Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

New Industrial Revolution

Resolved

 – Sent to Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, came across this on at WP:FEED and I am not quite sure what to make of it. It reads like an essay/OR but before send it to Afd I would like input from others. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree... it does seem to be an OR essay. Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Should be in userspace marked as an essay as near as I can figure. Collect (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - it's now at Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Argument at Talk:Creationism

We have an editor here who wants to insert "The Book of Genesis predates Christianity and forms part of the Torah, a Hebrew Jewish scripture and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching." He argues that this is not OR and he doesn't need a source on the basis that this is a logical conclusion (although he uses more words than I have). He compares this to an earlier argument he had where he was asked for a source to prove that a in the UK losing your job doesn't mean you lose your health care. 4 editors disagree with him. I'll try to move the argument here, which is where the rest of us think it should be. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I won the argument on the health care issue because it was logically true. Your description is accurate of the original argument but I accept that the words "Christ's own teaching" are not founded on analysis (though I suspect quite strongly that what we know of Jesus's statements from the New Testament will not reveal very much about the process of creation other than perhaps that Jesus refers to God's creation and assumes that everybody accepts this, as His contemporaries would have done). I would be amenable to those words being replaced wih something else. Judaism is older than Christianity (and of course they are not the same faith because Jews do not accept many of the tenets of the Jewish faith, even though Christians accept the Old Testament and a smaller number wish it all to be taken literally. The main point however is fundamentally true. That is that those Christians who regard the creation story in Genesis as being literally true are using as the foundation for that argument a text that belongs to the earlier faith and which is primarily based on Jewish scripture and not scripture developed based on the sayings of Christ or his followers. Of course this is a truism but I think it needs to be stated explicitly. The editors at Creationism argue that I must have a WP:RS for making this kind of statement. I argue that one can call on pure logic and that it is very difficult to find a scholarly reference for something so blindingly obvious that it is never worth mentioning. Just as it was impossible to get a citation for the health care statement but an appeal to pure logic demonstrates the truth of the statement (because health care insurance in the UK is by law tied to legal residency and not employment status). Because pure logic tells us this must be true I eventually got the text into the article. I argue that this is the case here. Genesis is essentially a Jewish text and therefore belief in creation based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than it does to Christianity (if one accepts that all the unique elements that make Christian faith what it is came in to being after Jesus came to us). I have invited editors at Creationism to suggest what they might accept in place of "Christ's own teaching but they have not suggested anything. I have also asked them to envisage an argument that would counter the logic underlying the statement but nobody has done so. --Hauskalainen (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

See: WP:No original research. While your logic may be perfect, Wikipedia does not allow editors to build articles based on their own logic. Instead, we build our articles on the logic found in published sources. Our job is to simply summarize what reliable sources say. So the editors who are demanding a source are correct.

There are a ton of scholarly papers and books that discuss the overlap and connections between Judeism and Christianity, and I would be surprised if there was not something that discussed the creation story in that context... but... if you want to discuss this idea in a wikipedia article, you must actually locate such a source and cite it. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen: I am still curious by what process you "won" the argument in the health care case you keep refering to. And since you keep citing the health care example as precedent it would help your case if you could give us a link or similar. Regardless, Wikipedia's policies are crystal clear that the threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). So whether or not your argument is true or not is totally beside the point. It needs to be verifiable (ie. attributable to a source) in order to be included.

I also think you are mistaken regarding my position. I haven't said that the argument you've presented is false, merely that you've yet to attribute it to someone other than yourself. Gabbe (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Gabbe: The issue is that it is completely verifiable that access to health insurance in england does not end when one loses a job´. It just is not verifiable from a citation but by reference to logic based on other facts. So it is in this case. You seem to accept the logic but reject the conclusion solely for lack of a citation. Not every fact reported in WP has a citation. I am surprised you dispute this because you seem to accept the logic of the argument but want to reject it solely on the grounds that some other person has not made the same observation AND WRITTEN ABOUT IT IN A SCHOLARLY WAY. I am not surprised that scholars do not mention this because it is stating the blindingly obvious (just like the health care issue).--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't given us a link to this debate you supposedly "won". And if the content you wanted to add was "blindingly obvious", other editors would have supported your position, no? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying Hauskalainen, but that's not the definition of "verifiability" used in WP:V. If you want to change Wikipedia's policies so that it is OK to include information that is true (without being attributable to reliable sources) then you woulf have to suggest a change like that to WT:V or WT:NOR. As the policies stand right now, all forms of unattributable material are indamissible, even if the unattributable material is true. Gabbe (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for 5 years and the argument about health care in the UK was so long ago that I nether remember the particular article or the route used to resolve the argument. What's more it is the argument that is the important thing and not the resolution route. Gabbe says that we still have to provide citations for things that are obvious and that WP policy does not get us around this. I disagree. I don't think that anyone would argue that 3456093456+34 is not 3456093490 although finding a citation for this may well be impossible. WP allows us to use logic (in the form of mathematical calculation) to verify something. The argument used at the talk page is that anyone can get a calculator to prove that, but that calculation made to prove the point may have been the first time in human history that caclulation has been made. It is not wrong because nobody has ever made that observation. Mathematics is an extension of pure logic. And so it is with this argument. Logic tells us that if Genesis was a Jewish script long before Christianity existed and certain Christians base their faith in creation on Genesis rather than anything Jesus said or His followers, Creationists are basing their faith on a Jewish text that predates the foundation of their own religion and not on the teachings of their founder. Because the argument is based on logic the only way to counteract it is to prove that the logic is wrong (as it would be if I had claimed that 3456093456+34 = 100000). --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, wikipedia doesn't use single edits as precedents bar consensus for a single page and if there is an original research problem elsewhere, it should be corrected. The sentence itself adds nothing to the page - there's no history, no analysis, the sentence is logically flawless, certainly original research, utterly removable per WP:PROVEIT and has essentially no merit. The only purpose I can see to the sentence is to essentially make the claim "The Jews are responsible for the culture wars" in a roundabout, but logically impeccable manner. It's not just a matter of original research (though it is certainly OR), it's also a matter of irrelevancy. But ultimately - the material has been challenged, it's up to you, Hauskalainen, to find a source for it. If you can't, that suggests that no-one else has found this a point to be worth discussing (therefore an undue weight issue as well as original research). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's the point that the sentence seems to make. I have another problem - Christian creationism is the interpretation by certain Christians of some passages in an ancient text. Other Christians interpret it differently and reject Creationism. So, the next question is why do some Christians interpret these texts in such a way that they come up with Creationism. Is this really a pure logic problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) " The only purpose ... is to essentially make the claim "The Jews are responsible for the culture wars"" What????? It says no such thing! It merely is highlighting the fact that certain Christians have a different opinion how to interpret what is essentially a Jewish era rather than a Christian era text. --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

---

I've think we've reached the question we really want people on this noticeboard to comment on, namely:

Is the statement "The Book of Genesis predates Christianity and forms part of the Torah, a Hebrew Jewish scripture and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching." either

• an instance of a novel synthesis or
• an instance of a routine calculation?

Could we please see some input below from people who haven't yet commented on this issue. Gabbe (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't based on a source that makes the same connection, then it clearly falls under WP:SYNTH. In no way is this comparable to the fact that people can't lose their health insurance in the UK when they get unemployed. In case it helps to clarify the problem, how about the following alternative:

The Book of Genesis has been passed on through 2000 years of Christianity, forming one of its most important pillars; therefore it has taken on a genuinely Christian alter ego with its own traditions of interpretation, making Christian creationism a priori completely unrelated to Judaism.

I don't think that's correct, but I guess it's slightly more correct than the other sentence. Both are improper synthesis. Hans Adler 13:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree it is WP:SYNTH until a RS is produced. When an editor objects to unsubstantiated additions in the article then the promoter of the change must produce a RS in order for his change to stick.--LexCorp (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Creationism is anything other than Christian is not supported by the sources. Christians use the Old Testament in ways that Jews do not. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely a statement that is "likely to be challenged"... more to the point it is a statement that actually is being challenged. Thus, under WP:BURDEN, it is up to Hauskalainen and any others who wish to retain it to find a source for it. If they can not, remove it. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans says that this is not like the health care issue but clearly it is. Sometimes there are things that need to be said for the benefit of a certain audience that is definitely true but which may never have been said before. Like certain mathematical equations they have an inner logic which can be demonstrated to be true even if that has never before been reported by a WP:RS. That was the case with the health care article. The fact that Christian scholars may have interpreted Genesis ad infinitum and for longer than Jewish scholars does not alter the fact that document they are founding their belief was a Jewish document long before it was a Christian one. And if most of the belief is based on the content of a pre Christian era document and not on the teachings of Christ regarding creation, it is a bald fact that this belief is based more on a Jewish document than the teachings of Christ. It is true in logic. It does not make any value judgement and it matters not very much about the scholarly efforts made in the meantime if the underlying fact is that certain Christian creationists prefer to take Genesis as the basis of their belief and not the teachings of Christ. There are of course Christian Creationists (such as those who prefer to argue their case on the basis of logic e.g. those argue for intelligent design who argue for irreducible complexity. These people are not covered by the statement because their arguments are based on an intellectual argument by an examination of nature and not be reference to Genesis. The clear fact is that those argue that Genesis is the foundation of their belief are doing so on the basis of Jewish text (albeit one later adopeted and accepted by Christians) rather than the teachings of Christ. The statement is not arguing (as Rick Norwood implies that Creationism is a Jewish belief and not a Christian one. But Genesis was and is a Jewish text that is part of the Torah. It existed before Christ was born. Christian creationist using Genesis as a basis for their belief are founding their belief on document that owes more to Judaism than it does to Christ's own teaching. I am arguing that the argument stands up in logic and nobody yet has been able to come up with a logical reason why it is not true. Blueboar is right in arguing that it has been challenged, but it is being challenged solely on the basis that no WP:RS has ever pointed this out. It is exactly the same as the editor who was arguing that I could not say that "losing ones job in the UK does not lead to losing one's health care insurance" because there was no WP:RS. It is logically true because the NHS effectively insures all legal residents and access to the NHS is not tied to one's employment status. There were no WP:RS to be found for the statement I made but it was possible to show that free health care access is dependent on legal residency. Therefore the statement I added was true and could stand. Neither do I believe that WP:SYNTH applies here. There is no synthesis. If people argue that Genesis is the sourve of their belief and do not source their belief to the teachings of Christ then it is axiomatic that their faith is based on a Jewish era text and not the teachings of Christ. There is no synthesis at all. Nor is WP:OR any more than saying 2344454-54 is 2344400 would be WP:OR. It does seem to me that editors are being overly sensitive about this issue. There is nothing wrong with Christians having faith in the veracity of the Old Testament. That has always been the case. We just need to recognize that that is what it is when it happens.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Sometimes there are things that need to be said for the benefit of a certain audience that is definitely true but which may never have been said before." ... the problem is that Wikipedia is not the right venue to publish such things... we only deal with ideas that have been discussed by others. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The definition of WP:OR requires that the disputed statement's purpose is "to advance a position" (and presumably one that is disputable). If that is the case in this case, what is the "position" I am accused of advocating? And why is it disputable? The purpose of the statement is merely to point out that Christians founding their belief on the contents of Genesis are doing so using a document that is not in essence of their own religion. Sure it is based on a text which both Christianity and Judaism accept as part of their beliefs. But because the essence of Christianity as areligion which marks it out from Judaism comes from the teachings of Cgrist as reported in the Gospels, and the other writings and ideas in the New Testament and by later Christian scholars, if the main source of certain Christians' belief in creation is Genesis then the source is essentially one that is from Judaism. I am curious to know there are people out there who seem to object to this. I am sure it is not because there is no WP:RS to say this and I am fairly sure they don't really believe that this is WP:OR or else they would put up an argument that would defeat the logic. So it was with the health care issue. Nobody tried to demonstrate that losing a job in the UK would result in a loss of health insurance coverage. The argument about WP:OR was put up by editors in the US who did not like the fact that in their own country it was quite normal to lose health insurance coverage when a person lost theor job. No British writer would ever claim the same thing that I wrote because it is so obvious, and as far as I could see no American writer had ever said that about the UK. Just because nobody had ever said it did not make it challengeable. Sheer logic holds it to be true (because national health insurance coverage in the UK is related to legal residency and not to emplyment status). Anyhow, I challenge anyone to tell me what the "position" is that I am supposedly trying to advance. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the position you are advancing is this: "That Christians founding their belief on the contents of Genesis are doing so using a document that is not in essence of their own religion". This may be true... but to say it you need to cite a source that says it. More importantly, to say it in a particular context within in an article, you need to cite a source that makes the same point in the same context. Remember, what is "obvious" to you may not be "obvious" to someone else. Perhaps this is what people are objecting to. Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You're trying to shift the burden of evidence (WP:BURDEN). You added unattributed material, it was removed, and now you're challenging others to prove you wrong. That's not the way it works. Gabbe (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar is right and wrong. The statement is in effect saying this, but it is not a "position" (based on a synthesis of facts) it is a logical truth. I argue that this is not WP:OR and neither does it need a WP:RS. because it is a logical truth. It cannot be disputed. Just like any mathematical statement I might make which would be allowable even if had not been previously stated or Well is not advancing a "position" it is stating a bald fact. It cannot be disputed. If this statement was a terrible travesty of the truth editors would clearly have a way to contradict the statement other than asking for a WP:RS and demanding WP:Burden be adhered to. The simple truth is very simple. They cannot. For some reason, there are editors who accept do not want the article to state the obvious - that certain Christians who base their belief on the contents of Genesis are doing so using a document that is not in essence of their own religion. And because it is obvious they are resorting to demanding a citation for something no scholar or journalist would ever point out (because it is so clearly true it would be insulting the inteligence of the audience they write for). That no WP:RS has said this in this context does not make the statement suspect. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically you have two arguments 1) Because it's obvious to you, you don't need to provide a source for the statement 2) You want us to use a discussion about U.K. health care that you clearly remember the details of but can't link to as a precedent. Is that about right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It is not and issue of "I know best". It is a simple truth. Genesis is essentially a Jewish source because it dates from and forms part of the Jewish holy texts. It predates Christanity as a religious faith. It can also be accepted by Christians but if they accept it they are accepting it openly for what it is. They are not proclaim it as the teachings iof Jesus Christ. The parallel to the Health care issue is merely that this issue has come up before and editors agreed that it was perfectly acceptable to point out that losing a job in the UK did not lead to a loss of health care insurance because the National Health insurance system covers every legal resident regardless of employment status. We can prove the second point just as we can prove the Genesis predates Christianity. If anyone can show that Christians believing God made the world and its inhabitants in 6 days based on the teachings of Jesus Christ I think I might have to withdraw the statement. But clearly no such WP:RS says this. Hence the statement has to express a fundamental truth for which it is unreasonable to expect to have to provide a WP:RS on the basis that the claim is doubtful or that it breaches WP:NOR. It clearly is not doubtful as nobody has tried to rebutt it. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"...it is not a "position" (based on a synthesis of facts) it is a logical truth."... Perhaps... However: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Indeed, this concept lies at the very heart of both WP:NOR and WP:V. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It is verifiable that Genesis is part of the Torah, a compilation of writings forming the teachings of Judaism and that it predated the Christian era. It is also verifiable from the scriptures that Jesus did not teach us that God created the Heavens and the Earth and the waters and the land and the creatures on the land and Adam and Eve, the forebears of all people on the Earth (the creationist belief taken from Genesis). What you are trying to tell me is that I cannot then say that "The Book of Genesis predates Christianity and forms part of the Torah, a Hebrew Jewish scripture and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching" (or something similar to that) because that is WP:OR. I think that is stretching WP:OR too far. As I say, I am flexible on the precise wording of the second part of the text but I think the essential truth of the statement cannot be disputed. And indeed it has not yet been disputed by anyone here or at the Creationism TALK page.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

