaster apparently did alot of work, particularly trying to keep you 3 'edit warriors' in line. But that was apparently not enough to keep you guys from trashing up the page, we both worked together to fix it.
 * I will make the admins a suggestion here, if you guys bring forth a AfD for the Genetic History of Europe, I would support deleting it. In it current state the article, and the editwarring between Muntawandi, Small Victory, and Sophian, eventually, will labor the 'complaint boards'. All of the participants of the war as stubborn to the ends of the earth pushing their anti-NPOVs so I generally expect that article to remain a train-wreck, a thorn in the sides of the wiki community, and of no general benefit to the encyclopedia (due to its lack of encyclopedic and relevant/current content)PB666 yap 18:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotes summary of dispute
I will try to summarize the dispute to enable editors who are not specifically familiar with the dispute to have a better understanding. The locus of this dispute concerns a specific genetic marker. This genetic marker, called E3b, occurred as a mutation on a man living in Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa, about 22,000 years. All the descendants of this man carry this genetic marker. From East Africa, some descendants of this man stayed put, others descendants migrated south reaching south Africa and others migrated North. Our dispute concerns those who migrated Northwards. Descendants of this man migrated North along the Nile river reaching the Sudan/Egypt region by 17,000 years ago. By 13,000, migrants carried the E3b marker from Egypt into the Middle East. Between 13,000 years ago and 4,000 years ago migrants carried this lineage from the Middle East into Europe. Simplified Timeline So depending on the timeline one chooses, one could refer to this genetic marker as Sub-Saharan, North African, Middle Eastern and European. If one takes a more comprehensive view, one could consider the marker Sub-Saharan. If one looks at more recent periods, it could be considered North African, Middle Eastern or even European. The dispute concerns when to start the clock. I have proposed to start the clock with the emergence of this marker in Sub-Saharan Africa. My opponents in this dispute prefer to start the clock when this marker is in North Africa and Middle East and would like to ignore periods before. Within the scientific community there is no set standard, some publications use the macro or comprehensive view referring to it as African or Sub-Saharan, and others use the micro views referring to the marker as having North African or Middle Eastern origins. This image from Semino et al 2004 illustrates the different subclades that appeared at different times. Fig A shows a comprehensive view of the E lineage, whereas figures B to G represent specific subclades of E that appeared at different times. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Before 17,000 E3b is predominantly in Sub-Saharan Africa.
 * 17,000-13,000 E3b is in North Africa(predominantly in Sudan and Egypt)
 * 13,000-4,000 E3b is in the Middle East
 * After 4,000 is definitely in Europe

Question about original research: Redux
I was directed here when I asked a question about OR on the project talk page (original text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&action=edit&section=9) An example would be my edit to the Metal Slug 2 page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal_Slug_2&oldid=270194095) where I added factual trivia, but was later removed. The question still stands; should I back stuff like this up everytime with a screenshot, as I am assuming just linking to some fansite that states the same thing without evidence is not a valid source, even if many people who have played the game know it? Aren't trivia sections afterall directed mostly to people who are interested in the subject and not to just random passbyers who happen to read the article, and thus delete the sections because they have no idea that it's really true? Thank you. --80.223.127.229 (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Frist, we really discourage having Trivia sections in our articles (see: WP:TRIVIA). Second, the bit of trivia you added is indeed Original research... in order to comment on the possibility that a scene in the last stage of the game is taken straight from the movie Independence Day, you need to be able to cite a reliable source that has made this observation.  A screenshot is not enough. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is exactly my point. In other words, it's rather pointless to edit Wikipedia since all the edits will be deleted because their claims weren't from sources that YOU find reliable. --80.223.127.229 (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I find reliable is dictated by WP:Reliable Sources, and is not some arbitrary determination. If you are not willing to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines then it will be pointless for you to edit Wikipedia.  Or you can accept our policies and guidelines, and contribute a lot.  That's up to you. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Original Research edit war on Genetic history of Europe by Muntuwandi:
User: Muntuwandi continues Relentlessly to add this information to the Genetic history Of Europe article ''were able to detect low levels of West African admixture in Europe in regions where Haplogroup E was present. ref group="">Halder et al state. "We observed patterns of apportionment similar The source does not say where Haplogroup E was present. and he also continuously adds this low levels of African admixture (2.8–10.8%) mirroring the distribution of Y E3b haplogroups among various Eurasian populations. Auton et al detected a South-to-North cline of West African haplotypes in Europe with peak frequencies in Iberia. The authors suggest that this cline is indicative of gene flow directly from West Africa and not necessarily from North Africa ref group="">Auton et al state."The article does not state of Y E3b haplogroups among various Eurasian populations. '' This is OR at its finest. This user continually adds this Original research to that article as can be seen below.


 * Diff:


 * Diff:

The Count of Monte Cristo. (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff: the list goes on and on but I will leave it here
 * Count, most of us do not understand what an hopalong-group is, nor do we care... but we do care about original research. Can you please explain why the edit is, or is not, OR without using all the technical goblety gook. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See my comments in section Direct quotes, you guys have fun.PB666 yap 18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is detailed attribution OR?
It was suggested (here, diff to article content rv) that stating in article whether a cited source discusses an issue in detail or in passing is OR. In this case several sources are cited, mentioning the Suwałki Agreement in a passing sentence or two, that state A, and a detailed chapter in a book dedicated to the Agreement states B. I believe that it is important (and not OR in any way) to clarify this difference in the article, so that the numerical weight of sources that state A does not outweigh a work that is dedicated to the issue and concludes B. If the quality of reference is not discussed, the reader may be misled to thinking that "most scholars who studied the issue in detail think A" while in fact "authors who briefly looked at the issue think A but an expert who studied the issue and dedicated a book chapter to it thinks B". Another editor disagrees, and prefers a version that states, roughly "Numerous sources state A, historian X states B" without any mention that out of all those sources, only historian X has dedicated more then a sentence or two (an entire chapter...) to that issue. I further think that such a version removing this clarifications is misleading the reader and thus a form of weaseling. Comments appreciated, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As explained in the historiography section, these two A and B viewpoints are as old as the agreement itself. They are two valid political and diplomatic positions of two countries in a conflict. Putting weight or any kind of emphasis on sentence vs chapter based on available sources (I am sure there is a book with a chapter dedicated to defending A somewhere, just not readily available) is purely OR. Renata (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Renata, be serious. If you can find a reliable source that argues for A, find it - saying that "it has to be out there somewhere" is not a good research practice. Currently as things stand we have a bunch of sources that in passing sentence repeat the claim of Lithuanian prewar diplomacy, and a source that in detailed chapter debunks it. We cannot say that those are equal - and do note that this is even not what your version is saying; your version is trying to create an impression that majority of sources support the Lithuanian version, and a single scholar dissents - which would be fine if we had any indication that the authors of those multiple sources did any research other than repeating, uncited, a fact of minor importance to them and their book, while Łossowski has obviously done much research and analysis on the subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with both wordings... I detect a degree of POV pushing from both sides. May I suggest that editors focus on outlining the two viewpoints, and not on attempting to discredit the sources from the veiwpoint they disagree with. Find a third way to discuss the issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you as an outsider unrelated to Lithuania nor Poland could suggest a proper, neutral wording? I certainly agree my version lacked elegance, at the very least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would simply outline the Lithuanian view, then outline the Polish view, and omit the discussion of how detailed the various source are entirely. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, we don't have AFAIK any sources showing us a modern Lithuanian view. We have a modern Polish book by an expert on the subject (Piotr Łossowski) who dedicates a book chapter to that issue, and a selection of more or less modern books in English language which mention the treaty in a passing sentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously those passing sentences represent a particular viewpoint (or this would not be an issue). Am I correct in assuming that this was what you refer to above as the "Lithuanian version"?  Where did they get this viewpoint from? Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly from Léon Bourgeois, then President of the Council of the League of Nations, which brokered the S. agreement. A few days later (October 14th): he said: "The occupation of Vilna (Vilnius) is a violation of the commitments concluded with the Council of the League of Nations..." (L'occupation de Vilna est donc une violation des engagements pris vis-a-vis du Conseil de la Société des Nations.) . Lossowksi's viewpoint is minority from an international standpoint, not just a Lithuanian one. Anyone can check this by doing a Google book search on Suwalki Vilnius 1920. But it would be bad form to tack on 20 more references. Novickas (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK... If it is a minority viewpoint, that can be noted... but we still need to discuss it neutrally. What we need to avoid is the attempt to denegrate one viewpoint or the other through editorial commentary about the sources. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. At some point it read something like "While there is a widely held viewpoint that the Agreement granted Vilnius to Lithuania (about 6 refs), this has been disputed in Polish historiography (couple refs)." Could you weigh in on that wording? And on how many refs to use for the first clause? Novickas (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More neutral... but I do have questions... Is the viewpoint really "widely held"? If so, is there a source that notes this fact.  Question, is there anyone outside of Poland who disputes the "widely held" view (if so we should not say "...disputed by Polish historiography" - in fact, the term "Polish historiography" seems convoluted, why not say "Polish scholars" instead)?  Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Would EB's take constitute widely-held? "The League of Nations arranged a partial armistice (Oct. 7, 1920) (my note: that's the date of this Agreement) that put Vilnius under Lithuanian control and called for negotiations to settle all the border disputes." . 2) Maybe some historians outside Poland disagree with EB and all the rest - I can only say I haven't found any. 3) The phrase disputed in Polish historiography was introduced by another editor, don't know who or when, and was sourced at the time to sites in Polish, so I thought it best to leave it as it was. Regards, Novickas (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the whole idea that "an opinion of a scholar who has dedicated a book chapter to the subject should be given more weight then an opinion of a scholar who has dedicated a sentence to it" seems to be extremely dangerous if used anywhere else... For, well, the points of view are not equal in amounts of text that can be written in support of them. The "simple", "obvious", "default" position is likely to be supported by much shorter explanations than "complex" position (unless there is a need to answer some counterarguments). For example, the "simple" position that some perpetuum mobile doesn't work can be supported by one sentence - "If it would work, it would violate the first law of thermodynamics." - there isn't much else worth saying. However, the "complex" position that it does work can be supported by a whole book (explaining how a vast conspiracy has fabricated the evidence in favor of the first law of thermodynamics etc.) - and all that without making it the majority position. Of course, majority position can also be "complex", but then we would be likely to have some additional evidence and not just the amount of text written in support of it... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point... the amount of space devoted to an argument does not always equate to effective argument. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Communist genocide
Hi, I would like more input on whether or not this page is considered original research. Thanks,  Triplestop  x3  03:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:CANVASS. You cannot post in this way when the article is in AFD. --Joklolk (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This wasn't Canvassing. Asking a noticeboard and it's no doubt numerous opinions to come take a look at something is /not/ canvassing. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to "original images"
The way the section at WP:NOR now reads, if an "original research" violation occurs with regard to the construction of an illustrative image, the suggested fix to the offense is to take the image to ifd. Here's the problem. A knowledgeable Wikipedian who constructs an image is more likely to grant it to public domain or register it under a Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike license on Commons. And any deletion discussion on Commons is not going to care if the image is original research."Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with  the Neutral point of view and  No original research requirements  imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites."