But the problem still is that it is the way many Christians interpret Genesis that leads to Creationism, the way you are putting it is quite different and implies that Genesis somehow 'causes' Christian Creationism. You can't blame Genesis for the way many Christians interpret it. I'm disputing your statement and have done so before here and at the talk page. It's a logical fallacy as it leaves out the key element of interpretation by Christians. If everyone, including Jews, interpreted it the same way you might have a point, but as that isn't the case, your argument is invalid. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to lose patience here... Hausakalainen, you have now had multiple editors tell you that this statement constitutes OR. You don't have to like it, but I urge you to accept it and move on. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, adding the statement to the article would violate WP policy - period. There is no need to split hairs over which policy the edit violates most closely, because it violates many. So many words have been spent already in trying to help you understand, perhaps the best course to take now is to simply accept the fact that a decision not to allow your edit has been made, and for you to simply accept the decision even though you don't understand it. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be a general problem here, see [1] - looks like an OR statement to me. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's now gone. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose this statement on the grounds that it is unnecessary and argumentative (and frankly because it misses the point), but it clearly is not original research. I can find any number of sources who point out that the Council of Nicaea gathered texts from the Judaic (and early Christian) traditions and chose which to include in the Bible. Jewish traditions that made the cut went into the old testament; teachings of Christ and his followers that made the cut went into the new testament; all were considered (after that) to be divinely inspired Christian teachings. This is all well documented. does Hauskalainen need to find some scholar who is oafishly pedantic enough to point out that - hey! - genesis is included in the old testament? "No Original Research" does not mean that we need to edit like mindless, drooling idiots. let's not water down wp:OR to deal with situations like this.

@ Hauskalainen: you missed the point because regardless of Genesis' roots in Judaic tradition, it is now firmly and irrevocably a Christian doctrine, with meanings and implications in Christianity that the Talmud story does not share. you might as well try to tell Buddhists that they are all really Hindus. --Ludwigs2 00:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is about "and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching". That's a blatant example of WP:SYNTH and is actually less true than the opposite. (I.e., while I have no idea whether literal readings of Genesis ever played a role in Judaism, they don't seem to do so now. And they are not that relevant among European Christians either. The problem is American Christians.) Hans Adler 00:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It is obviously original research for an editor to draw any conclusions whatsoever from the Bible about which influence "creationism" owes a greater debt to, Judaism or Jesus Christ. Let's move on, shall we? Wikipedia isn't the place to wax on about theological questions. If that's where one's interests lie, they need to look for another website to talk about it. Here we look to sources and let them determine what kinds of questions or answers are relevant to the articles. This discussion should be closed. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have reinstated this noticeboard posting because I still do not regard the discussion as fully closed.

I note the User:Ludwigs2 actually agrees with me that this cannot be WP:OR because there is much evidence to show that there are sources which fundamentally show the truth in the statement. Now he is right in the sense that it is a bit pedantic to point out that Genesis emmanates from Judaism rather than Christianity and I agree with this editor that Christians have adopted the 'old book' and that this today forms part of the basis of Christian belief. The statement that I made does not actually dispute this and I would be agreeable to adding a qualifier to the statement to this effect to mollify those who seem to be claiming that I am impying that Genesis is not part of Christian theology (which I am not. It clearly is, though the interpretation of the creation story in Genesis varies widely with most Christians worldwide rejecting a literal interpretation). I agree with Hans that the last element of the statement could be regarded as WP:SYN and that is why I am open to amending the last element of the statement (because clearly I have no WP:RS to show that others have examined the degree to which Creationists basing their belief on creation as described in Genesis turn to sources other than Genesis itself). This is the issue which User:Professor marginalia raises. But this is not the real issue. I am saddened that this dispute was brought to this noticeboard before we had completed the discussion at TALK as I was going to modify the second part of the statement.

The issue really is that some Christian Creationists take a literal interpretation of this part of the Talmud, which is a document predating the Christian era (even though they are included as an inclusive part of Christian thelogy). Hans does not address the WP:NOR issue on that fundamental issue, though he seems to believe as I do that it is mostly American Christians who have taken the stance that Genesis must be defended as literal truth. majority of Christians worldwide seem happy to accept evolution and therefore do not defend a literal interpretation of Genesis. And I agree with him that most Jews seem to take the same stance. Hence we have a situation where there are certain Christians choosing to take a literal interpretation of Genesis (an essentially pre-Christian text) which most Jews and most other Christians choose not to do. This is what I think needs to be conveyed to the WP readership because it has an intrisic truth based on the origin of Genesis and the views of the majority of Jews and most Christians in the world (though perhaps not in the USA).

For people like me, coming from a Christian background which rejects a literal interpretation of Genesis without rejecting the notion that God exists or somehow shapes creation) this is a fundamental observation that needs to be made because it is so curious that certain fundamentalist Christians (mostly in the USA) cling to a belief that is not really essentially Christian or even essential to Christian faith (seen from the majority perspective of Creationism as an observer not sharing this belief). It represents a POV that is not in the article currently and all POVs should be represented in the article.

Most Christians in my part of the world look upon these extreme fundamentalist with some curiosity because a literal interpretation of the creation story is not an essential part of our faith. True, I have not come up with a source which actually says this but I am sure that this will be easy to do.

I would like reviewers here to concentrate on the issue of how the article can state the odd situation that there are some Christians which take a narrow interpretation of a document which is, in its origins, a document from Judaism , and which is not interpreted in this way by the majority of other Christians or indeed by most Jews. That is the key issue here. Too many editors are focussing on the last sentence which I am prepared to change or modify to accommodate those concerns (because I understand that they are valid and that the last element of the statement is not sustained).--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you present the sentence you want to insert and solicit input? My main concern was with the last half of the sentence you orginally added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note: I only chimed in to suggest that what you were doing wasn't properly considered original research. I currently disagree with its inclusion for other reasons (mostly that it's a bit argumentative), but that is a discussion that ought to be taken up on the article talk page. let's restrict the conversation here to the issue of Original Research and not get into substantive questions about the addition itself.

I suggest you follow NeilN's suggestion, but over at the article talk page where we can discuss it in detail, not here. --Ludwigs2 20:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Genesis creation is fundamental to both Jewish and Christian creationism. It's no more complicated than that. I believe you meant to say "Torah" rather than "Talmud". And yes, the Torah and the first five books in the Bible, where Genesis is found, are the same. If this fact isn't widely understood, then fine. It's fine to say that the same story appears in both the Christian and Jewish bibles. It is not fine to use that fact to make new claims in the hope of influencing Christians how to read the Bible, or to try and drive home some point about how odd some Christians seem to other Christians in their interpretations. That's opinion. Opinions are fine when they come from published sources. They are not fine when they come from wikipedia editors. The "owes more to Judaism than the teachings of Jesus Christ" is you driving home to "certain" Christians that their view isn't really a "Christian" idea, it's essentially a Jewish idea. You need to keep your arguments out of the edits. When you put your arguments in the articles instead of those found in the published sources, that's original research. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A follow-up suggestion. I have done quite a bit of editing in creationism related articles, and have a fairly good idea what kinds of arguments along these lines have been published. There are sources that look into the historical and theological roots of today's fundamentalist style of creationism. The best source on the subject is Ronald Numbers "The Creationists", 2006. It's an excellent reference, and arguably the best source for understanding how the fundamentalist style of creationism (literalist) achieved such prominence in the US, and the kinds of numbers we're talking about when looking at literalist creationists versus the Catholic view or so-called "mainstream protestantism". I've used many similar sources. Their literalism is what distinguishes the strict creationists, not the fact that they hold to Genesis. Virtually all Christians accept Genesis as gospel, not just the fundamentalist creationists. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I accept the Professor's point that it is the literal interpretation that sets everybody apart. How about if the text read as follows?

"Few Jews or Christians in most places around the world now take a literal interpretation of creation as described in Genesis, a document that predated the Christian era. This trend has followed the development of a growing body of evidence from evolutionary biology, geology, and cosmology which tells a different story. However, in the United States, it is Christians and not Jews that are the force behind the revival of creationism."

Most of this is said elsewhere in the article with references except the pointing out that Genesis predates the Christian era. This is not difficult to prove. The article already says that most jews do not take a literal view of Genesis but the purpose of the phrase I wanted to add is maintained. i.e. the origin of Genesis in Judaism but the fact that is that it is Christians rather than Jews that are trying to adhere to a document that predates the Christian era. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading the section, I see that in effect this is what the section reads. I think I will drop the discussion. Thanks to all those who contributed.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Salt in the Bible

Snap! I was hesitant about bringing this here until I saw the entry above. What's the best thing to do with this, which looks like pure OR? Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... it definitely needs more sources. I would be willing to bet that there is at least one source out there that talks about this, but without such a source it is hard to know what is and isn't OR ... so, as a first step, I have tagged it with both {{Original research}} and {{refimprove}}. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of sources. Working on it.[2] Vassyana (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Irving Lazar

There are reference "citations" to comments made by various persons, but no actual citation of where those comments were made or where they can be verified. I'm not sure how to approach this, which seems an example of OR. Monkeyzpop (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say at this stage the problem is more the sheer absence of any sources. I've put "specify" tags on the ones you mention: if they're not expanded pronto to reliable published citations, you're well within policy to remove them. This is one of those articles that has slipped under the radar for years, with minimal attempts to improve sourcing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Roxburgh_Branch

Over on Talk:Roxburgh_Branch we're having a discussion about the use of primary sources and the context in which they can be used. The documents being cited as primary sources and therefore leading to parts of the article being possible OR, are corporate files that used to be privately held by the corporate body for its business use and are now widely accessible through a document archive. The discussion on the page has examined every aspect of the extent to which such materiable might be useable on Wikipedia, where a secondary source has not been determined.

There is certainly a need to determine an appropriate context, if any, for the use of such primary sources in this way. I interpret the policy Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources as being one that devolves the verifiability to the reader but at the same time the author must be sure that it is possible for the reader to verify the claims made; otherwise it is OR. In the case of internal corporate files of an organisation, particularly those of a historical nature going back over many years (40 in this case) it might not be possible for a reader to make any kind of verification at all. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Linear programming#theory unpublished dissertations and an on-line manuscript

Unpublished dissertations and a manuscript are given unusual prominence by an editor or editors with very similar IP addresses. The editor has not replied to questions or objections, but has stated that "Warning: Editing war: References to Bruni, Jalaluddin and Nguyen are repeatedly removed and WILL repeatedly be put back in again". Thank you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lia Looveer

there are ongoing concerns on Talk:Lia_Looveer. We have 3 sources:

• Looveer, Liia @ Academic Library of Tallinn University. in Estonian

• Diller, Ansgar (in German). Rundfunk in Deutschland: Rundfunkpolitik im Dritten Reich. pp. 404-406. [ISBN 9783423031844]. in German -not available online and impossible to verify if there is no German library around the corner.

• RADIO KARÐ by Sergejs Kruks in Latvian , abstract in German.

-The first source says that the subject, Liia Looveer worked for "Balti Raadio" as an announcer in Danzig, Thorn and Rostock in 1944-1945.

-The second source says according to Pantherskin [3] that "The Baltischer Reichs-Rundfunk was a propaganda program in Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian...etc.

-the third source says according to Zalktis [4] that The German propaganda organisation that prepared radio broadcasts in Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Ukrainian during the war was "Vineta Propagandadienst Ostraum e.V.", a subunit of the "Europasender" section of Großdeutscher Rundfunk (formerly Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft) and subordinated to Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry.

Now, based on those 3 sources some editors insist that while the subject worked for "Balti raadio" (source one) + that the station was according to source 2 the (German: Reichssender Baltikum) a Nazi radio station broadcasting news, propaganda and entertainment in Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian.

I have no idea if Lia Looveer worked for the nazi propaganda station or not mentioned by the source 2 and 3. But in case anybody here can see how this conclusion has been made based on those 3 sources that are available, out of which 2 do not mention the subject, that would help to sort it out! thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there is no need to go into details as to Balti raadio's political slant ... all that needs to be said is that Looveer worked for it. Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar for your input! In case anybody else is willing to comment on this, it would be appreciated.--Termer (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, when you ask for advice on sources you should present you case in an unbiased way. I will ask Pantherskin to provide his input into this issue. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In my view, this is a rather strange situation in which both supporters and detractors of the subject of the article seem to be happy that the article about that person exists (each hoping to push the article to a certain direction, based on scant evidence), while the best course of action might well be to revisit the AfD on the basis of a more systematic assessment of whether the article meets the notability criteria or not.  Cs32en  08:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I nominated this article for deletion because I did not think there were sufficient reliable sources to advance the article beyond a stub. Although many of the subject's associations were with controversial individuals and organizations, we do not know why she had those associations or what her contribution was. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

as I understand it, if there are no RS for going beyond a very short article, it stays a stub, but it stays. ; being a stub is not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't really care if the article exists or not. What I care about is that in case it exists, it should be written according to the sources available on the subject, and that was the only reason I listed this here.--Termer (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see any discrepancies between the three different sources. According to the Talinn University Library source she worked for Balti Radio based in Germany during the war; it is no surprise then that this was a Nazi propaganda station as is confirmed by the other two sources. That is an important bit of information here, and should be included at least as long as there is no stand-alone article on the radio station iftself. Pantherskin (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

and all that was the original conclusion made by Pantherskin on wikipedia and the main reason for this thread.--Termer (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

State of Palestine

I believe the aforementioned article is too much based on original research and personal interpretations of certain users, as well as giving undue weight to minority views. Furthermore, it it inconsistent with other articles about the subject. There was previously a decision to merge this article with Proposals for a Palestinian state. On July 2009 this article was "revived" by certain users. The article underwent many changers ever since. The current version is highly problematic, as it suggests that a state called Palestine already exists (an issue highly contested and controversial) and that it is the successor of the British Mandate of Palestine (a very unusual view among scholars). Any recent attempts to change the article was rejected, and the explanations on the talk page seems to me as if certain users try to push personal interpretation of sources into the article, in a way that resembles an academic thesis rather than a Wikipedian article. DrorK (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a strange feeling that my notice here is being ignored. Am I missing something? DrorK (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

After a quick glance, the article does POV issues (not surprising given the topic), but I don't think it is OR. The article seems well cited. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting the POV issue aside for the time being, I am well aware of the fact that the article is well sourced. The problem is that whoever wrote the article (or actually rewrote it, because it had a considerably different version before) uses different sources to establish a new thesis. This would be excellent as a dissertation, but not as a Wikipedian article. Basically, the article argues that there is an Arab state called Palestine, based on sources dealing with the definition of "state" in the international law and controversies over which elements in the definition are essential. It also tries to claim that the British Mandate of Palestine was primarily an Arab country under foreign influence. Again sources are cited, but their are heavily interpreted. To sum it up, sources there are, but they are not used for verification, but as a basis for interpretation, and that the "no original research here".

I will have to read the article again, but I did not get the impression that it was saying anything original... such arguments are fairly common in Palestinian sources. That's why I say that this may have POV problems, but not OR problems. As for the ethnic makeup of the British Mandate... this depends on when you look at it. In 1918 it was primarily Arab... by 1940 things were very different. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope to get more input (I wrote a lot on the article's talk page, and I won't reiterate it here). I've noticed that the issue I was referring to is addressed in this policy page: Wikipedia:SYN#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. I added two controversy templates that seem relevant to me in order to encourage people to refer to this issue. DrorK (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to re-write Indian history??

user 96.242.163.70 created the article: Grandfather of India

I suspect this may be original research. First, there are no references. It also reads very POV. Also, the comments by the editor on the discussion page intro imply original research: “I beleive this is a very important history issue and needs active discussion in veiw of unrevealed historical facts.” and “as a student of History of Indian History, I beleive the issue needs to be re-examined by historians in veiw of the facts revealed. The history needs to be re-written.”

Of course Wikipedia isn't the place to re-write history.

The material has also infiltrated several other articles. In Swami Dayananda Saraswati the editor changed “Some now revere him as Rashtrapitamah (Grandfather of the Indian Nation” to “That is why the Indians now revere him as Rashtrapitamah (Grandfather of the Indian Nation)” There is a substantial difference between the two statements.

The only reference to his being called the “Grandfather of India in ANY wikipedia article is: Rajender Sethi, "Rashtra Pitamah Swami Dayanand Saraswati" published by M R Sethi Educational Trust Chandigarh. Since the author and publisher appear as the same name could this be self-published? BashBrannigan (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I was also wondering if I should have nominated the article for Speedy Deletion, but I wasn't familiar with the process. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is now a redirect which I've nominated for deletion here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Friday Night Lights (film)

Can someone add this to their watchlist? User:Terryalan keeps adding original research here and here. In the second reversion, he basically admits it is original research. 216.117.11.39 (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I just left him a note on his page. Did you notify him about this ?

_{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 18:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Spiral Dynamics

Resolved

There is repeatedly inserted a category without naming any source, just by conviction. Could someone help here? The discussion is taking place on Talk:Spiral_Dynamics#removal_of_.22new_age.22_category and Talk:Spiral_Dynamics#The_new_age_issue. Thanks, --Pevos (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Too be strictly accurate the category has been there for over a year and the above editor is simply removing it without engaging in discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 21:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed (and amused) that this debate has been going on since May. Looking at [:category:New age]], Spiral dynamics doesn't quite fit the bill. it's probably closer to Category:New Thought movement instead (except for its proper analytic core), but that category seems to have a specific use different from what might be expected. at any rate, I don't think it would be helpful to any readers to categorize Spiral Dynamics in with New Age material, since people looking for New Age material are unlikely to be interested in Spiral Dynamics (which is too intellectual/analytical for proper new age material), and vice-versa. --Ludwigs2 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there was a brief exchange in May then nothing for a long period. Spiral Dynamics as originally proposed is probably not New Age, although Spiral Dynamics Integral (the Ken WIlber variation gets a lot closer). The obvious solution (as proposed on the talk page) is to focus the article on Spiral Dynamics up to the split then there is no argument. Interestingly there seems to be a mini-campaign on at the moment to remove the New Age category from multiple pages to do with the Integral Movement (Wilber). Its a matter of doctrine for Integral supporters that they have transcended new age thinking. This might be better at the NPOV notice board. --Snowded ^TALK 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You've been asked to provide a source. Have you or anyone else produced one? Professor marginalia (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The references relate to WIlber and the issue is the association of WIlber with Spiral Dynamics. My suggestion (on the talk page rather than edit waring) has been to remove the category while making the article clearly about the original Spiral Dynamics with the Wilber variant as a sub-section. That way the problem is solved. However there is ZERO engagement with that idea from User:Pevos and User:Goethean who aside from forum shopping here and elsewhere are tag teaming reverts. I'm not reinstating the tag, I'm not planning to respond in kind, but rather plan to edit the article as per my proposal to see if that gets some collaborative behaviour in play. I'd like some discussion first but there is no sign of that. --Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to rewrite the article, that's your business. But to answer the Professor's question, you have cited no sources to back up your claim. Correct? — goethean ॐ 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have said to you more than times than I care to remember the citations for New Age are for WIlber, and therefore the application to Spiral Dynamics relates to the degree to which the article represents Spiral Dynamics through Wilber's turquoise coloured glasses. Hence the suggested changes to the article to find a better way of dealing with what is a minor issue. --Snowded ^TALK 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will do your homework for you and supply the source that you seem to be impetuously referring to. Here is the citation which says that Wilber is new age:

Wouter J. Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture, SUNY, 1998, pp.70 ("Ken Wilber [...] defends a transpersonal worldview which qualifies as 'New Age'").

Is that your proposed source for adding the new age category to the Spiral Dynamics article? — goethean ॐ 18:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Now User:Dances with donkeys continues adding the category. Is any admin here who could check if this is a sockpuppet please? Thanks --Pevos (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Professor Marginalia: I don't think you're going to get any reliably source opinions on this issue. The term "New Age" is one of those terms that people who are really New Age use with pride, and people who aren't use as an insult. 'New Age' generally refers to any of various blends of conventional semi-Christian beliefs with pagan, naturalistic, mystic, or esoteric beliefs and practices and usually emphasizes peace, unity and bliss over truth and clarity. Wilber and the Integral Institute take a serious philosophical/analytical approach, so the label doesn't really apply, and they would reject New Age thinking (to the extent that they reject anything) as somewhat namby-pamby. People who call Spiral Dynamics 'New Age' are by definition people who are trying to vilify Spiral Dynamics; this is just an example of category petulance, (IMO) --Ludwigs2 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well to be accurate Wilber and the Integral Institute think that they have transcended New Age thinking which along with post modernism etc. they label as part of the"mean green meme" while they have ascended to the turquoise level of integrated understanding. Its that sort of approach and language which mean that they have been labeled as New Age by reliable sources (see the Integral article). As to serious philosophical analysis, well they have about the same level of university interest/credibility as Ayn Rand which is not saying much. My view is that the original Spiral Dynamics and the continuation by Cowan is clearly not New Age, but that Spiral-Dynamics-Integral (Beck and WIlber) is. Incidentally I don't think New Age is any more an insult than any number of religious labels. Its not an easy or straight forward matter. Hence the need for discussion on how to handle it. --Snowded ^TALK 17:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Aren't you going to accuse Ludwigs2 of being a Ken Wilber ideologue, like you did when I and Pevos opposed your edits? Now Ludwigs2, Pevos, Atama,[5] and myself have expressed opposition to your edits. Supporting you is my stalker User:LoveMonkey, whose comments on the talk page were completely unintelligible and off-topic,[6] and User:Dances with donkeys, who is a sockpuppet of banned User:Joehazelton. — goethean ॐ 18:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake calm down. I appreciate Ludwigs2 getting involved and I can't see any grounds for an accusation. I have just read the talk page and I can't see any example of my saying that any editor is a Ken Wilber ideologue either. All I did was to restore a one year plus stable version asking for discussion per wikipedia policy. By edit warring not discussing the issues you have created a hurricane in a inconsequential teapot. Your views of other editors involved in this issue I find a bit extreme, you don't resolve a content issue by commenting on other editors and making provocative remarks. Also if you bother to read my comment, you will have seen that I have clearly stated that I plan to edit the article to remove the need for the category in the hope this nonsense can end. --Snowded ^TALK 19:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Why is this editor Goethean able to get away with these severe beaches of WP:Civility, WP:AGF considering Goethean very long history of wiki-thuggery. I wonder who protects this rouge, and enables him to continue his reign of contentious editing. Dances with donkeys (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive the intrusion gentlemen but does Ken Wilbur have a degree in psychology or psychiatry or philosophy or sociology? Also Professor whomever aside.. Wilber is known as a new age person..An example from Salon..

Though he's often described as a New Age thinker, Wilber ridicules the notion that our minds can shape physical reality, and he's dismissive of New Age books and films like "The Tao of Physics" and "What the Bleep Do We Know." But he's also out to show that "trans-rational" states of consciousness are real, and he's dubbed the scientific materialists who doubt it "flatlanders." [7]

"... at this point in history, the most radical, pervasive, and earth-shaking transformation

would occur simply if everybody truly evolved to a mature, rational, and responsible ego, capable of freely participating in the open exchange of mutual self-esteem. There is the 'edge of history.' There would be a real New Age."

- Ken Wilber, Up From Eden, pg. 328

Again forgive the intrusion but uh that find was just by typing in Ken Wilber into google which then added the words New Age to my entry. As the Ken Wilber New Age debate has already happened and for the sake of balance and fairness the label was removed from his wiki article. It has not changed peoples perception of him and his views. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is Goethian allowed to make allegations against people with impunity. Show how I have stalked Goethian or please addressed Goethians abuses. As Goethian is also accusing Snowded of stalking. Again everyone but Goethian gets reprimanded. Why is that? Why the double standard? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

(e/c) ugh, this is not my day for peaceful coexistence with others...

@snowded & lovemokey: don't misunderstand me; I didn't say that Wilber and II were scholarly/academic. He has a Master's in psychology, I think, and he's very well-read, but that's about it. I only said that they take an analytical approach that is not typical of New Age thinking (which tends towards emotional/'oceanic' thought). My concern with the label is that outside of 'actual' new age domains, the term 'new age' is usually used as a mild pejorative (along the lines of Schwartzenegger's "girlie-man" comments). LM, note that that's precisely the tone of the reference you gave. I would hate to see Wilber's/II's defense against (what they perceive as) an erroneous insulting term be used as proof that the erroneous insulting term actually applies. They don't use typical New Age thinking, they don't self-identify as New Age - they shouldn't be categorized that way without some decent reason.