- Project scope/Neutral point of view

Now walk through this with me. Say I am the creator of this image on Flickr. (Of course, I'm not -- just sayin for the purpose of this hypothetical that I am.) And let's say in addition that each of the images I made this composite out of are free use. And I upload it to Commons, using a license that in turn is completely free use.

Then someone uses it on some Wikipedia page, in a context where the image's aspects of "original imagery" would not be appropriate. How in the world would the following suggestion within the Original Images guideline "Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be posted to Files for deletion" be of any help in this instance? In other words, should an original images be held to convey an editorial opinion inappropriate to the context in which it is used on Wikipedia, wouldn't simply not using the image be the accepted guideline? -- with such unused images deleted if they are orphaned on Wikipedia (or else simply not used on Wikipedia, in the case of images that happen to be hosted on Commons)?

Please do chime in if you've some suggestion, say, to supplement the WP:OI guideline to account for the scenario I present -- or else defend the way the section is worded now -- or whatever else you'd like to address (if anything). ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  18:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point (although it is far more likely that the person placing an image in an article is the same person who created it, your senario could happen). I would suggest that the language be restated as: "Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be deleted from the article and a note should posted at the file page informing users that the file contains Original Research.  It is also suggested that the file be  posted to Files for deletion" (suggested change in bold).
 * Posting the image file at FfD is really secondary to removing it from the article. As long as a note is left on the image file page letting people know that the file contains OR, it does not really matter if it stays in Commons.  The key is preventing the file from being misused, not removing it from Wikipedia entirely. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * a) Blueboar is right. The key is to inhibit image misuse, not inhibit image storage. The two are not even necessarily related. After all, even if an image is OR in one context, it is not automatically also OR in another context. It could still have legitimate use.
 * b) Despite the treatment of images as somehow special, the basic concept of NOR applies to images as well. That is: images, like text, may not represent a novel idea. To put it another way: if someone were to describe a certain picture in words, that description could not violate NOR. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I have been BOLD and amended the section with my suggested language... we will see if others approve. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. And in my opinion your additions to WP:OI were most excellent, Blueboar (as Bill or Ted would say!) ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  11:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing here for your comments at a deletion discussion on Commons
Note that what follows is what is hoped is an entirely neutrally worded notice per the guidelines at WP:CANVASSING. Hey, people, there is an actual image that happens to be on Commons right now that has, in fact, been described by some as presenting an unacceptable level of original research through its composition. This image has been nominated for deletion from Commons, with  -- to which any interested editors are invited to contribute. Thanks. ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  18:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Identity control theory
Please take a look. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review/Macedonia (terminology)/archive2
There are claims of OR on this featured article  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Clara Elsene Peck
I'm in the process of reviewing Clara Elsene Peck as a good article. The heavy use of primary sources is a concern for me. I don't see anything approaching original research, but the demarcation between using primary sources appropriately and making novel statements about those sources is very thin. I'm a little too close to the article as a reviewer to remain objective at this point so I would like a second opinion. On the one hand, there is very little material on the subject, and the priamry editor has used these sources to make simple observations about the subject. For example, one statement says, "She continued to work on magazine illustrations until at least 1935." I don't believe we have secondary sources that actually say that, and from what I can tell, the writer simply looked at the artist's oeuvre and made that observation. Could someone take a look at the article and remove anything egregious? I would like to finish cleaning up the prose and MOS and pass it, but I'm concerned about the use of primary sources here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ramapough Mountain Indians
I've come across this article several times, and each time it gets worse. Almost 3/4 of the entire article is original research and written as a soapbox/diatribe against those who disagree with the editor's very supportive take on this group. It is almost entirely opinion and original research, with cites in some areas. Can anything be done? The most prevalent editor is an edit-war type. Thank you.68.255.100.149 (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Beatitudes
has been adding OR/synthesis to Beatitudes since 2007. I happened upon these edits about four months ago and have been involved in a prolonged revert war with him ever since. I requested outside help at WT:Christianity as I'm sure they have dealt with this type of issue before, and someone from that WP agreed with my position. Over the last week or so he's been back at it, culminating in this edit, which I reverted. As before, I need an outside opinion. Thanks. KuyaBriBri Talk 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Poss OR on Chabad messianism
I believe that the following statement in Chabad messianism: "According to Zalman Shmotkin, director of the non-messianist website chabad.org ...", claiming that chabad.org is non-messianist, is original research, and I've been unable to locate any sources (even from chabad.org) that support this claim. Two other editors disagree with me. Please provide input to help reach consensus.  -shirulashem (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion was initiated on my talkpage, moved to the article's talkpage, and now here. The opinion of Zsero and me is that this is not original research, since it is obvious. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I can give you a complete outsider's view... since I know next to nothing about the Lubavitch movement, nor care one way or the other. First, question... what makes the statement obvious? Blueboar (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusive proof is opening the site, pressing the button for "The Rebbe" and reading "The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson of righteous memory". Messianists don't consider him dead. But actually it is obvious in another way. All the messianist sites necessarily show a yellow flag with the word "Moshiach" and the sentence "Yechi etc." (or its English translation). This site has neither, and is thus marked at once as non-messianist. Debresser (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are not "obvious" signs to an outsider. And I don't think that is enough to say the website (or rather the organization behind it) is non-messianist.  Christianity is messianist, and Christians believe Jesus died... the key is that they believe Jesus was the Messiah.  Besides, Judeism in general is messianist (although only the Lubavitchers believe Schneerson was the Messiah... other Jews believe the Messiah is yet to come).  Am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, In this case, "chabad messianism" means something different than the messianism you're thinking about. Judaism also is "messianist" in the sense that belief in a messiah is a core component of the religion. Chabad messianism refers specifically to the those members of Chabad who believe that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was the messiah. All the more reason that this is "original research".  -shirulashem (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually "chabad messianism" means those who believe the LR was and continues to be the messiah, and that publicising this fact is the core mission of every Lubavitcher. Many non-messianists may privately hope, or even believe, that the LR will return and become the messiah, but they see no need to talk about it to all and sundry.  They see Lubavitch's mission as spreading Judaism and Chassidus, and raising awareness of the messiah in general, not the promotion of a specific person's claims to that status.  That is the real distinction between messianists and non-messianists, and chabad.org is very obviously non-messianist, just as chabad.info is very obviously messianist.  All it takes is two minutes looking at each of them to see the difference.  -- Zsero (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 *  -shirulashem  is right about the specific meaning of "messianist" in this context. Now, as to our subject. For any Lubavitcher, both messianist as well as not, as well as for large segments of general Jewry, this is obvious at first glance. Logically, a complete outsider will not see this right away. But that is not yet reason to call this research. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Debresser, Let's try this another way. According to WP:OR, "The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category [Original Research] is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material." Can you produce a reliable published source that says that chabad.org is not messianist?  -shirulashem (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is nonsense. Do you need a source before you describe a web site as "English-language" or "Hebrew-language"?  Of course not.  It is obvious to anyone who looks at it and is capable of recognising the language in question.  Someone who doesn't know what the language looks like will not be able to see it, but that doesn't make it need a source.  That chabad.org is not messianist is just as obvious, to anyone who knows what Chabad messianism is and what it looks like.  -- Zsero (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I just tried, but couldn't find it. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK... thanks for the explanation. Given the comment immediately above, my call would be to simply remove the discriptive term (ie have the line read: According to Zalman Shmotkin, director of the website chabad.org ...").  Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think removing it is the only option now.  -shirulashem (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea to me. Debresser (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So done as per consensus here. Feel free to check. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's nonsense. See above.  Nobody who is qualified to form an opinion on the matter can possibly look at the site without concluding that it is non-messianic.   Until someone addresses my comments directly, and offers a convincing rebuttal, I disagree with removing that label.  -- Zsero (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "qualified to form an opinion"? The whole point of Wikipedia is that EVERYONE is qualified to form an opinion. I'll reiterate my earlier policy quote: "The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category [Original Research] is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material." You might think it's "nonsense", but that's the policy, and I think it's a pretty reasonable one.  -shirulashem (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If a prisoner makes no demands, due to a fast, other than from God
would the same constitute a "hunger strike" or, not constitute a "hunger strike," per se? Can an excercise of the self-denial of substanance whose intention is one of ascetic theology rather than of worldly protest nonetheless be termed a strike? Do Gitmo prisoners doing so all "hunger strike"? or should some of these "fasters-to-the-point-of-convulsiveness-and-forced-feedings" not be termed to be doing so, depending on if they have made any overt demands?