@Gothean: I've run across you before (on Ramakrishna, I think), and you had the same spiteful, didactic, tendentious editing style that you showed in this post here. please play nice. --Ludwigs2 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Look Ludwig, I am not fooling when I say this. You guys (admins) are up to your necks in alligators. I really don't like jumping back into to this and I'll listen to you guys (admins). Goethian has done allot of bad stuff here on wiki and this is just another chapter. I was on the opposite side of Mr Snowded and his support of another abuser on here and I was actually screwed over by wiki by way of that abuser that is why I quit. But Snowded though not completely right on this one, is allot closer then Goethian who is a bully and someone whose been gaming the system here at wiki for years. Using cult-like tactics, insulting people and engaging in ad hominem all with impunity. In the end it's your call I will allows respect that, but this is goethian doin more damage and not getting called on it. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

LM, I'm not an admin, just another editor like you. just an FYI. and this isn't about personalities. while I might caution an editor on bad behavior, I rarely make comments about the editor him/herself. try to refrain from that, if you can. --Ludwigs2 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Ludwig. I would argue that a fair amount of New Age thinking while not analytical is thoughtful and while one might challenge the axioms one frequently finds coherence. I therefore don't see it as pejorative per se. I think WIlber rejects it because he things he has created a theory of everything, in consequence he will automatically reject any classification. His use of the various coloured layers from Spiral Dynamics allows him to categorise all other theories but his own as primitive or lower level (hence the rejection of labels). That concept of higher levels of consciousness/awareness is why he has been labeled New Age by third party sources. Spiral Dynamics is now an essential part of Integral Theory and most people think of Wilber/Beck when Spiral Dynamics is mentioned. I think that is why the category was first placed there. Hence my suggestion (which I will get round to at the weekend) to make the split in Spiral Dynamics clear and keep the article to the original concept. Then there is no need for the category and the problem does away. If you fancy making any comments on the outline I put up it would be a great help. --Snowded ^TALK 19:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilber does not have a Master's in psychology. I believe that he has a Bachelor's in biology and chemistry and did some aborted graduate work in bio-chem.

Snowded (he asked meekly), could you look at the Hanegraaff citation above and tell us if this is your only source for adding the category? I have asked you directly what your source is and in response, you scolded me[8] for my temerity in asking you such an outrageous question. Everybody seems to be on your side, so I'll just ask you again, as politely as I can. Is Hanegraaff your source for adding the category to the Spiral Dynamics article? — goethean ॐ 19:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored a one year stable position against your edit warring Goethean last May and now January with a request on both occasions to discuss the matter on the talk page. In the absence of that discussion and in an attempt to resolve things I have suggested an approach to the article which would mean the category would not apply. --Snowded ^TALK 20:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed to death. You never provided an iota of evidence for your claims, although your evasive rhetoric is masterful. And you still refuse to give a straight answer to a simple question. I suggest that you find a source or two before rewriting your competitors' article. — goethean ॐ 20:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, you've tried the "competitor" report without support. If you put half the effort into working with editors that you put into this (well I don't know what to call it, but I sympathize with Ludwig's description) we might get a good article. The insinuation above is yet another failure to abide by WP:AGF --Snowded ^TALK 20:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well what Snowded is saying (at least to me) is pure collaborative spirit. I personally think that Ken Wilbur's "anything" does not belong in the article period. And Snowded seems to be trying to compromise. Why is Snowded having to do this? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Because he has repeatedly claimed that Spiral Dynamics is new age, but has failed to provide a source for his claims. The rest of this far-flung and misdirected conversation is basically him attempting to avoid providing a source for his edits. — goethean ॐ 19:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)If I understand Wilber correctly, he rejects New Age thinking because he sees it as 'flat', meaning that it takes an n-dimensional concept and projects it onto an m-dimensional space, where m<n. The problem for Wilber is that people who see the world in two dimensions can never have an adequate understanding of spheres or cubes; all they can see is the shadow that such a shape leaves on a 2-dimensional plane. so, New Agers (to his mind) see a spiritual practice and think it's the practice itself that matters, and miss the deeper developmental issues the practice is supposed to redress (and that viewpoint misses the deeper spiritual issues that the developmental issues mask). While I won't make any comments about his approach, I find it hard to reject that particular insight. but never mind that... have you made a formal case for splitting the article somewhere? I missed it, if so, so please point me to it. --Ludwigs2 19:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, not sure about that but the 3/2 dimensions point is a good summary of Wilber, its a claim that he sees things that other people cannot see. now that is either the legitimate claim of the one-eyed man in country of the blind, or its a deluded claim to higher consciousness. From my various encounters over the years I would say more the latter than the former but that is just my opinion! The latter is a problematic line of reasoning and its not uncommon in New Age thinking and pseudo science. However that is for another day. My proposal is under Spelling our my proposal. Its not a proposal to split the article, I don't think that is necessary. Rather to make the main body about the original Spiral Dynamics and then move stuff about WIlber/Beck to a section Spiral Dynamics Integral (which is the term they use) with a related note about the different direction that Cowan has taken. I put it up as a set of bullet points for comment before I put in the hard work. I have a dozen articles that academic experts in the field sent me as a result of a twitter request when this all started so I am going to work from that. Comments as I say would be appreciated.--Snowded ^TALK 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well. Ken Wilber's theory is not peer reviewed as far as I know (if so please post where and when that happened-pretty please with money on top). As for Snowded, well me and him and his buddy User:Peter Damian are not buddies. But Snowded is right here. So I support him (hell they got me a 24 hour ban so I have no pony in the race). As his comment about the source. It appears to be backward as again, Ken Wilber's work as far as I know is not peer reviewed he's not an academic authority on this, his stuff is pop culture and has no academic weight as far as know (no disrespect Ken, I loved your stuff on the Matrix special edition (<; LoveMonkey (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, Snowded covered this "2 diminsional way of thinking" in his whole take on Cargo cult. Wilber isn't even remotely unique in this and again as far as I can tell not really considered anything short of an ego driven short lived father of some pop philosophy culture fad. But I don't matter so someone please show me if they could why such a non academic thing belongs in a academic article, anyway? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

never said he was unique; I just said that 's what he said, and that it's an un-new-agish kind of belief. but we're not really here to critique Wilber or his views; we're just here to talk about whether it should be categorized as New Age. --Ludwigs2 20:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I can think of a much simpler solution, and that is AfD, or a redirect to Wilbur. I see no evidence in the article that anyone has every used the term except Wilbur and Cowen, and apparently they use it differently. It's not worth worrying about a tag when the basic contents of the article is so questionable. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of company article

As I have mentioned on its talk page, much of the article on the company that I represent (and therefore have a conflict of interest regarding), Hill & Knowlton, is POV and requires references and citations from reliable sources. So far, none of the article's editors have responded to my call for the article to be checked for its neutrality and references improved/unreliably sourced material removed.

I can therefore only assume that the editors of this article are trying to make my organisation look bad by not presenting either a neutral or well-balanced point of view, supported by reliable sources.

As my COI restricts me from directly editing the article, I am therefore reaching out to this community of editors in the hope that someone with an independent position will review the article for unreferenced original research and edit it accordingly.

Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) 13:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently removing a bunch of promotional wording, purple prose, and marking items that need proper citations. I'll have to go over the citations later (I'm currently at work), to see if they stand up to WP:RS. To be honest, there was a fair amount of promotional wording in the top sections, and antagonistic wording in the "controversies" section. It's going to take some work to actually make an WP:NPOV article here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and thanks for making a start. Completely agree about the WP:RS issues – quite a lot of the "controversies" seem to be mostly WP:POV, only a small part of which is actually supported by the citation. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) 09:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

It has been asserted that Mass killings under Communist regimes is a coatrack, synthesis, and thus original research.

The argument placed for this is that:

The article implies by listing in proximity that there is a specifically communist cause for the events listed

No cause is forthcoming which is specifically communist:

Some causes have communism as a descriptive subset, for example, Valeninto theorises a category of "dispossessive mass killings", and describes communism as a subset

Some claims of cause are patently FRINGE (Weiss-Wendt)

Some claims are not explorations of the subject, Courtois' throw away three paragraphs on criminality and non-catholicism as the fundamental cause in the introduction to the black book

Some claims are single society specific, and are not general to "communism", such as Conquest's

Without an academic theorisation of specifically communist causes, and general causes, observed in academic literature specifically discussing multiple societies, the article is OR

What help can NOR/N provide? Given the heated nature of the debate on the article, I've taken the liberty of giving space for a specific summary counter argument to my own, and separated the space for involved and uninvolved editors, to avoid drowning NOR/N editor advice below an export of article discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The article makes no claims which are SYNTH, and this is now procedure for the sake of procedure. I was accused of SYNTH and OR for this Talk page post [9] contains no OR or SYN, and is not even in the article for any such claim to be made. As the premise is faulty, this is not a "counter argument" of any kind or sort, and immediately follows the post from Fifelfoo. Collect (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To Fif: Listing sources when an editor has asked specifically for such does not qualify as SYN or OR. See "What did you do to improve the article from RS today Collect? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC) " which, for some odd reason, I interpreted as asking for some RS sources. Amazing that I am that gullible. Collect (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For involved editors

Smallbones

I'll just repeat the examples I've given on the talk page to show that no matter what evidence is shown some editors continual cry "Synthesis, synthesis."

I asked who they would consider to be mainstream scholars in the area and they answered Benjamin Valentino and Helen Fein:

from Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century‬ By Benjamin A. Valentino [10] In Chapter 4. Communist Mass Killings, The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia p.93

"Why did the communist utopias of the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia become history's greatest slaughterhouses? I argue that radical communist regimes have proven such prodigious killers primarily because the social changes they sought to bring about have resulted in the sudden and nearly complete material dispossession of millions of people. These regimes practiced social engineering of the highest order. It is the revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society that distinguishes radical communist regimes from all other forms of government, including less violent communist regimes and noncommunist, authoritarian governments."

Helen Fein -"The study also confirmed our expectation that genocide is most apt to be practiced by authoritarian states and (e)specially by one-party communist states, which were more than four times more likely to have committed genocide since 1945 than other unfree states were." [11]

The "synthesis" and "original research" arguments they harp on for deleting this article are pure nonsense.

Fifelfoo

Responding to Collect above, Collect's diff of their talk contribution is a perfect example of SYNTH and OR by listing in proximity. By listing unrelated items, without a RS'd structural explanation for the list, an implied commonality is created. While this was a talk page contribution, it is a beautiful miniature example of the SYNTH problem with the main article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you stated, "As for asking for RS sources try: [Series of single society newspaper articles snipped] And so on == all RS, all directly on point for this article as it is titled.". That's a SYNTH argument for the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Terminology:

"Mass killing" is a relatively neutral term used by Benjamin Valentino for preventable premature deaths. There is a genuine research object in genocide studies of preventable premature deaths caused by both neglect and action; and, another genuine research object which separates preventable premature deaths that were neglectful from preventable premature deaths that were caused. Democide, politicide, genocide, mass killings are all terms that have been used. I'm not bothered by this, but there's a problem in the article's capacity to express these differences at the moment. That both types of preventable premature deaths are objects of study isn't in question in RS.

In response to questions:

No currently discovered sources lump these objects of horror together in the way done in the article; no sources used in the article discuss the sub-topics in the manner conducted in the article

Courtois et.al. in the highly disputed and attacked, "Black Book of Communism," present a number of separately authored chapters without a sustaining narrative or thematising introduction. The individual chapters are RS single society case studies, but do not make comparative evaluations, or describe instances as connected. Courtois' introduction and conclusion are focused exclusively on the Soviet Union and do not present general theories.

Benjamin Valentino restricts his work to Soviet Union, China, Cambodia

Demographic studies conflate the preventable premature deaths of all these instances, but do so in tabular lists without theorised discussion typology or category

There is a FRINGE tendency to claim that "Communism" was/is a monolithic structure which doesn't need internal differentiation.

Only the content on theorisation attempts is not described separately in a main article.

There is no scholarly discussion of lumping events. Attacks on the Black Book have focused on the quality of the research. FRINGE claims of universal monolithic communist criminality have been slammed for being FRINGE.

IMHO there is no purpose served by the detailed chronology of events except to attempt to prove an Original Research claim by COATRACK. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Blueboar:

Valentino has a category Dispossessive mass killings which contains (a b c d e f g) of which China, Cambodia and the Soviet Union are described as, but not categorised as "communist mass killings"

Authors such as Rummel or other demographers use the terms democide or politicide covering all major preventable death incidents in the 20th century, not making theoretical claims particular to communism

A variety of single case authors describe individual events as genocide.

The Four Deuces

Although there is no academic literature connecting mass killings with Communist regimes, there is a non-academic theory that communist ideology leads to mass killings. The theory was developed by theorists who equate communist killings with Nazi Germany (moral equivalence). The theory has its immediate origins in holocaust denial, but instead of denying the holocaust (holcaust trivialization), it equates the crimes of communists with the natural reaction of Europeans against the "Jewish threat". Many Eastern European advocates of the theory were upset when their governments apologized for their involvement in the holocaust because the Jews had not apologized for causing WW2. The main point is that while Nazis may have killed 6 million (although that is questioned) the Jewish communists killed 100 million. Communism is equated with Jewishness although some versions replace Jews with Russians.