How about the case of "the Suu Kyi swimmer," John Yettaw, or that of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints prisoner in Arizona, Warren Jeffs?

If there are competing secondary sources, is picking one or the other of them engaging in "original research"? Eg John Yettaw's lawyer says his was no "hunger strike" but a spiritual practice. But news sources are prone to call it a hunger strike. Here are various reports found from googling "hunger strike," "Yettaw".

Likewise, Warren Jeffs' doctor (among others) has said (quote) that Jeffs was "drinking some but is not eating as he is fasting for 'spiritual strength,"' according to a copy of an e-mail made part of a court document (end of quote). Yet, here is the googling of "hunger strike," "Warren Jeffs." Who should we accept as an arbiter of such terms, Jeffs himself or the New York Times'? ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now'''  13:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Macmillan Encyclopedia of Death and Dying : (2003) ...leaves it somewhat vague -- "A true hunger strike represents a competent individual's intentional refusal to eat and or drink for some specific purpose."
 * Columbia Encyclopedia : (2008) ...specifies the "protest" angle, nonetheless it puts a fine spin on some exemplars: "[...]Mohandas Gandhi in India and Cesar Chavez in California fasted as religious penance during otherwise political or economic disputes." ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  16:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we drop our own pose of "neutrality" and at least try to climb into Mr. Yettaw's shoes for just a sec, from his point of view, wouldn't he be involved in a political (and, yes, true, too, criminal) conflict with Myanmar, yet one of the only thing he had fully in his power to do about it was for him to try and seek the mind of God? And would this be essentially or materially any different from what Cesar Chavez and Mohandas Gandhi were doing, again, according to the points of view of these fellow players on the stage of conflict, the progressive icon Chavez and the patriot-and-saint Gandhi? Or, for that matter, the Irish Republican Army martyrs imprisoned in the UK, or mujāhidīn imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, or the "the Prophet" Warren Steed Jeffs imprisoned in the State of Arizona? ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Heres an interesting quote:"I propose that what is definitive about self-starvation is the changing socio-cultural blueprint: it detemines whether fasting will be construed in religious terms as 'holy anorexia,' in medical terms as 'chlorosis,' in psychiatric terms as 'anorexia nervosa,' or in political terms such as 'hunger strike.' Quote of some kind in a paper about Clarissa" ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  14:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The news sources are irresponsible. Yettaw was not on a hunger strike. He was not doing it for political reasons. He was fasting in hopes of having a visionary experience. Kingturtle (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that such a "visionary experience" would increasingly include images of pizzas and hamburgers. If a fast calls attention to oneself, how is it not politically motivated? A guy could simply tell the prison personnel he's on a self-imposed diet and leave it at that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The NYT seems to call it a self-imposed fast . Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops! So it does. When I cursored over the link on the NYT page that led to the article, it showed a hed or caption that included a phrase mentioning Jeffs' "hunger strike" -- but you're right, when you go to the article there is no mention of that. Sorry. ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  14:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not actually up to us though to decide, although statements can and should be attributed -- ie "'such and such report' calls it a hungerstrike but Yettaw's lawyer says x and his doctor says Y." Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There ya go. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs. Even if he doesn't announce his intentions, when authorities see he isn't eating, they will probably ask why. Yettaw has a history of visionary experiences, such as he's the defender of the oppressed, that sent on a journey by God to protect Suu Kyi, a premonition of his son's death, and where his estranged father lived. His fast was probably not to call attention to his case, but to receive a message to tell him what to do next. Kingturtle (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Messages from God, eh? Well, we go by reliable sources. Not that God is not reliable, but He doesn't have His own website up and running yet. Problems with the agency He outsourced it to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget that God tends to be published in Dead Tree format... or even, for some of his early works, in Clay Tablet or Carved Rock formats (he apparently did try Burning Bushtm at least once, but as that was not a permanent recording medium, this is unverifiable). Also, please note that there is great debate as to the authenticity of many of the works attributed to Him.
 * To get back to the issue at hand, however, Bugs has it right... it is not up to us to use "self-imposed fast", "hunger strike" or some other term. We should use whatever terms are used by reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a current news quote (wrt Yettaw): " Yettaw went on hunger strike  after his arrest, which resulted in a series of epileptic fits that saw him hospitalised in early August, delaying the verdict in his and Suu Kyi's trial." ↜Just  M &thinsp;E her''e&#8202;,&#8202;now  14:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

SOD/CAT
This AfD discussion link would greatly benefit from people able to explain out NOR policy to the author of this article, which I think is a glaring example of original synthesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't the same information written at WP:OR and WP:NOR in different words? Warrior  4321  22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible original music theorizing at Hendrix chord
I'm engaged in a discussion over at Hendrix chord and would additional opinions as to whether or not a specific bit of text constitutes original research and should therefore be removed. The sentence in question is "When performing 'Voodoo Child (Slight Return)' live Hendrix later used the sharpened ninth not only on the tonic pedal, E, but also on C and D as well which would total nine and imply eleven notes, almost the full chromatic scale, rather than only five." The potential OR is the part in boldface. This clause is uncited, despite a request for a source. That the chord sequence contains nine notes and implies 11 has been suggested to be a routine calculation, but it's a considerably harder calc than the examples cited at that policy page, and requires making some assumptions about the voicings used by Hendrix. And that the chord sequence implies a chromatic scales seems to me to qualify as novel conclusion or synthesis. (And, for what's it's worth, I happen to think this conclusion is incorrect.) In short, no sources have been provided for the assertion that this chord sequence functions as is claimed in the article, therefore, in my view, it is OR and should be removed. Other opinions? Yilloslime T C  18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, Clearly OR. Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user assumes that fact. Obvious OR. Warrior  4321  19:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's unfair to guess what I assume from my opponents side of an argument. Hyacinth (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is 11 most of 12? Hyacinth (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is with "and imply eleven notes"... that needs a source. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When you (Hyacinth) originally calculated 11 notes, you either assumed each chord was fully voiced (i.e. included the 5th) or had a source a that said so and forgot to cite it. As no source has yet shown up, my money is on the first option. My calculation of 9 notes (see Talk:Hendrix chord) assumes the 5th is not voiced, and this borne out playing guitar and knowing that that's how it's usually played and certainly how Hendrix played in on Purple Haze. But going with my calculation or with yours, either way there is an assumption, so either way it's OR and should be deleted. And I also agree with Blueboar that "implying eleven notes" is another instance of OR. Yilloslime T C  21:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism
Right now in Quantum mysticism there is a hypothetical question that I believe is entirely OR. I've argued with the authoring editor to no avail furthermore the editor is not open to modification to the section and is displaying considerable ownership. Right now its a\ dead locked exchange between two editors any outside opinion that moves towards a resolution would be welcome. The current debate is located at Talk:Quantum mysticism although there has been considerably more debate in the sections above.--OMCV (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theory
A few days ago, I discovered that the title "Fringe theory" was a redirect to our article on Fringe science. However, there are a lot of frigne theories that have nothing to do with Science... there are probably fringe theories in every academic discipline, and there are frigne theories that fall into the realm of pop culture (various conspiracy theories and urban legends). So I undid the redirect and started to try to write at least a stub article on the broader topic. Then I hit a snag...

I can not even find a single source that actually defines the term. It isn't in any of the standard dictionaries I have access to. The closest I can come is to combine the definitions of each word (from the same dictionary so at least I don't combine two different sources) ... for example... using Webster's definitions: The OR issue, of course, is that I am definitely synthesizing here ... on the other hand, this does seem as simple as adding 1 + 2 and getting 3.
 * Fringe - a group with marginal or extremist views
 * Theory - a hypothesis or an unproved assumption
 * Fringe theory - a hypothesis or an unproved assumption held by a group with marginal or extremist views.

So... OR?... not OR?... acceptable OR? IAR? Thoughts would be appreciated Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If there's no coverage in reliable sources, is it notable enough for an article? --hippo43 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there is coverage. The term is certainly used (but not defined) in a lot of reliable sources ... the problem is finding sources that actually discuss the concept in any depth... It may turn out that there isn't enough quality coverage... but I am not yet prepared to give up hope on the article's potential (I am, however, shifting my work to user space while I search for sources).  But, all that is a seperate issue from the one I asked about. I am just starting off here, and need to figure out if certain ideas will work or not.Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I realise that notability and OR are separate issues, but they are linked in this case. I'm surprised - I would have guessed that fringe theories would be discussed in depth by good sources somewhere, and this would be a good article. For me, there's no OR problem with using dictionary definitions for the noun 'theory' and the adjective 'fringe', and saying that a fringe theory is a 'marginal or extremist hypothesis'. However, that presupposes that the concept of a 'fringe theory' is distinct enough to meet the notability criteria for an article. Similarly, I wouldn't have a problem with saying that a 'red tractor' is a farm vehicle which is scarlet, but I would hope that red tractors were covered in the tractor article. --hippo43 (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... ... If I can't get enough material to grow the article beyond a stub, I suppose it could be added as a section within the Theory article instead.... have to think on that... . Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Another 2+2=4 question...
Ok, here we go...I'm working on Arbor Hill, Albany, and since I have sources that state its boundaries would it be ok to use census tract or block data for the various census tracts (or blocks) that cover that area (as long as none spill out of that area) and add the data together to get information I can use for a "demographics" section in the article regarding population, gender and race percentages, etc etc. Obviously I would use the US census information as a source for the numbers and also put the source for the boundaries (which is already sourced in the article).Camelbinky (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am never happy about using census data for anything other than population numbers (and I would be especially wary of using them for something as potentially controvercial as race/ethnicity percentages). That said... As long as the block data is published and available to the general public, I don't see a problem with simply adding the individual block numbers and stating the total.Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see the point about race/ethnicity being controversial, I think you are right that I should just stick to population totals and adding those. I was just hoping for some way to show this was a predominately African-American neighborhood, though I could probably find that point mentioned in a local newspaper article. Thank you Blueboar.Camelbinky (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Humor of the LaRouche movement
The article about the "LaRouche movement" is an overview of the following of Lyndon LaRouche which comprises many active or defunct organizations. The article contains a section, added over a year ago without discussion and with no secondary sources, that claimed the movement is known for using humor. It was tagged as unreferenced back in October 2008. Due to the lack of secondary sources that identified the anecdotes as humor, the complete lack of any sources in some cases, I recently deleted the section as original research. But the deletion was reverted and even unsourced material was restored. It is the assertion of the LaRouche accounts that the humor sectin should be limited to those items that they find funny, with no regard for secondary sources. That argument has been used to retain some anecdotes while deleting others, even jokes clearly labeled as "humor". I researched the topic and found that the LaRouche movement is not known for using humor: just the opposite. What is the proper standard for a section like this? Should it be based on editors' personal views on what is funny, or on what reliable, 3rd party sources have called "humor" or "jokes"?  Will Beback   talk    07:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * talk:LaRouche movement


 * To place material in a section called "Humor", I would certainly agree that you would need an independant third party reliable source that labeled the material as such. I would also say that including a "Humor" section in an article on a polictical movement is essentially WP:TRIVIA. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Blueboar; any such section has to be justified by third-party sources devoting attention to this aspect.  JN 466  19:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OR could be avoided if the section was retitled "Pranks", "Theatrics", or something similar. The question of whether it's trivia would still be open. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Anarchy Online
I'm working to push Anarchy Online towards FAC, and have a questions about a possibly OR claim in the article (claim was written by me).


 * "Anarchy Online was the first online role playing game to offer free trial subscriptions, now common practice for other games in its genre, shortly after release in 2001."

Three sources are given for the sentence. The first is a press release from the company claiming that they were first. The next two (here and here) are second-party sources from around 2001, but they don't explicitly say "they were first". My reasoning here is that those two sources describe the concept of free trials in detail as if it were a new concept, instead of just saying "Anarchy Online now offers free trials". I wrote the claim in the first place because the idea of them being first has been "out there" for a while on message boards (like here) and other unreliable places (like here). A little digging through archive.org might reveal more reliable sources about this. Is the claim still OR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebquantic (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not OR when you are accurately reporting what the source (the press release) said. What you have here is a reliable sources issue. If the claim is questionable, you could just rephrase it as "... one of the first (the company claims to be the first[ref]) ...", and so circumlocute the issue altogether. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If the issue comes up during FAC, I'll modify it like you suggested. Sebquantic (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User Jimmuldrow Is adding Original Research and Synthesis of material to Ezekiel Emanuel
User Jimmuldrow is continually adding Original Research and Synthesis of Material to this article. The section contains several blockquoted sections with his attempt to link them together with his own research. I have told him several times to find some reliable third party sources that make the argument he is trying to prove, that McCaughey either lied or misrepresented Emanuel. As such most of this section is Original Research with the basic goal to attack Sara Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Besty McCaughey. Arzel (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does not speculate as to whether McCaughey "lied" or not, and it was McCaughey who linked her opinions (in three editorials, by quoting from it and specifying it) to a June 2008 JAMA article co-written by Emanuel, and references make this clear. I'll post my original reply as follows:Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the timeline of McCaughey's statements:

April 29 – The Attack on Doctor’s Hippocratic Oath

May 11 – Fox Interview

July 24 – Deadly Doctors

August 27 – Obama’s Health Rationer-in-Chief

Maybe you have the unlikely concern that McCaughey remembered the June 2008 JAMA article as the source of her concerns in the April 29 editorial, where she quoted from it and mentioned it specifically.

Forgot where she got her ideas from during the May 11 Fox interview, as opposed to the more likely theory than nobody cites references during an interview.

Remembered the June 2008 JAMA article as the reason for her complaint in the July 24 editorial.

Remembered the JAMA article again in her August 27 editorial.

In the unlikely event that McCaughey might have had another article in mind during the Fox interview that she didn't know about before, and forgot about afterward, the article makes it clear that McCaughey did not cite references during the Fox interview. Of course, no one ever does cite references during an interview.