Originally I voted to delete this article because of its inherent POV, OR, and SYN problems. However on reading more about its significance in far right ideology I think it is a legitimate article.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert

The "Terminology" section is composed of some statements that do not reflect adequately the sources, and thereby create a distorted picture. In the second section's paragraph

("Valentino uses the term "mass killing," which he defines as "the intentional killing of a significant number of the members of any group of noncombatants (as the group and its membership are defined by the perpetrator)," in his book "Final Solutions: The Causes of Mass Killings and Genocides." In a chapter called "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China and Cambodia", He focuses on these three as "history's most murderous Communist states," but also notes that "mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa."[6](p91)")

a Valentino's definition of mass killing is provided that is supplemented with a detailed description of one chapter of his book that is devoted to mass killings in three Communist countries. This fragment is intended to create an impression that Valentino developed a "Communist mass killing" concept, what is obviously false, because he clearly wrote in the same chapter that "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as Communist or been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing." My conclusion is that the second para is SYNTH.
The third para

("Regarding the use of democide and politicide data, Frank Wayman and Atsushi Tago have shown that depending on the use of democide (generalised state-sponsored killing) or politicide (eliminating groups who are politically opposed) as the criterion for inclusion in a data-set, statistical analyses seeking to establish a connection between mass killings can produce very different results, including the significance or otherwise of regime type.[7]")

is, probably, the most vague way to present a very clear authors' conclusion ("It would therefore appear (assuming for the moment that there are not any big measurement biases) that autocratic regimes, especially communist, are prone to mass killing generically, but not so strongly inclined (i.e. not statistically significantly inclined) toward geno-politicide."). In other words, Wayman and Tago simply state that there is no statistically significant linkage between genocide and Communism, although some connection between autocracy and mass killing does take place. My conclusion is that this para is pure OR. One way or the another, this para deals with connection between Communism and mass killing, not with terminology.
A fourth para ("Helen Fein a founder and the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars has termed the mass state killings in the Soviet Union and Cambodia as the "Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide".") also pretends to create an impression that Helen Fein put forward the term "Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide". In actuality, according to Fein's own words ""However, while totalitarian states have been more likely to commit genocide than are other states, most cases of contemporary genocide since World War II were committed by authoritarian, not totalitarian states, and are not ascribable to ideology." it is impossible to speak about genocide or democide as something pertinent to Communism. My conclusion is that the para is pure OR.
The fifth para ("In his book The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century Manus I. Midlarsky compares similarity of killings of Stalin with those of Pol Pot.") is quite obscure for me because it has nothing to do with terminology.
The sixth para ("Communist states are alleged by some genocide scholars, such as Daniel Goldhagen and Benjamin Valentino, to be responsible for deaths far in excess of any other regime type") deals with the number of Communists' victims and also has nothing in common with terminology.

Summarising all said above, the whole section pretends to create an impression that some special terminology exists that describes Communist mass killings. I believe I was able to demonstrate it is absolutely false.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the "terminology" section is only the emerged part of the iceberg. AFAIK the article's previous name was Communist genocide. The article was renaimed to avoid deletion (if I am not wrong). I personally have no major objection against the old name (as well as against the present one) provided that, but only provided that the article combined only well established cases of mass murders and genocide (Cambodia, Stalin's Great Purge, etc) and briefly mentioned other cases of preventable prematutre deaths that, according to some scholars, can be considered "genocide", "democide", "politicide" etc, (and, according to others, cannot).
By contrast, the article tends to become a collection of all cases of premature mortality under Communist rule, and even a single mention of certain case by one scholar apperars to be sufficient for its inscusion into the article. In my opinion it is WP:FRINGE and WP:SYN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Blueboar (1, 2, 3)

I believe, we have a mixture of 1 and 3. (i) Some (very few) sources, mostly Valentino, combine all premature mortality cases (including, mass murders, mass executions, prisoner mortality, deportations' mortality, famine victims, and even low fertility) into the "communist mass killing" sub-category (with reservation that mass killing are not pertinent to Communism in general). Some other scholars (Rummel) blame Communism more explicitly, however they use a "democide" (not "mass killing") term. (iii) Many scholars describe the same events taken separately, or group them according to different criteria, and use the terminology other than "mass killing". (For instance, Helen Fein (quoted in the article) discusses Cambodia and Indonesia as examples of genocides perpetrated by "communist" (she considers Khmer Rouge not Communist, but a kind of fascist regime) and anti-communists and finds many common features.) Other scholars provide much different (lower) numbers of the victims of Communism, argue that not all governments' actions were deliberate, and conclude that there is no direct connection between Communism and genocide.
Summarizing all said above, the article has a strong tendency to become a collection of all cases of mass killings, genocides, mass premature (not coercive) mortality under Communist regimes without explanation why all these quite different and sometimes very controversial cases have been combined in the same article named "Mass killings under Communist regimes"--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Given the article title, there is a clear implication that all of these events were caused because the regemes in question were communist." I proposed to add a separate section devoted to this issue,[12] however I encountered a vehement opposition to this idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For uninvolved editors

Questions

1. How many of sources cited on the page actually lump these events together the way it's done in the article?
2. How much of the content of this article is not already described in a separate main article?
3. And if there are sufficient sources cited claiming these events can be or can't be lumped, why not concentrate on the discussions surrounding that central question? What purpose is served by the detailed chronicle of independent events?

I haven't studied the article, but it and the similar Anti-communist mass killings do have aspects that make them appear to be coatracking beyond where the sourced analysis takes the subject. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just note that the Anti-communist mass killings seems to have been written as a WP:Point. Apparently some editors thought that any argument used to advance the deletion of "Anti-communist mass killings" could also be used as an argument to delete "Communist mass killings". Nobody has taken the bait. "Anti-communist mass killings" should be deleted, but only because it violates WP:Point. Smallbones (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

wow... that article definitely has issues... I will have to read it very carefully to see if the problems stem from SYNT or other OR related issues, or if it is simply just a rampant POV nightmare. My first reaction is to say that it uses an overly broad interpretation of "mass killing". The article treats both overt acts (people being executed) and pasive acts (people dieing due to famine or in the process of being deported) as being "mass killings"... which seems wrong to me. Blueboar (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For which the article Talk page is the proper venue -- and such discussions have occurred. Generally the deaths which were not due to government actions or policies have been removed. This is, moreover, to be seen in context of a half-dozen or more noticeboard complaints in short order, while WP has a WP:DEADLINE. Collect (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about a deadline? As for OR... I think Prof. Marginalia asks the key question... are there sources that lump the different events that the article does mention together, and do so using the term "Mass killing" (or a even an analogous term)? If not, then it could well be WP:SYNT for us to do so. (and as for having multiple complaints on multiple noticeboards... I would take them as a hint that there is something seriously wrong with the article... and that perhaps it needs some serious rethinking.) Blueboar (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If there were more than 3 complainants, you might have a point - but it is the same ones, over and over <g>. And since there are several thousand references which use the term, I suggest that SYN is not a problem, indeed. Collect (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do all of these thousands of sources mention all of these events, using the same term... or are we talking seperate sources, all using the same term, but focusing on seperate events. This is important to determining if there is a synth... To make this clear, take the following three senarios:

1. Source A say that events x, y and z are all examples of "mass killing"... so we say event x,y and z are all examples of "mass killing".
2. Source B says that event x is a mass killing, source C says that event y is a mass killing, and source D says that event z is a mass killing. so we combine these sources and say events x, y and z are all examples of "mass killing"
3. Source B says that event x was "genocide", source C says that event y is "a horror of totalitarian brutality and death", source D says event z resulted in "thousands dieing due to deliberate governmental inaction"... so we say events x, y and z are all examples of "mass killing".

What we want is is the first senario... one single source that discusses all the events and applies the term "mass killing" to all of them. The second senario is iffy... it might be an example of Synt, or it might not... this depends on whether each source uses the term "mass killing" with the same meaning. The third senario is definitely an example of synth... each source is discussing different events, using different terminology, and we are the ones tying it all together under the banner of "mass killing". From looking at the article under discussion... it looks as if we are dealing with the third senario.

And this does not even address the issue of implied cause... Given the article title, there is a clear implication that all of these events were caused because the regemes in question were communist. So what we really need is: Source A saying that event x, y, and z were all "mass killings" which occured due to the fact that the countries in which they happened were communist. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly 1) e.g.

• The Black Book of Communism (from Harvard University Press) gives examples from 10 countries, using terms such as "mass executions" and "genocide," which are clearly subsets of "mass killings." While it concentrates on totaling up and documenting the numbers, it also briefly mentions motivation related to Communist ideology and totalitarianism.
• Valentino - see quote directly below - uses the term "mass killing" and concentrates on the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Cambodia, and gives ideological reasons.
• Goldhagen (former Harvard prof, forthcoming PBS series on the issue) in Worse than War [13], uses the term "genocide" (a subset of "mass killing") gives examples from probably about 20 countries, both Communist and non-Communist, certainly covering all the countries covered in the Black Book, and gives specific Communist ideological and "practical" reasons for the Communist genocides. The ideological reasons echo Valentino

So you asked for one, I've given you three. There are lots more, but they do tend to focus on 1 or 2 countries at a time, and some just mention the ideological reasons in passing. Smallbones (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• from Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century‬ By Benjamin A. Valentino [14] In Chapter 4. Communist Mass Killings, The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia p.93

"Why did the communist utopias of the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia become history's greatest slaughterhouses? I argue that radical communist regimes have proven such prodigious killers primarily because the social changes they sought to bring about have resulted in the sudden and nearly complete material dispossession of millions of people. These regimes practiced social engineering of the highest order. It is the revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society that distinguishes radical communist regimes from all other forms of government, including less violent communist regimes and noncommunist, authoritarian governments." (put here for your convenience Smallbones (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

Smallbones has clearly missed out Helen Fein a founder and the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars who has published back in 1993 a chapter on the subject under 'Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides' in 'Genocide: a sociological perspective.--Termer (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fein, Helen (1993). "Soviet and Communist genocides and 'Democide'". Genocide: a sociological perspective; Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides;. Sage Publications. ISBN 9780803988293. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

(Although only uninvolved editors are supposed to post in this section, let me continue a dispute with involved editors, as soon as they decided to post here). Both Valentino and Fein clearly state that there is no direct connection between Communism and mass killing. Valentino explicitly states that most Communist regimes committed no mass killing, whereas Fein unequivocally notes that most mass killings in 1950s and after were not connected to ideology. I have already provided the quotes several time, so I don't think I heed to reproduce them literally here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That by Paul Siebert seems like wishful thinking. both Helen Fein and Valentino are very clear about the connection between the ideology and the killings. and from there you have it "Communist mass killings" by Valentino speaks for itself and Fein even puts her chapter on "Soviet and Communist genocides and 'Democide'" under Ideological Genocides.--Termer (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like one thing that would help is to clearly attribute ideas to their authors. To say "Helen Fein argues X..." and "according to Valentino, Y"... rather than mearly stating X and Y as accepted fact. This would help clarify what is and is not OR. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll all make an effort to attribute ideas to their authors (it would help, of course, if folks don't keep on removing reliable sources in the article and the text that summarizes them!), but as long as everybody accepts the interpretation of OR and Syth put forward for this case by BlueBoar, there is absolutely no case for saying the whole idea of the article is syth. Can we all agree that BlueBoar's interpretation is correct, and that at least one of the 4 examples given above satisfy the required conditions to be non-synth? Smallbones (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What is OR-ish in the article is pretty clear, for example a statement like this [15] according to Rudolph Joseph Rummel turning into a self commentary by combining sourced that do not speak about the same thing [16]--Termer (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This subject is outside my area of expertise. I've made a few comments based on the title of the article on the talk page. I find the title objectionable, because it sounds like red-baiting and sounds unencyclopedic. I find titles such as anti-communist mass killings, or Christian mass killings, or Moslem mass killings equally objectionable. To single out any group, and then say only bad things about it, is wrong. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The title is what it is, I don't think it's perfect either, it's partly borrowed from Valentino, "Communist mass killings" (who, right or wrong, is one of the scholars who has singled out the mass killings sponsored by states ran by communists) and the article was renamed so by an uninvolved administrator after WP:Consensus was achieved at Requested_move_II.--Termer (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Um... at this point people should look at WP:NAME, and WP:NPOV#Naming articles. The title of an article should reflect that used commonly by English language sources... not what is used in one source. And where possible they should be neutrally worded. Are there other sources that use this name (or something close to it) for this topic? Do other sources use different names? Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I used Google scholar to search for the exact phrase "Mass killings under communist regimes" and also "Mass killings by communist regimes". There were zero hits in both cases. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... but we are not done yet... the next step in that process is to determine whether there is some other name that is commonly used for this topic. I would expect not, but I don't know this for sure. If not, then we are in a situation where there is no "common name"... and we are free to "create" a name. When doing this, we must create a name that is neutral in tone. "Mass Killings" is certainly more neutral than "Genocide" or "Murder"... but is it neutral enough. And (this is probably the key part) is specifying "under Communist regimes" neutral? Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything on the current title please read Requested_move_II. In case anybody can think of a better title than the current one for the subject that is known by scholars as the "Communist genocide" (Helen Fein) Communist democide (R. J. Rummel) or Communist politicide (Midlarsky), or "Communist mass killings" by Valentino etc. I'm more than sure there are many open minded contributors on Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes who'd like to hear about it.--Termer (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the examples you give are names of areas of study. That is only the case if Valentino, to take one example, claims that communist mass killings are different in character from other mass killings throughout history. In the quote above, he does make some extraordinary claims, but it is not our place to review his book, only to decide where to report his views. There are two questions. First, is "communist" is an adjective, like "New York" would be in the phrase "New York crime statistics", or is "communist mass killings" a subject different from other mass killings. Second, is this a mainstream view, and is there a commonality between the various authors cited above, or is it just Valintino's view, in which case it belongs in an article on Valintino. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Those questions should be addressed to the authors listed above, for example to Helen Fein the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars why has she published a chapter called "Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide" under "Contextual and Comparative Studies I:Ideological Genocides" in Genocide: a sociological perspective ISBN 9780803988293--Termer (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian

Although the latest edit here] was introduced as a compromise, I still see it as OR as no evidence is given that the scholars in question have mentioned LDS 'Reformed Egyptian' or compared it to other scripts. The second paragraph is probably more of an RS issue, I don't see how we can use a character from a religious story as a source in this way. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right about OR issues and also about using an angel as a reputable source for a statement. However, the OR issues are on both sides of the fence. (For example: "Standard language reference works contain no reference to "reformed Egyptian"." That is clearly a bit of original research, making arguments not made by the sources, and argumentum ex silencio to boot.) This is unfortunately typical for articles focused on LDS-orientated pseudoarchaeology. It's perfectly fine to present both the skeptical and apologetic viewpoints, but both should be done according to reliable sources, not the observations and conclusions of Wikipedia editors. Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Vassyana is exactly right here. The statements used to debunk the notion of "Reformed Egyptian" are classic OR; even worse, they're based on a survey of what selected works don't say. WP:SYNTH could hardly be any more clear: it's first sentence states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." None of the sources reach any conclusions about "Reformed Egyptian"; they couldn't, since, as the author of that material helpfully points out, they don't even mention it. For a topic like "Reformed Egyptian", which is both astonishingly dubious and moderately well known, there are, no doubt, reliable sources that explicitly debunk it. Rely on what they say. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Militant atheism synthesis issues

Could editors please check militant atheism with respect to original research. There are many problems with the article obviously, but I'm interested in the sentence from the lead: Recently, the term has been used to describe atheists such as Richard Dawkins,^[2] Sam Harris^[3] and Daniel Dennett.^[4] The sources used to back up this statement are not sources about the usage of the term, but are instances of such usage. It seems to me that Wikipedians have engaged in amateur lexicography to observe how the term is applied in media; however, this kind of backing up a statement by way of example is fairly common on Wikipedia. For example, I've seen statements like John has published five papers backed up by means of citing the five papers rather than using a secondary source, such as a biography. It would be nice if people here could clarify where the line should be drawn. Thanks, 77.4.42.172 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is indeed an OR and SYNTH mess. In the lead it fails to provide any definition of the subject matter. Instead it just lists a wide variety of examples of use of the term with no attempt at discerning. There is just one paragraph where the definition of one scholar is mentioned (the Julian Baggini definition), but that definition makes the reader end up with more questions than answers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree with the above. I think this clearly falls over the line of original research. In similar cases where original research is carefully avoided, it is still almost a certainty that the result is not properly balanced reporting. A good rule of thumb is if reliable sources have not made an observation, drawn a connection, or so forth, neither should we. Vassyana (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What's most weird about this situation is that clear WP:BLP violations have been locked into the edit protect. Other than that having about 965 returns on google scholar and 818 on google books it should't be too tough to write a decent article on the subject militant atheism.--Termer (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it treats 3 different subjects that share the same label as if they were the same thing. First, there is the soviet movement. Second, the legitimate description of some historical figures as militant atheist and lastly the neologism use of the term in a somewhat pejorative fashion and devoid of any criteria. The first should be covered somewhere in an article about soviet policies or movements. The second should be mentioned in the individual articles of the persons when relevant. The last should be deleted from Wikipedia a as neologism and a breach of WP:BLP. --LexCorp (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a synthesis of uses of a term, rather than a summary of sources that discuss the term. It's clearly WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over academic reference to the color of Hindu deities in Talk:Avatar (2009 film) as OR.

Greetings,

This one should be pretty easy and straightforward. In this section of the Avatar (2009 film) article I added the following revision (shown here in bold), citing Cameron's own published statement:

The look of the Na'vi, the characters native to the world depicted in the film, was inspired by a dream that Cameron's mother had long before he wrote Avatar. She dreamt about a 12-foot-tall blue woman and he thought "that's kind of a cool image". So in 1976 or 1977, he put into his first screenplay a planet with a native population that was 12 feet tall and blue, and "gorgeous", which later became the basis for the Na'vi in Avatar. Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to the Hindu deities,

and then clarified it by references to reliable academic sources:

alluding to the fact that principal deities in Hinduism, such as Vishnu and Krishna, are traditionally depicted as dark-blue.

The reason for this clarification was that, based on the Cameron's phrase alone, an average reader unfamiliar with Hinduism is likely to think that all 33 million Hindu deities are blue, which is false, or to be left simply wondering about the "conceptual connection". Therefore, in order to clarify Cameron's statement I provided two academic references showing that some deities in Hinduism are indeed blue and that they happen to be the principal ones.

Another editor disagreed with the clarification starting with "...alluding to", opining it to be OR, and removed it. A discussion ensued here here. On his suggestion I am taking the issue to this notice board, seeking to be educated about the application of WP:NOR in this particular case. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept terse, it looks acceptable clarification to me. I've commented there. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the other editor that Cinosaur referred to above. I added a {{reflist}} here so access to the above sources is more convenient:

The OR problem I saw was with sources [3] and [4] that are used to support the statement. These sources do not directly relate to the topic of the article, which is Avatar (2009 film). Please note the 2nd paragraph of the lead of WP:NOR.

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob - that 'directly related' and 'directly support' terminology is really intended to prevent editors from drawing in wildly divergent sources to build an argument for some novel claim. I don't see that Cinosaur is involved in making any particularly novel claim here (Cameron did mention Hindu deities), and including a source that talks about the fact that fact Hindu deities are in fact blue is not objectionable on OR grounds. it might not merit attention in the article (it does seem to be pressing the envelope on the "who really cares" dimension), but that kind of balancing is normal, and should be hashed out in talk. --Ludwigs2 06:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "it might not merit attention in the article (it does seem to be pressing the envelope on the "who really cares" dimension) - I essentially agree. I saw it as a digression.

Re "that 'directly related' and 'directly support' terminology is really intended to prevent editors from drawing in wildly divergent sources to build an argument for some novel claim." - I didn't see this in WP:NOR or anywhere else. Where did you get it from? Thanks.

Also, please note that I wouldn't have enforced WP:NOR if I thought the edit would improve the article. I would have kept in mind WP:IAR, which I feel would have been the way to handle it. But I didn't think the edit improved the article so I felt there wasn't a reason to not enforce WP:NOR. Also, one should try to avoid as much as possible, waiving enforcement of WP:NOR because the article may be less stable if that is done without good reason. As you mentioned above, the edit "does seem to be pressing the envelope on the 'who really cares' dimension" so there doesn't seem to be much motivation for keeping it. However, I accomodated the editor by putting the info in a footnote with a source that is directly related to the topic of the article, but the editor still wants it in the main text. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

from my view, these kinds of things are usually better handled through discussion than policy - most people are reasonable about balancing things if you work with them. the bit about 'directly related' and 'directly supporting' is really just my reading of NOR - The biggest NOR problems come when an editor wants to say something that isn't said directly in reliable sources, so the editor starts to pull together bits and pieces of what he wants to say from divergent sources to make his own argument. so basically if you want to say 'X is true' you need a source that says 'X is true' directly (not one that says 'Y is true' and another that says 'Y means X'); and you want to be sure that the source that says 'X is true' is actually a reliable source about X, not a reliable source about Y who happens to make a claim about X in passing. I'd just talk to the editor again and make it clear that it belongs in a footnote - while in interesting side point, it is not directly relevant to the movie. --Ludwigs2 23:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried discussing that with the editor. I've had a previous experience with that editor on that article which involved a very long discussion which ended in a WP:DEADHORSE situation. It looked like the present discussion was heading in that direction too. I thank you for your comments and your good intentions. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the original issue, strictly speaking, does it violate the "directly related" principle of WP:NOR as it is presently written? Also, you might consider editing WP:NOR to either clarify or change it regarding this principle, so that either your interpretation is more clear, or it is in line with what you think it should be. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The current version looks fine to me - more would be out of balance. would you like me to make that statement on the article talk page? --Ludwigs2 03:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking but I think the decision for that should be yours.

Please note the question re WP:NOR and suggestion, in my last message. I'm interested in your thoughts. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416 is correct here. The sources used for citations 3 and 4 are not directly related to the topic of the article, the movie Avatar. Their inclusion, and the material based on them, is original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23

Already under discussion at Talk:WrestleMania 23, Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#WrestleMania 23, and a thread or two at WP:AN/I. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"WWE (the promotion holding the event) and Ford Field (the arena hosting the event), among many others, give one number for the attendance of the event. Wrestling reporter/dirt sheet writer Dave Meltzer looked at WWE's financial reports (WWE is a publically traded company and thus have to release this info to the public) and used to numbers to come up with his own attendance number for the event without having any sources to back him up. This is the first issue, whether to even use his number as a footnote since he based the number on how much money WWE made from merchandise sales. The second issue is less contentious and is what the wording should be IF a footnote is include." - RfC taking place at Talk:WrestleMania 23#RfC

---

There is an RfC taking place at Talk:WrestleMania 23#RfC regarding the inclusion of the statement: "Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter stated an attendance of 74,687." This is a verifiable statement, since it is sourced to Dave Meltzer in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Several editors (particularly User:JzG claim that it is a violation of WP:OR. The arguments being used are (1) that it ends with a 7, and statistics that end with a 7 can't be trusted, (2) that it is not within an unspecified margin of error, (3) that it is the result of a mathematical calculation, and so forth. I believe that reporting Meltzer's statement in a neutral manner does not consitute original research—there is no synthesis, no interpretation, and no extrapolation. In fact, I believe that a Wikipedia editor making determinations about the accuracy of a number based on their belief that it contains too many significant figures is the true case of original research in this situation. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this user making this report is in my view in violation of WP:GAME in trying to push an agenda based purely in policy. If one reviews the RfC referenced, you will see a clear community consensus against him. !! Justa Punk !! 08:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR has been cited improperly, according to my understanding of the policy. I see no harm in asking people who are familiar with the policy to comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• As with your other comment at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, I have prepended the (much more neutral) RfC question rather than your one-sided version. The WP:FORUMSHOP is now closed, please make your way to the checkouts. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Highest or lowest on a list

Is it a violation of WP:NOR to say that something is at the top or bottom of a list? There's a dispute at a university article over whether we can say that Tier 4 is the lowest tier in the "U.S. News & World Report College and University rankings", and whether we can say that it has the highest tuition in its category. See Talk:Maharishi University of Management#Ranking.   Will Beback  talk  18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The web site presents bits of info. The text in the article is an inference from the tables. This inference is OR. --BwB (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I'm looking for opinions from uninvolved editors.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You can say it's Tier 4 within its category, meaning lowest quartile (per USN&WR web site: "Tier 3 is approximately the next 25 percent of schools that are just beneath the numbered ranked schools in the top half in terms of their rankings in that category. In other words, schools listed in Tier 3 are ranked lower than those in the top-half but are ranked higher than those in Tier 4. Tier 4 schools are the bottom 25 percent of schools in that category in terms of their rankings. In other words, in that particular group of schools the Tier 4 schools are the lowest ranked.") in "Universities-Master's (Midwest)." "Highest tuition" is OR unless the USN&WR site specifically calls that out and it is verified as such or if there is a table provided of tuition by category and tier which lists Maharish at the top (most expensive) of its tier. Even if so, the category is restrictive enough that I don't see any particular significance to noting they are the most expensive (even if so) in their quartile of their category.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought it would be reasonably straightforward to find a source that says what tier 4 actually means in practice. Is that not so? Guy (Help!) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee, why didn't I think of that? Here's something from their FAQ:

• Tier 4 schools are the bottom 25 percent of schools in that category in terms of their rankings. In other words, in that particular group of schools the Tier 4 schools are the lowest ranked. [17]

So that just leaves the matter of saying it has the highest tuition in its category. This was added by an anon, so I'm not sure which page he found the comparative tuition information. I can't find a list of colleges sorted by tuition. Without that I'd be inclined to delete the assertion. But if there were such a list would if be OK to say it's on the top, bottom, or Nth location?   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OR question regarding image