Your unlikely concern has been addressed.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, IT DOESN"T MATTER. You are the one making the connection.  That is Original Research.  Find an independent Third Party Resource that makes the argument you are trying to prove.  And if you can't find one then this whole incident simply isn't that notable.  Arzel (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, it was McCaughey who made the connection, not me.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reported. I don't have time to waste trying to explain this to you anymore.  Arzel (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The above is cut and paste from the article page (by Jimmuldrow rather than me). - I'll agree with the reporter, it's original research and novel synthesis and should not go in until reliable sources mention it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't McCaughey a reliable source for where she gets her own opinions from, at least?Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You can certainly state that McCaughey used what Emanuel wrote in article X as a basis for saying Y. But when you cite Emanuel's text from article X to refute McCaughey's interpretations and assertions, it is original research.  You can certainly discuss what others have said to refute McCaughey (such as the articles in the NY Times and TIME), but going beyond what they've said or stating their arguments without referencing these articles after every argument counts as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.  This is the "valid point" I referred to on the Talk page - unfortunately, I didn't get the chance to clarify before the issue came to this noticeboard.  --Zach425 talk / contribs 11:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Gliese 551, also known as Proxima Centaruri
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proxima_Centauri&diff=311793245&oldid=311566959

I deleted what looked like a formula that might be correct but was being used to support a figure that a user would have calculated or it would have been in the NASA reference that was provided, but it was not. I'm just asking for verification. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Analyzing charts

 * Several independent editors have given their opinion, but it hasn't been the "right one" from the perspective of one editor. Further discussion seems unlikely to be fruitful, as has been pointed out by several editors, and different avenues or noticeboards may be required. --Slp1 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute at Genetic history of Europe, regarding a specific genetics publication and its [supplementary material. I can get into the details of the dispute, but for the present I will just address a policy issue.  One user, [[User:Small Victory]] has insisted on analyzing a chart from the supplementary material, and presenting the information as factual. I have disputed his interpretation because I could not find any text in the article or supplementary material that supports his analysis. I have asked him to provide direct quotes per PROVEIT, indicating that if he does, I will not dispute him. I am requesting input from other Wikipedians as to how much users are allowed to analyze graphs and charts in publications. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We are not supposed to analyse graphs or charts at all... what we are supposed to do is report on how reliable sources analyse it. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not "analyzing" anything. I'm simply reporting on an admixture test (from a peer-reviewed, published source) conducted using the STRUCTURE program, whose results are usually presented in the form of a color-coded chart like this one showing population affinities and admixture proportions for each of the populations tested. In the case in question, as in the example above, there's virtually no Sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans (which enrages the Afrocentrist in Wapondaponda). And since studies tend to discuss admixture when it's present, and not when it's absent, his adamant request for a "direct quote" is rather silly and little more than a ruse to have material he doesn't like removed from the article. The data itself is the "direct quote". Small Victory (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Take Blueboar's advice. What you are doing is analyzing a chart, If you were not, you would be able to provide a direct quote that supports the statements you are making. Unfortunately you have analyzed a chart independently. There is no text in the article that supports the analysis that you state. I hope wikipedia can develop a policy that directly deals with users analyzing charts and graphs. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the incivility is unnecessary, there is no need to call me an Afrocentrist. Secondly WP:PROVEIT is not silly. It is official wikipedia policy. Any user, should be able to independently verify information that is cited. We are not expected to take any editor for his/her word. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any policy stating that charts, graphs, diagrams and other forms of visual data cannot be cited. In addition to quotations, WP:PROVEIT mentions "any material" and "any other details" as admissible evidence, as long as they're "attributed to a reliable, published source". Small Victory (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What's with all the edit-warring on this topic? If someone gets a semi-authoritative answer from this talk page, and then uses that as ammunition to fight an edit war, I don't think it serves the community's interests. (Also, see WP:Forum shopping.) Would anyone care to summarize what's going on here: TheFeds 07:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe (2nd nomination)
 * Talk:Genetic history of Europe
 * User talk:Small Victory
 * User talk:Muntuwandi


 * We have a long running content dispute concerning the article, however this particular case focusses on the interpretation of chart, by a Wikipedian, in ways that cannot be traced to the text in the article. There are many other issues, but this thread concerns the specific chart. AFAIK, this is the first time this has been brought to a noticeboard, after extensive discussions on talk pages have not produced a resolution. So I wouldn't characterize this as WP:Forum shoppingWapondaponda (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * These two editors and an editor by the name of SOPHIAN (a.k.a Count of Monte Cristo)(See:Edit Warring are engage in an egocentric edit war on the Genetic history of Europe. I have moved the conflicted edits to the talk page for critique and discussion. Both editors have a (actually repeated) problems with NPOV and refuse to compromise with each other, consequently they are engaged in nitpicky egocentric activities that have propogated off the main page. One user SOPHIAN even went so far as to accuse myself and another contributer of sockpuppetry when we opinioned that SSA page be deleted. The page 'Genetic history of Europe' has suffered badly from the battle of wills that has occurred and it is basically garbage now. I may offer of AfD on the article if the article does not improve soon. The article has been listed over in the wikiproject-human genetic history as an article needing attention, it badly needs expert attention, moderator supervision, and content editors to bring it up to WP stands, much of the content is un-encyclopedic. It is clear that the battle of egos going on is more important to these editors than the quality of the article as a encyclopedic article.  Muntawandi, this is more than just a long running dispute, you and other contributors have trashed this article and have resulted in content that is difficult to read and understand. You have acted in ways that discourage compromising.PB666 yap 17:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the problems you've been having, let me just weigh in on some principles, rather than try to provide an opinion on this particular case. I would generally say that if you noted, for example, that a particular peak of a histogram occurred at an x co-ordinate of 123.45 furlongs, the graph would be a sufficient reference for that fact. But if you continued and stated that because the peak was 123.45 furlongs, something should be concluded, you'd need to provide evidence (e.g. from a source with an explanation of how the graph works) that the conclusion still follows directly from reading the graph, and not from a synthesis relying upon your particular expertise or some other source. TheFeds 07:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This particular graph has no grid lines and the interpretation is entirely based on visual analysis. But even if it had gridlines, the simulation is sufficiently complex, to warrant interpretation by the authors. The authors have not used raw data, but have sanitized the inputs in order to achieve certain results. So in this case, a general statement made by visual inspection of the graph is likely to be misleading. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

TheFeds, what you're describing as being acceptable practice is essentially what I did. I concluded that charts like this one produced by the STRUCTURE program show "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans", and I accompanied that with a source published by the creators of the program in which they explain how it works in detecting admixture:

--- Small Victory (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By concluding, you've synthesized a fact not given in the source. Sorry, but that's not going to work here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Read carefully what TheFeds wrote:




 * The evidence that the conclusion of "negligible admixture" follows directly from reading this chart comes from the accompanying source explaining how the chart displays admixture proportions:




 * --- Small Victory (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a very simple proposition, if your interpretation/analysis of the chart is correct, could you direct us to the text in the article that directly supports your interpretation and analysis, per the policies defined at WP:PROVEIT. The article has 8 pages of text and the supplementary material has another 8 pages of text. If your interpretation is correct, then surely in these 16 pages, they would have mentioned something. Otherwise it falls into the category of "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" defined at WP:NOR. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're getting it, Small Victory. The text you quoted does not say "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans" anywhere. What you've done is looked at the chart, seen that they say "Individuals in the sample are assigned (probabilistically) to populations..." and personally concluded that the levels are "negligible." That's the very heart of WP:OR and WP:SYN. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, TheFeds doesn't see it that way. You need to consult with him and come to a consensus. Of course, he's right. It's unreasonable to expect every source that uses the STRUCTURE program to independently re-explain how it works and then make specific statements about nonexistent admixture. That's like asking for a direct quote stating that there's no red coloring on zebras' coats. No such quote exists, but once colors and their labels have been established, anyone can just look at a zebra and see that the statement is true. Quite silly really. Small Victory (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some review of the concept of Statistical significance is in order to understand this debate, I think. I will say, that if you had to pick an alpha level for something, the claim is OR. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider simply quoting a p-value to show 'negligible' rather than using that term. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there are no figures of any kind given in the study (that's often the case with STRUCTURE), but what I could do is omit mention of admixture altogether and simply describe the chart in terms of cluster memberships, the populations sampled and the colors that represent them. In other words, no conclusion of any kind. Just an objective description of what's displayed in the chart. Small Victory (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically that wouldn't be original research if the chart is used as described in the article. However, given that they do not mention anything to do with Sub-Saharan admixture, then it would still be original research and POV if placed in an article or section concerning Sub-Saharan admixture. STRUCTURE program uses a statistical analysis of variance to assign individuals to different clusters and hybrid zones. STRUCTURE doesn't use the phylogenetic approach which is the most accurate method of determining admixture as it directly assesses the origins of specific DNA segments. Because it is a statistical analysis, it certainly requires interpretation of the information.Wapondaponda (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just my 2¢, but if there was an ANOVA going on, then p-values and alpha values need to be reported. If the chart doesn't have those, it shouldn't be used at all. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * p-values? Alpha values? Must have something to do with Quantum!  You are all getting far too subject specific for this page.  If the analysis of a chart is being conducted by a Wikipedia editor it is OR. If the analysis is being done by a reliable source it is not (in which case that analysis can be cited to the source to show that it is not OR). Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the people who are supposed to be settling this dispute have different opinions about the issue. Obviously, it's not as clear cut as some here seem to think. There's no policy against citing diagrams, and diagrams often lack explicit explanations, especially when they show an absence of something. This should really be discussed at a higher level so that a consensus can be reached and some kind of rule established. Small Victory (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Small Victory is edit warring by inserting his Original research analysis of the chart . I have said to him, a million times, if you can show us text that supports your interpretation, then I won't oppose. Take Blueboar's advice, if the analysis is being done by a reliable source, then we can include it. If it is your own personal interpretation, its OR. Furthermore Small Victory is deleting direct unadulterated quotes from the very same article and replacing them with his own original research. My suggestion is this, STRUCTURE is used frequently, why not find another article that unambiguously supports your interpretation. If your interpretation is correct, then other studies should have found similar findings, and stated them unambiguously. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Wapondaponda (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Irbisgreif and Blueboar for weighing in on the matter. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not "my interpretation". It's what the chart shows (i.e. admixture proportions between populations corresponding to continental regions). The evidence for that from the study itself is presented right here.


 * And your so-called "direct unadulterated quotes" are in fact nothing of the kind. They're either OR or POV or both, depending on the context you give them. That's all detailed here, where another editor has also spoken out against your dishonest tactics.


 * Yes, STRUCTURE is indeed used frequently. It's the preeminent method in population genetics right now. And it always works the same way. When it detects admixture, studies talk about that. When it doesn't, they generally don't. That's what the charts are for. Visualizations of data. You have eyes. Use them. Small Victory (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * STRUCTURE is no holy grail population genetics, as Auton et al mention, STRUCTURE is currently limited to using only a few SNPs because of the high computational cost. So STRUCTURE still has a long way to go. Auton et al state.
 * So STRUCTURE isn't a very accurate method, but is useful for determining broad patterns. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So STRUCTURE isn't a very accurate method, but is useful for determining broad patterns. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right. Lose the OR debate, then resort to attacking the STRUCTURE method itself. Some studies have used hundreds of thousands of markers, but even a handful is preferable to any single marker like an mtDNA or Y-chromosome haplogroup. Perhaps you've forgotten what Pritchard et al. say about their program:




 * --- Small Victory (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

← I really don't know how to explain this any more succinctly to you, SV. You are drawing conclusions from the chart, that is OR. There are no figures you can cite to support your thesis. None of what you are doing is accepted procedure on Wikipedia. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. I'm simply describing what the chart shows based on what the authors of the study say the chart shows. Your argument that "there are no figures" is both false and irrelevant. Data from STRUCTURE can be presented in either visual or numerical form. When visual, it's showing the exact same thing as when numerical, and it can therefore be cited the same way. Small Victory (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have arrived at a conclusion that you cannot support with any text. You are aggregating together different pieces of text from different sources to support your conclusion. How would an independent person, determine that your conclusion and analysis is correct, if you cannot point to any unambiguous text supporting your conclusion. This is exactly why the "no original research" policy exists, to handle situations such as these. WP:SYNTH states
 * In order to reach a conclusion, such as the one you support, you would need a reliable source that explicitly states your conclusion. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to reach a conclusion, such as the one you support, you would need a reliable source that explicitly states your conclusion. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no synthesis and no conclusion being drawn. Auton et al. explicitly state what their chart shows, i.e. quantifications of structure and admixture in populations corresponding to continental regions:




 * They even cite the "different source" you're referring to, as does every study that uses the STRUCTURE program, which makes the argument of "synthesis" all the more ridiculous.  (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not the problem, SV. The problem is that you're looking at the chart and, without any numbers or citation to back it up, claiming that it shows "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans". Nowhere does the chart say that, nor does the report say that, nor are there numbers made available to support that. Are you just saying, "Look at the chart & it's obvious"? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But the chart does say that. It says it visually, with colored bars instead of numbers. Obviously, one has to both look at the chart and read an explanation of what the chart is showing (see my reply to 'Elen of the Roads' below). Small Victory (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My Gods!! I've looked at those charts, and it would take someone knowledgeable in the subject to pick any conclusions out of it. For the unenlightened, like me, they look like something Damian Hirst would have produced, and there is no way on earth I could tell whether or not any statement about them was correct. TheFeds</b> was surely making his remarks about charts such as this, where I might say "this graph shows the sharp fall in interest rates between 2008 and now", and it wouldn't need interpretive text outside of the chart title and legend. The information is obvious and the chart would be as good evidence for falling interest rates as an accompanying article. But there is no way the charts that Small Victory is attempting to present fall into this category. All but those knowledgeable in the field would need an expert text to make sense of what they are being shown. That I think is the key difference - where the chart is but a graphical representation of a simple table of figures, the chart and the table are interchangeable, and reading the data off the chart is not OR. Data that has been through the processing of the STRUCTURE program cannot be understood by the lay observer just looking at the chart, and anything said about it requires way more synthesis than just reading the chart Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (who has an A level in Pure Maths, so is not entirely innumerate)


 * Of course, "expert texts" explaining the charts are provided. Anyone who follows the citation links (to the studies themselves or to the paper by the creators of the STRUCTURE program) can easily learn to make sense of the charts. Here's a very clear and concise explanation of what they show from one of the studies in question:




 * I can also provide a more detailed explanation from another one of the studies if you would like. Small Victory (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but no thanks. I think you just made my point quite nicely.  I would have to LEARN how to interpret the charts, and you are offering to "provide a more detailed explanation".  I believe that makes the definition of Original research quite nicely. Our policy: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While I haven't been following this discussion, this last comment is just absurd. Any interpretation of any source requires using a brain, even if it is just a paraphrasing — this last comment, which looks like a refusal to read a chart, doesn't fit with "a reasonable, educated person", as the quotation makes sense to me without any specialist knowledge. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest you try following the discussion (I know it's very long) as the quote, which is directly from WP:OR will make more sense. Or at the least, look at the charts (they are linked to at the top).  Reading a chart is not the problem, it's reading these charts. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shreevatsa is absolutely right. Your "argument", if it can even be called that, is ridiculous. If a peer-reviewed, published study contains a chart, and explains in layman's terms what that chart is showing (as those I'm citing all do), then it's a perfectly valid reference. Your stubborn refusal to examine the chart and read its explanation is completely irrelevant. Small Victory (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that if a source explains in layman's terms what a chart is showing... the proper thing to cite is that explanation of the chart, and not the chart itself. This avoids any potential of OR. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite. Cite the researchers saying "this chart shows that there is  25% greater clustering of low birthweight babies in areas of high deprivation in Bradford than there is in similar areas in the rest of West Yorkshire"  You can't just stick the chart in as a referece, and you can't just stick in a piece of text (whether written by yourself or the researcher) saying "this is all the things you need to know about the project to be able to read this chart"Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What's being cited is the entire study, not just the chart. So the explanation is included. As far as using a direct quote with a percentage, that's the problem. The study is being cited to show an absence of admixture. The authors generally only discuss admixture that's present, and understandably don't go into detail about the places where there's little or no admixture. However, by looking at the STRUCTURE chart and reading the explanation of what it shows, anyone can see where there is and isn't admixture. It's data presented in visual form. Small Victory (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Analyzing charts - break
In all this talk I have lost track of the citation in question (are we still talking about "genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/02/12/gr.088898.108.abstract publication" and "genome.cshlp.org/content/suppl/2009/05/01/19.5.815.DC1/Supp_Figures.pdf supplementary material"? ... would someone provide a link to it here (so we can all see exactly what is being cited), and note which section/paragraph/sentence at Genetic history of Europe it is being used to support? Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The results from several similar studies are being cited (i.e. global admixture proportions all calculated using the STRUCTURE program). They're supporting the statement that there are "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans".