File:US Navy 081016-N-1810F-303 Checkpoint in Abu T'Shir, Iraq-crop.jpg

There's a discussion going on at Talk:ADE 651 about whether the image on the right can be used to illustrate an article about the ADE 651, a controversial detection device. The image is sourced to the US Navy; however, the original caption does not describe what the device shown in the subject's left hand is. Another editor believes that it shows "an ADE 651 or similar device". This is quite possibly the case, but I'm wary of using this image considering that the angle is poor - it only shows a rear view, so most of the device is concealed from view - and there is no reliable source to describe what the subject is holding. Would it be original research to use the image to illustrate a topic that is not discussed in its original caption? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've explained my position at Talk:ADE 651 but to summarise, I don't consider it creative to suggest, as the caption did, that the image showed "an ADE 651 or similar device", particularly if this is compared with File:ATSC ADE-651.jpg. It isn't going to mislead a reader because the caption is clear that it isn't definitely this device, nor is saying that the image shows either this device or another similar device, nor is the caption advancing any particular position. It is often the case that image descriptions don't cover everything the image portrays so we have to do a little bit of interpretation. Whilst I would certainly agree that this image isn't perfect, it does in my view contribute to a reader's understanding of the subject by showing the context in which this or similar devices are used and I'm unable to see how it is harmful to our readers. Adambro (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am lacking a suitable detection device, but I see more differences than similarities between the items shown in the two pictures.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This might possibly help to resolve it: I've found an alternative promotional image, File:ADE-651 demonstration.jpg, which shows a demonstration of what is indisputably an ADE 651. I suggest we use this instead of the image above, since there's no doubt about what it shows (and it shows it more clearly). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To Cs32en, if you could describe the differences then it might be possible to discuss them further. However, whether or not my suggestion that this image shows "an ADE 651 or similar device" is accurate can be discussed on the talk page, ChrisO's point seems to be that we shouldn't make any attempt to interpret the image, if it isn't in the description it shouldn't be in a caption because the OR policy would be violated. File:ADE-651 demonstration.jpg is a better illustration of the device being demonstrated but that wasn't simply the point of File:US Navy 081016-N-1810F-303 Checkpoint in Abu T'Shir, Iraq-crop.jpg and File:US Navy 081016-N-1810F-303 Checkpoint in Abu T'Shir, Iraq.jpg. Those two images actually show the device (or similar) in use on the ground by Iraqi soldiers and the context of its use and so I don't think the video still can really be considered a direct replacement, particularly when it isn't freely licensed. Again though, that kind of issue can be discussed on the talk page, the issue to be discussed here is that of OR. Adambro (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Revised assessment: A picture in the German magazine Der Spiegel shows the device, including the items that are apparently attached to a belt. When I first looked at the picture above, I thought the belt would have nothing to do with the device. The device shown in the image of Der Spiegel does not display the logo, but seems otherwise identical to the pieces shown in File:ATSC ADE-651.jpg. Given this context, I'd say the image File:US Navy 081016-N-1810F-303 Checkpoint in Abu T'Shir, Iraq-crop.jpg actually shows an ATSC ADE-651.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

May I throw in my vote for Adambro's position. I think that the similarity between the device seen on the picture in question with the ADE651 (as shown and identified in other pictures cited above) is so strong, and leaves so little ambiguity, that it would be excessively strict to qualify its use in the ADE651 article as original research. --Yen Zotto (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Coming into this from the issue of NFC here is important. The non-free image used now File:ADE-651 demonstration.jpg is unacceptable as it is replaceable free content - you have the existing non-free image of the device which clearly shows the "gun" detector portion, which means that by describing its operation by holding this piece and moving it about the object to be investigated, the non-free image is rendered unnecessary.

So the question here is the OR issue with the free image File:US Navy 081016-N-1810F-303 Checkpoint in Abu T'Shir, Iraq.jpg (or the closeup, but IMO, I think the fact that the closeup has so much of that poor soldier's rear end to make it more funny than informative). IMO, I think the non-cropped picture should be included on this article, but with a caption that only alludes to the ADE-651, something like "U.S. Soldiers uses detections devices similar to the ADE-651 at an Iraqi vehicle checkpoint." It is not OR to say "similar", and if that actually truly turns out to be an ADE-651, it's not a false statement either, but you still get an idea of its use in a real-life and the controversial situation described by the article. Just don't specifically call it the ADE-651. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The crop isn't ideal but it was done so that the bag attached to the soldiers waist could be seen since it looks similar to the bag shown in File:ATSC ADE-651.jpg. Adambro (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The bag's clearly visible in the large pic. Again, the crop is really unneeded as long as you say "this is a device like the ADE" and not trying to claim that it is the ADE; it helps to avoid the unflattering edit as well. Also places the image in better context (we see the car , and the arabic license for it..) --MASEM (t) 23:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis at IPCC and Criticism of the IPCC AR4

If someone could take a look at the following sections of these articles as in my opinion there is some rampant original research going on and attempts to remove it have been reverted. The short story as all reliable sources are reporting it ([18] [19] [20] [21]) is that the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 based on an unconfirmed interview with one scientist and that this date turned out to be wildly false. User:William M. Connolley says that sources such as the New York Times, New Zealand Herald, ABC News, and the Sunday Times are all "badly wrong" and "clueless". Instead, Connolley has proposed his own rather novel interpretation of events which can be read here: [22]. In short, he claims that the IPCC meant to cite the date 2350 which is found in a third primary source that the IPCC never cited. This conclusion is not cited by any reliable sources (I am still yet to see any secondary source that mentions the date 2350 in the context of this), but the assertion has been reverted back in and OR tags have been removed. See talk at: Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#2035.2F2350.3F. Please note that IPCC is currently fully protected and both articles are under sanctions including a 1RR restriction. Oren0 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a violation of WP:NOR, and yet another appalling example of how the global-warming articles appear to be exempt from Wikipedia policies. Best of luck in getting it fixed. THF (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because something comes from a reliable source does not in any way imply, much less guarantee, that it is not utter and complete nonsense. And there is no need to hide nonsense. Present it as it is: reliably sourced blooming nonsense. The trap to avoid -- a common source of WP:OR, in fact -- is thinking that WP is somehow obliged to make sense out of nonsense, i.e. to present nonsense in ways intended to lead readers into thinking that it really is not nonsense (just because it happens to be <reverential_hush>reliably sourced</reverential_hush>). rudra (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The 2035 comes from a WWF report, which the sources state. However if you read the WWF report it quotes the number from a report by the ICSI. Is it still OR when you just follow citations? The only thing you would need to do is go from the news media to WWF 2005 report and than you find:

In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high"

Or just follow the citations from the IPCC report itself. Here is the WWF 2005 report, which might need to be cited in the article though.83.86.0.82 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is OR to "follow citations" when it results in synthesis that does not appear in either of the sources. THF (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Weisbrot

WP:Synth question at Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Synthesis - somebody experienced with this please help clarify. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:PARENT; this issue has already been to WP:BLPN [23] and WP:ANI; [24] it seems that, so far, only Rd232 sees synthesis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI had nothing to do with this issue (your choice to drag a clear non-issue there), and having poisoned the well at BLPN by jumping in with an accusation of edit warring, you come here and poison the well too. The only input so far on this SYNTH issue is from someone who apparently doesn't know or care what SYNTH is, whilst judging by your user talk page comment to me asking which of the sources is not reliable, you don't either. Some input from someone who actually understands WP:SYNTH, please. Rd232 ^talk 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OR concerns at Bismarck, North Dakota

Resolved

Recent edits to Bismarck, North Dakota have introduced various problems into the article. Chief among my concerns is that the edits, which are completely unsourced, are almost entirely original research. If the OR concerns can be addressed effectively, other problems, such as neutrality, grammar, and style, can be tackled. Several of the most problematic passages are excerpted here. An RFC filed almost 72 hours ago has generated no response as of yet. I would greatly appreciate more eyes on this. Rivertorch (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Post-Disco??

POV push by User:RockandDiscoFanCZ regarding a notion about "Post-Disco" as a specific genre of music, despite many requests on the talk page for an RS source to support the claim.

• The single source provided, that weakly asserts post-disco is a genre, is an anonymous All Music Guide feature.
• The reliable sources available, some of which are cited in the article, overwhelmingly use the term "post-disco" or (postdisco) in discussing the era subsequent to disco's commercial decline.
• Much of the article's content is derived from the editors OR based observations and are supported by an assemblage of random references, that happen to feature the term "post-disco"; and in any particular context.
• None of the sources provided, except AMG, refer to the articles's subject in manner that is directly related to post disco as a genre of music.
• User currently engages in edit warring to stifle dissent [25][26][27][28]

The article was recently considered for deletion, where similar observation's were made. I'm interested in hearing other views on this, should there be any. Cross-posted hereSemitransgenic (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Post disco is not a genre, post disco is more like a movement of sound changes (yes it is same, but.. not same at all). New instruments were brought by late 1970s - it gave born to "post disco" music (src no 1). As AMG said, it have some reason to naming post disco as a movement of characteristic elements - for example, innovators like Leroy Burgress, Larry Levan and DJs and producers played in post-disco serious part; musicians, Nick Straker Band, Kashif, D. Train. These artists make disco that sounds different (we should say it is "disco not disco"). As source no. 19 said, post-disco is a [musical] style, because we know and sources saying it, rock and funk are musical styles too. Artists like Mtume, Klein + MBO, Change, Central Line, Kano, etc are related to post disco because it is not an era, but something like "genre"; if it is an era, these artists are unrelated to post-disco because post-disco range is from 50 Cent, Backstreet Boys, Snoop Dogg, Blur, Oasis to Frank Sinatra ("New York, New York" song).

"The single source provided, that weakly asserts post-disco is a genre, is an anonymous All Music Guide feature. " - dubious/editorial observation/point-of-view/degrading of the source/trying to discredit AMG

"[sic] in discussing the era subsequent to disco's commercial decline." however it is questionable, there are also sources that saying it is underground music, but there are songs like "Love Come Down" (US #17) ― Evelyn King, "Big Fun" (US #21) ― Kool & The Gang, "I'm So Excited" (US #9) ― Pointer Sisters, "Call Me" (US #26) ― Skyy. Seems like "underground" music, hmm. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also this version tries to mention all variants of post-disco (an era, AMG genre mentioning, Billboard/Cadence mentioning, Techno and house roots in post-disco dance music, etc). [29] ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for "Comparison of ..." software articles

I've started a RfC on my proposal for dealing with one of these articles, where the discussion has been particularly heated. My proposal is not specific to that kind of software, so hopefully the result of the discussion can be used as a precedent for all similar articles. In my experience, this type of articles sometime include original research, e.g. [30]. Please participate at Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#A way forward. Pcap ping 15:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

World Universities Debating Championship (Detailed annual history)

The Detailed annual history section of the World Universities Debating Championship page looks like OR, can someone more experienced than me have a look and recommend a cause of action ? Codf1977 (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Can any one offer any help ? Codf1977 (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a glance, and it desperately needs sources though I'm not sure it's original research. Since the events all took place at major universities, you should be able to find some of the info. There's a lot of puffery there that needs to be trimmed. I recommend going through each section, trying to source each statement, and leave a {{fact}} tag on those you cannot. After some time has passed (a few weeks or a month maybe) remove the unsourced statements. However, much of what I read should be verifiable. AniMate 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for that - will do. Codf1977 (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonny Greenwood

Jonny Greenwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some users, I'm guessing fans of Greenwood, are insisting that the section "Equipment Used" be kept in the article although the information is completely unsourced. Severeal users have removed the section for that reason, but it's been reverted every time. It's starting to turn into a bit of an edit war. Any advice? TheTwoRoads (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Taijitu

I could use some eyes and hands, here. I have an editor Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) who's been obliquely pushing (so far as I can tell) the idea that the Taijitu - the Yin Yang symbol from Chinese philosophy - was actually adopted from the Romans. He's got some Roman shield patterns that are of roughly the same form but a few hundred years earlier, one author (an italian Lit Crit guy, I think, named Monastra) who has been offering up the similarity as an 'intriguing possibility', a couple of minor reference from odd sources (e.g. a footnote in an article on the roman shield patterns in a museum journal), but he's trying to parlay this into making a huge splash for the European symbolism in an article that is ostensibly about the Taoist figure.

I opened an RfC, but the only person who's responded to date is Pyrrhon8 - my own personal (low-grade) wikistalker (no worries, it's kinda cute). if people could take a look and help put these sources into some kind of proper balance, I'd appreciate it. --Ludwigs2 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, in a way I feel sorry for you because nature seems to have 'blessed' you with an unshakable feeling that you are the chosen knight of objectiveness and guardian of truth. That is a bad delusion. Fact is, however, you have brought nothing to the plate and are strongly running out of arguments. You consider, inte alia, the Encyclopedia of Taoism an odd source? Be aware, if you continue to talk behind my back and involve me in endless debates on talk pages, I might be inclined to ask for action against you for stalking and pushing extreme fringe positions. I have now enough of you. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

GPM - I posted this here because a lot of people on this page are more experienced with sourcing issues than you are or I am. yes, I'm sure I'm right, but if the people here look at the page and decide you have a point, I will certainly admit that I was wrong. are you willing to make the same promise?