Here's a typical example, including chart and explanation:

Note also that every single one of the studies being cited, when explaining what the STRUCTURE chart shows, cites this paper published by the program's creators, in which they state the following about their method:

--- Small Victory (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I see what the problem is... If you are going to include a blunt statement of fact that there are "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans" you need to cite a source that directly states that conclusion (the conclusion does not need to be that exact wording... but it does need to be substantially similar).
 * It may be obvious to you that the data in the charts means that there are "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans"... but if no source actually states this conclusion based on the data, then it is you (a wikipedia editor) who are analysing the chart and making the statement. That is what we here at Wikipeida term Original research.
 * So, the key to resolving this is very simple... Do any of your sources actually state the conclusion that there are "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans" or at least discuss sub-Saharan African admixtures in relation to Europeans? Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that Small Victory is totally misrepresenting the study. This is a direct quote from the study. It is not available in the abstract but in the main article.Page 7
 * So it doesn't make sense to write that study states that there are negligible levels of Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe, when in fact the study states that there are certain genes shared by West Africans and Europeans and that the presence of  these shared genes could be interpreted as  gene flow from West Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So it doesn't make sense to write that study states that there are negligible levels of Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe, when in fact the study states that there are certain genes shared by West Africans and Europeans and that the presence of  these shared genes could be interpreted as  gene flow from West Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, that's a different study, not the one I used above as an example. Secondly, you're the one misrepresenting what it says by treating "suggestive of" as if it were definite, and ignoring the other interpretations put forth by the authors. Shared haplotypes are not necessarily equivalent to direct admixture. They could result from both groups being admixed with a third (such as North Africans, who weren't tested in the study) or simply from genetic drift linked to human migrations that ultimately trace back to Africa (hence the Iberian refugium hypothesis). My reference to that study mentioned all of the possible interpretations, plus the results of the STRUCTURE-based admixture analysis, making it far more neutral than yours, which was limited to that one quote (WP:Information suppression). Small Victory (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've said, studies almost never go into detail about admixture that's very low or absent altogether. It would be like listing all of the ingredients that are not in a recipe instead of those that are in it. But I strongly disagree that anything is being analyzed. If the explanation of the chart says that it shows different ancestries in the form of colored segments, and Europeans have none of the color that comprises Sub-Saharan African ancestry, then the conclusion is self-evident and in effect being "stated" (visually) without actually being stated (in words). Now, I can see how in theory that might pose a problem, but I'm aware of no policy that requires all evidence to be in text form. And the STRUCTURE method is widely used in population genetics today, so there has to be a way of incorporating it into genetics articles, otherwise it's like disallowing results from carbon-14 dating in articles about archaeology. That's just not an acceptable solution. Small Victory (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point... The problem isn't any flaw the STRUCTURE method or the data... the problem is with who is interpreting the data and reaching a conclusion. We would disallow discussion of the results from carbon-14 dating in articles about archaeology, if the conclusions made are those of Wikipedia editor.  It does not matter how "obvious" the conclusion is... if the conclusion originates from  a Wikipedia editor it is OR.  If you are the first one to notice something about the data presented on a chart, if you are the first person to draw a conclusion from that data, then that is Original Research.  It does not matter if your observation about the data is correct, or even "obvious"... what matters is that you were the first person to make that observation. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blueboar's analysis is spot on. Even if Small Victory's analysis were correct, it would still be OR, if the analysis is not explicitly mentioned in the publication. This is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it has been implemented as a quality control measure. Independent editors should be able to verify all sourced content and the references cited should unambiguously support the material in question. I too have noticed information in  the article, that seems to have an obvious meaning. But, I have chosen not to use it in the article, because the authors of the study have not made any explicit explanation. For example, there is the chart on supplementary material page 10 Fig B has a European, Middle Eastern/African cluster in the plot of PC4 vs PC3. As there is a single cluster between these three neighboring populations, it can only mean that gene flow has taken place across these populations. However, the authors of the study have made no such explicit observation, though it seems obvious from the Chart. As a result, I have chosen not cite it. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're linking to the wrong document. You mean this one. And that's entirely different because the study doesn't state that that plot shows admixture, whereas it does state that the STRUCTURE chart shows admixture. In fact, it strongly suggests that PCs 3 and 4 aren't showing admixture by the way that it describes PCs 1 and 2 as equivalent to the STRUCTURE chart:






 * --- Small Victory (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not original research. There is no interpreting being done and no conclusion being drawn. It's simply a citation of data. The chart clearly shows the data, and the study clearly explains what it represents. The only difference is that the data is in a visual format rather than presented as a textual quote or a numerical value. And unless there's a policy I'm not aware of that prohibits citations of visual data, then it's a perfectly valid reference. Small Victory (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But there is interpretation being done, and a conclusion being drawn... you are the one looking at the chart and reaching the conclusion that there are "negligible levels of Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe". This is a perfect example of the misuse of  Primary source material... you are taking raw data (presented in a visual form) and reaching a conclusion about it.  The raw data may well clearly indicate that what you say is in fact true... but if you are the first to notice and comment on what the data indicates, then your observation and comment is considered Original research. The key to WP:NOR is that Wikipedia should never be the first place of publication for anything... even if the raw data clearly indicates what you have noticed, until a reliable Secondary source notices the same thing, and comments on it, then Wikiepdia can not, and should do so.   Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not raw data. This is the raw data that was run through the STRUCTURE program. The chart is the authors' published illustration of that data, presented in the form of colored segments that correspond to admixture proportions, as explained in the study. Therefore, Wikipedia is not its "first place of publication", and I'm not interpreting or concluding anything. Small Victory (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK... an illustration of the raw data then... same thing. No matter what you call it, it does not change the fact that you are the one who has noticed something about that illustration (something not noticed or discussed by any reliable source).  You are the one who is stating a conclusion.  No matter how you twist things... THAT is the very deffinition of OR.
 * I am not going to continue this discussion... it is obvious that you will simply not accept what I am saying (see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) and a childish "Is too"/"Is not" argument is pointless. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose to close this discussion. An overwhelming number of editors have agreed that, a wikipedian's independent analysis of a chart constitutes an original idea. There is no need to continue to beat a dead horse. If Small Victory would like to continue with his claims, I suggest he should find a source that unambiguously supports his claims. There are probably thousands of Genetics publications, there is no need to cling to just one publication. If his analysis is correct, he should be able to find another source that agrees with his analysis. I too will no longer comment on this matter. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't about "one publication". It's about a method of genetic testing that's used in multiple publications. But of course, you already knew that because you have a deadly fear of this method. You're so transparent. You don't believe your OR allegation for a second. You need Europeans to have black ancestry to help you get over your inferiority complex. The evidence, however, shows that they have almost none. So your only recourse is to have it suppressed. That's why you started this thread, to dupe people who know nothing about population genetics into helping you get your way. If the evidence had shown what you wanted, we wouldn't be here right now. You're so dishonest and agenda-driven, it's disgusting. Small Victory (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, a published illustration of data is not the same as raw data. You reveal your ignorance of the subject when you say ridiculous things like that. You can bow out of the debate if you want, but you have not demonstrated that citing STRUCTURE charts is original research. I've answered every feeble argument made in this thread, and no matter what I say, you come back with the same erroneous refrain. So if anything, you're the one guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'll say this one more time: Nothing is being interpreted or concluded that's not made explicit in the study itself through a combination of text and diagram. This has already been proven. There's no difference between the authors writing out "Europeans have very little Sub-Saharan admixture" and drawing up a chart that shows, based on their own unambiguous explanation, that Europeans have very little Sub-Saharan admixture. It's just that you and others have an unfounded bias against visual evidence. Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't share that bias in its official policy. Small Victory (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing of the article you want to use the data in. I do know that I could not interpret the charts without having the process by which they were created explained to me in sufficient depth for me to understand what I was seeing. I do believe I am a person of reasonable intelligence, and I have an A level in pure maths. Therefore, I am quite certain that your contention is not supported by WP:OR which is quite clear. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, either you're mistaken about being "a person of reasonable intelligence" or you're just not trying. Because the charts are explained very clearly and even color-coded to make reading them easier. Basically, the colors represent genetic clusters that correspond to ancestry from major geographic regions (e.g. Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia etc.). Populations that have more than one color are mixed, and the amount of the color they have indicates the level of admixture. It's not exactly rocket science. And anyway, difficulty of a subject has nothing to do with WP:OR. I don't know where you got that notion. Small Victory (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOR:
 * Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. (Bolding mine)
 * Does that answer your question? Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect not, as I've already said this once, higher up the page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That applies to sources that provide no explanation or analysis of any kind. But a genetic study is not like a novel that requires interpretation from an external source. It contains within itself both primary source material (data) and secondary source material (what the data means). In this case, as I've said, the data is color-coded and explained in simple English. The fact that the subject matter (population genetics) may be difficult or unfamiliar to some people has no bearing on anything. Small Victory (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion taking place regarding some of the comments made in this thread here Wikiquette_alerts, . Wapondaponda (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This subject came up in another discussion, and Elen of the Roads made some comments that were archived before I could respond. So I left a reply on her Talk Page, which she promptly deleted. This pretty much confirms that she knows I'm right. She couldn't refute my arguments here, and she can't refute them there either. Only there she has the power to suppress rather than simply ignore them. I think we can safely disregard her views on this issue, as even she recognizes their untenability. Small Victory (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Analyzing charts random break 2
Small Victory has continued with his analysis of STRUCTURE charts while not providing any interpretation from the articles that he has sourced the charts from. diff Wapondaponda (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this needs to be moved to the next step of dispute resolution. Perhaps an impartial moderator could help. Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wapondaponda is making a false accusation. I've significantly changed the way that data is referenced in the article based on objections raised in this thread. First of all, I've included one of the STRUCTURE charts so people can see the data for themselves without having to dig through the sources. Then, I include an explanation of what the chart is showing from the study it comes from. And finally, I've switched to language that simply describes what's shown in the objective terms established in the study. Go and see for yourself (last paragraph, and be sure to click on "[note 2]" for the explanation). There's no analysis taking place, other than that of the authors. Wapondaponda just doesn't like this perfectly valid evidence and is trying to suppress it, which is absurd and violates Wikipedia policy. Small Victory (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop. Your issues have gone far beyond the scope of this noticeboard.  Either get a neutral third party involved or take it to arbitration. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's really quite simple, if SV can provide direct quotes to back up his assertion, then there is no controversy. If he can't it is his own original idea and original research. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blueboar is right, you need to stop and take this elsewhere, it is not something we can help you with. It may be "really quite simple" to you, but that is your opinion and while I am sympathetic, others may have other opinions making it not sooo simple really.Camelbinky (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should avoid solving problems. The dispute resolution process   on wikipedia ground to a halt a few years ago. There just aren't any editors willing to avail themselves for mediation. If they were, I would definitely go that route. This sort of issue is exactly what this noticeboard is meant to address. The subject may appear to be complex, but myself and some of the other counterparties are no specialists. I say it is simple, because if SV can provide a direct quote from the sources that he cites to back up his explanation, I will not dispute them. It is up to him to provide unambiguous text that supports his material, which is a requirement on wikipedia per WP:PROVEIT. A novel analysis of a chart in a way that cannot be identified in the source documents is problematic. I have read through each of the sources several times, and I cannot find any text that is consistent with SV's interpretation. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't think mediation will work, then bump it up to arbcom. We here at this noticeboard have already given our opinions and advice on this matter (see above and below).  That is all we can do ... offer an opinion and advice... this isn't an enforcement body (hell, most of us are not even admins.) If you wish resolution of the issue, you are going to have to look for it elsewhere.  Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My experience so far, is that mediation and arbcom need to be sure that all other methods of dispute resolution have been exhausted. So far Small Victory has yet to demonstrate with direct quotes evidence supporting his material. If we get to that point then we have a real dispute. Since we are not yet at that point, I believe the community still has role to play in advising or even enforcing policies and guidelines. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already provided direct quotes from several studies clearly stating that the charts depict continental ancestry and admixture proportions. Small Victory (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided any quotes that directly concern African admixture in Europe. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because Europeans don't have any African admixture to speak of, and studies rarely discuss what isn't there. Small Victory (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And Small Victory, can I just point out that I believe that you are DEAD WRONG. GOT THAT. DO NOT assume represent that I have agreed with you or accepted your arguments when I manifestly have not. I believe you are violating policy in your attempts to add your original research interpretations of these charts, that your argument is tendentious nonsense, and that your approach to disagreement - which involves fictionalising the view of others - is disruptive to the project. I would support any legitimate action proposed which prevents your further disruption, as this is plainly not going to resolve through any form of mediation. Is that clear enough for you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If my arguments were really "tendentious nonsense", you wouldn't be having so much trouble refuting them. By your own admission, you don't understand the charts and are unwilling to learn, so how can you possibly know whether I'm interpreting them or not? You don't even understand the Wikipedia Policy you quote. This is obviously a subject that's way over your head and that you have no interest in whatsoever, so I would suggest that you refrain from weighing in on the matter, because what you "believe" is completely irrelevant. Small Victory (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I thought - your only response is incivility, coupled with more fantasy representations of what I said. Let me cite AGAIN WP:OR, which is scintillatingly clear.  Our policy: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.  I have a maths GCE, a Maths O/A level and a Maths A level, therefore I constitute an educated person. If I have to learn how to interpret the charts, they very clearly do not fall into the category of charts which do not require a secondary source for interpretation.  Therefore, rather than showing me the chart and asking me to conclude that it supports your hypothesis (whatever that is), you must show me the secondary source which states your hypothesis.  This is the third time of explaining this to you - have you understood yet?Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I repeat: That policy applies to primary sources like novels, which provide no interpretation at all. Genetic studies don't fall into that category. They contain both primary source material (charts of data) and secondary source material (interpretations of those charts). I showed you both of these things and your response was "Thanks, but no thanks." That's reader laziness, not editor OR. Learn the difference. Small Victory (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a fatuous argument if ever I saw one. Shall I quote a larger chunk.

''Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.''

I think that neatly disposes of the idea that "it only applies to primary sources like novels."

If what you meant was "it only applies to primary sources, this is a secondary source", then the section that refers is ''Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.'' ''Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.''

The key point to note here is that articles may include evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source, and not otherwise.

So your choice, are your charts a primary source or a secondary one. If a primary, you cannot advance an interpretation, if secondary, you cannot advance that interpretation because the source from which the chart is taken does not support that interpretation.

Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Genetics articles can indeed contain citable interpretations, and not just raw information. But the controversy here is about Small Victory's own interpretation of raw information, not about citing interpretations made by the peer reviewed authors. Therefore it all comes down to whether it is obvious, and the disagreement on the original article talk pages shows that he could not convince people who edit these articles that it was. This is actually a content dispute, because it involves making a judgement about what is obvious in a particular field. What a smoke screen of a discussion!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that's what I was saying. The problem is not including raw info, the problem is that SV wants to use the  chart to back up some content that he wants to add.  And he wants to use the chart because the research paper that the chart comes from says nothing about the content SV wants to add.  So to that extent it is a content dispute, but it is also about OR, because SV claims that it is obvious from the chart that the research supports his contention, and everyone else says it is OR that the chart supports his contention - which in any case I gather they don't agree with - my only interest was whether or not the chart was such an obvious thing that it could be used to support content without the research paper as well.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * None of those examples are anything like genetic studies, which always contain interpretations of the raw data (usually by multiple authors) that have undergone peer-review. And how on earth would you know that "the source from which the chart is taken does not support that interpretation" when you refused to even read it? And where do you get this absurd notion that I ever tried to use the chart "to support content without the research paper as well"? Talk about fictionalizing the views of others. What I'm citing is the entire study, which clearly interprets the chart as showing continental ancestry and admixture proportions. Do you understand that? Small Victory (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If "What I'm citing is the entire study, which clearly interprets the chart as showing continental ancestry and admixture proportions," then SmallV won't have any problems finding and citing the text that makes this interpretation "clear". From the abstract, introduction, or the conclusion perhaps?  To date, despite multiple requests, SmallV has not produced this.  Unless he can, I suggest we close this discussion since we are getting nowhere.  Several independent editors have, it appears unanimously,  disagreed with SmallV's interpretation of NOR policy. I concur with them. Whoever is right, continuing to pursue the argument against consensus is becoming disruptive and tendentious, and I suggest it cease. --Slp1 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You obviously haven't read the entire discussion, because I provide several such citations throughout. So you shouldn't be giving your opinion on the matter. In fact, that's the problem. The "consensus" you're referring to is based on people taking sides when they haven't even bothered to read the discussion and understand the issue. Small Victory (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Straight back from a block for disruptive editing to clear assumptions of bad faith concerning other editors. Your claims are inaccurate as far as I am concerned, at the very least. We are done here, I believe.  Archiving --Slp1 (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)