I don't consider the encyclopedia of taoism to be a bad source (though I suspect it's a tertiary source). I do think that a single author pointing out an interesting speculation (without any evidence or academic vetting) is a fairly piss-poor source for all that you're trying to do with it. --Ludwigs2 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The major source (Giovanni Monastra: "The "Yin-Yang" among the Insignia of the Roman Empire?", Sophia, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2000)) doesn't seem to justify more than a fleeting reference to any linkage to the Romans. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts as well, though I haven't been able to get that idea across on the talk page. I think I'll cross post this over to the NPOV noticeboard, as well; the discussion is going to remain stale so long as it's just GPM and I going back and forth on the issue (we seem to be missing some integral component of mutual understanding). --Ludwigs2 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Representing studies from a research review

A review article in the journal Pediatrics on research on the use of meditation as an intervention among youth includes 16 studies on meditation. A two-page table in the review presents all 16 studies and gives details about each. Of these 16 studies, 6 are on Transcendental Meditation. The table shows that 5 of these studies on Transcendental Meditation are randomized controlled trials and 1 is a before/after study. In representing information from this review in the article on Transcendental Meditation, I wrote, " Of the 6 TM studies, 5 were randomized controlled trials." Is this original research? Thank you. TimidGuy (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason for mentioning something like "5 were randomized controlled trials" is to make some point to the reader. Accordingly, I would recommend that the article should only contain text that can clearly be seen in the source review article: if that article feels that "5 were randomized controlled trials" is warranted (by using similar text), we might repeat it. However, it would be original research or synthesis to add our own interpretations to a review article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, Johnuniq. It was meant to introduce the research in the review that's specific to TM RCTs. Here's how it had been written: "A 2009 review of 16 pediatric studies on meditation that included 6 studies on Transcendental Meditation found that meditation in general "seems to be an effective intervention in the treatment of physiologic, psychosocial, and behavioral conditions among youth."[64] Of these 16 studies 5 were uncontrolled. Of the 6 TM studies, 5 were randomized controlled trials. A primary outcome of the randomized controlled trials on Transcendental Meditation was the reduction of hypertension and improvement in vascular function relative to health education, as well as reductions in absenteeism and attentional problems. The review said that because of limitations of the research, larger-scale and more demographically diverse studies need to be done to clarify treatment efficacy."

Should I simply leave out the sentence that counts the number of TM RCTs? And also the total number that were TM? (The count of 16 studies and 5 uncontrolled was explicitly in the review.) TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gallery of flags with people

It's what it says, just pictures of flags with body parts/people/statues etc. Pure OR, is there any reason to keep it? Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And created by the same editor, Gallery of flags with writing, while others have created Gallery of flags with plants, Gallery of flags with weapons, Gallery of flags with animals, Gallery of flags with headgear and Gallery of bordered flags Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the OR? The article contains no analysis, interpretation or conclusions ... just images of flags that fit the category. I see it as more of a pictorial List. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

However, all the images must be properly licensed (probably public domain); we cannot have fair use images in a gallery. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if statues count as people - but isn't that interpretation? It's odd to see a completely unsourced article. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm el-Qa'ab

IP is unhappy with research that says burials are examples of human sacrifice and is insistent that an alternative view, that they were something to do with early medicine, be added. I keep asking him for references that back this claim but as you can see from the IP's talk page User talk:207.172.10.203 he has no references but simply asserts that the reliable sources are just opinion. He has added material to the article's talk page he wants in the article but he is using references that assert the idea of human sacrifice to reference a statement about early medicine, which is definitely not in the source. Now he's adding pov tags to the references. As there seems little interest in this article, it would be useful to have an opinion as to whether I've got it wrong or some advice as to what to do now if, as I believe, the IP simply wants to add OR. I'd like to persuade him of my case (if I'm right) and could use some help. He seems to be arguing in good faith and I wouldn't want to lose him if he can be persuaded to follow our OR guidelines. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference section composed of Flickr links

The Airport bus reference section seems to be composed partly of flickr links. Is this legit under Wikipedia policy?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War

Resolved

There is a dispute about whether the War in Iraq article should have the war on terrorism term in the infobox. Please check Iraq_War#NPOV_dispute_-_POV_term_used_in_the_conflict_infobox and comment there. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy/Criticism - lead sentense and SYNTH/OR

Resolved

I've phrased the first paragraph of criticism towards a quite controversial journalist with 3 sources that note his articles to often raise controversy.

Levy's ideological work often raises controversy, and he was described by Le Monde as a 'thorn in Israel's flank' and by Der Spiegel as "[Israel's] most radical commentator".^-[a] He was criticized for "amateur journalism" for not speaking Arabic and depending on interpreters with an agenda.^-[a] (Static link to criticism section)

Nableezy, believes that putting the Der-Spiegel source into this line for the criticism section "is OR, specifically SYNTH, for you to use publications that do not criticize Levy and connect that to criticism of Levy."[31]

The text above shows notability of controversy. Other sources and comentators are used for actual "He has been criticized by..." criticism.

Would appreciate some external perspective here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's simple: the statement that Levy is " the country's most radical commentator" is not criticism. It is unacceptable synthesis to present it as such. It is worth noting that, on the article Talk page, Jaakobou asks another editor "Do you believe that calling someone the most radical does not fall under criticism?"[32] As it happens,m I do believe just that; Jaakobou's view that this is criticism is his own point of view; it is certainly not NPOV. RolandR (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any objection to breaking up the sentence into shorter sentences, while keeping the information involved? That would seem to be a reasonable compromise. THF (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Issue seems resolved, for now, as other editors suggested the section be retitled to 'reception'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

IRFU flag

Currently the IRFU use a flag which contains a copyrighted logo see here as such it can't be used expect as WP:FU. A number of users have suggested we create a flag/icon or use the File:Four Provinces Flag.svg for the IRFU and it's teams. It is mine and others contention that this is breech of WP:OR/WP:OI as it invents a flag/icon or invents an association which doesn't exist between the IRFU, its teams and a flag Gnevin (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced either way, but on its surface, it does seem that you are correct and this would invent a new flag for this association. I'm still open to hear arguments and possibly change my mind if your fellow wikipedians want to present the case for using the suggested replacement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That would fail WP:OI I think. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks Gnevin (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses on this issue. I note that you have indicated your willingness to hear arguments for the use of an alternative to the IRFU flag with regard to OI policy. You will be pleased to know that there has been a full and robust discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union spanning many days and involving a large number of contributors, in which we made great efforts to give our reasoned interpretations of OI policy as it relates to this subject. I have recently tried to summarise the discussion here: Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. The full discussion sits above that section. Please indicate if this is the correct way to relay the discussion to you, or whether we need to lodge something on this noticeboard more formally. Your input will be greatly appreciated.Kwib (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not my decision; I was just trying to voice an opinion. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Liburnians

In article Liburnians, user,Zenanarh diff, uses Original research (Appian but no link to even verify the text is given) to support an impossible event, a city and its citizens existing perhaps 100 years prior (753 bc or earlier) to its founding (Epidamnos ,founded 627 BC) and historically proven existance and the city itself being conquered. In general many sources are not in English and not verifiable or are Primary sources. Before 627 the city did not exist nor did the toponym.Megistias (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Among other things it is claimed that the Egyptian king Ramesses III,(1187 to 1156 BC) mentioned a Lycian that was a Liburnian...... Liburnians#Origins_and_ethnogenesis "On basis of the epihoric inscriptions from Lycian coast and its inland, it is supposed that this province was settled from the sea, possibly by Lukku mentioned by Ramses III.[9]"Megistias (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I added secondary sources but many parts of the article are stil OR.Megistias (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yellowface

I could use some eyes on Yellowface - editor Nemogbr seems intent on inserting the term "racebending" into the article - I've gone back and forth with him on this several times, as he also seems to have been promoting a website called "racebending.com" in the past. The problem is, most of his claims seem like original research or POV-pushing, and while he throws a lot of links up to justify his actions, checking those links shows (when the links are valid) no significant coverage of the term, or in most cases, not even a mention of it. He continued to revert to his preferred text, adding even more mentions of the term, even though that text is not backed up by any valid or reliable third party sources. I've tried discussing it with him on his talk page, but he only claims that his links are valid. Help would be appreciated... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute

Contested as original research is the wording, "The institute has received federal funding through the political support of Nevada's senators John Ensign[33] and Harry Reid,[34][35] the latter a close personal friend of Harvey Whittemore.[36][37]

Argument on talk page it is not OR:Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute#08 February 2010 edit summaries

No valid reason given to exclude the support of John Ensign and Harry Reid, or Whittemore's ties to either. That's still the case. Both appropriated funds, both are beneficiaries of HW's largesse, both are friends, Reid is a close friend. Relevant, well sourced.

Argument on talk page it is OR:Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute#Reference Packing

The John Ensign source indicates a funding request. There is no indication the proposed funding legislation was passed, or money was received by the institute (WPI). The Reid sources state the money is for The Center for Molecular Medicine at The University of Nevada School of Medicine. The institute is only part of the The Center for Molecular Medicine. The institute is collaborating with researchers at The University of Nevada School of Medicine.[38] To state WPI received money on the basis of these sources is WP:OR. The two sources talking about the Reid friendship do not mention WPI. The friendship material in the article leads the reader to believe friendship is a factor in the funding. H.Reid has been supporting CFS long before the WPI was conceived.[39] The friendship material is WP:SYNTH.

Ward20 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ward20 is attempting to remove reliably sourced, verifiable information from Whittemore Peterson Institute. Senator John Ensign earmarked funds for the Institute. Senator Harry Reid earmarked funds for the Institute. Many, many sources, some of them provided in the article until deleted by Ward20 and like-minded editors, remark on the close, decades-long relationship between the Institute's founder, Harvey Whittemore, and Harry Reid. Others discuss Whittemore's ties with Ensign. This is not synthesis or original research; I've simply summarised the sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of Keepcalmandcarryon's assertions, I would very very much appreciate if someone would examine the sources and state their viewpoint of the issue. If nothing else the Reid friendship sources are important as they don't mention a relationship between Reid and the institute. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Butters' Bottom Bitch

There's been a drawn-out dispute over the inclusion of a cultural reference in the article about the South Park episode Butters' Bottom Bitch. The essence of the discussion is whether an allusion to a living person, in this case the real-life pimp "Bishop" Don "Magic" Juan should be mentioned in the article although it is not explicitly mentioned in professional commentary of the series.

• The argument for inclusion is that the main pimp character Keyshone looks, talks and dresses like Don "Magic" Juan. An important hint would be that he wears a belt buckle that says "Bishop". The episode also contains a scene that portrays the Players Ball, a real-life pimp convention which began it's life as a celebration to Don "Magic" Juan. One of the third party sources that have been cited does not mention any allusion to him, but acknowledges that the episode is inspired by the documentary Pimps Up, Ho's Down where "Magic" is one of the main characters (and he is also featured on the DVD cover).
• The argument against mentioning the allusion is that the fact has not been mentioned in third party sources. Including a mention would therefore constitute synthesis and/or original research and thereby violate Wikipedia policy.

Dream Focus and I believe the allusion is too obvious to be dismissed as run-of-the-mill original research or synthesis while Gigs AniMate and especially Alastairward believe it should be removed. Presently, the dispute has stalled after low-level edit warring between myself and Alastairward. Both of us have been frustrated by the lack of progress, and I was concerned enough to file a Wikiquette alert. There the lack of progress was recognized, but it was stressed that there had been no deliberate incivilities and that we should try taking the issue here.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"The essence of the discussion is whether an allusion to a living person, in this case the real-life pimp "Bishop" Don "Magic" Juan should be mentioned in the article although it is not explicitly mentioned in professional commentary of the series.", as the other main party to the original discussion, I completely disagree with the summary provided by Peter.

The essence is not whether "the allusion" should be mentioned. The essence is whether or not such an allusion exists at all.

The argument is well laid out on the talk page of the article. I feel the material should'nt be included, as it is unverified, whether that's by DVD commentary or reliable third party sources. Peter feels it should be, as he has identified for himself a link between the two materials (which is pretty much the definition of OR). Alastairward (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a rather frustrating misrepresentation of what has been discussed. There are at least two users who see the conclusions about who Keyshone is based on as completely unproblematic. Two other users have disagreed by arguing that it's not in third party sources, but have declined to discuss the merits of the conclusion itself. Alastair is the only one who has openly challenged the conclusion as completely baseless, and I should add that this is the first time he has done so overtly. Previously it has only manifested itself in challenging this as a violation of policy and followed up by removal of content in article space.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter, consider that there might be better ways to spend your on-wiki time than arguing about a single line in a single article. Gigs (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll just throw my two cents in. I tend to agree with Alastairward that the information should not be included because it's unverified. On these types of television episode articles, people tend to clutter the Cultural References with unsourced theories and allusions, and they often have to be cleaned up or straightened out by other editors who do the work to dig up sources. There may very well be an allusion to this "Magic" gentleman in this episode, but there's no reliable source to verify it, I fear letting it slip in would set a precedent in other episode articles and open the floodgates to tons of unsourced "allusions" that may not be true. That being said, I don't think this one little item is worth all the fuss (which is why I haven't weighed in at length on the talk page), so whatever the decision is here at the noticeboard, I sincerely hope everybody embraces it and we can move on... — Hunter Kahn 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter, again, quite false. I have talked about this on the article talk page, you complained that I had taken it up on your own talk page, I followed you to the wikiquette page and here I am now. I have explained myself aplenty in very clear english. The material is unverified, unverified material should not be added to wikipedia, I challenged and removed it and asked if you might cite it.

Wikipedia doesn't work on weight of numbers either (although I might add that it doesn't really seem like that many people agree with you as you suggest). Alastairward (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I took this up here because I thought this was an obvious case of rules being applied for their own sake which prevented an article from including relevant and interesting information. I can't see this as opening the floodgates on anything (as if we were actually running on legal precedents), and especially not with latest compromise wording suggested.

As for "weight of numbers" and what not, I just don't see the point of these kinds of statements. It feels like just one more in a long line of misrepresentations of my statements in this dispute. I just don't understood why someone claiming a just cause would have to consistently resort to such behavior.

With that said, I'm taking the advice of the majority opinion and butting out.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we can not say that the South Park character was based on a real person because we think it obvious. What may be "obvious" to one editor may not be at all "obvious" to another... this lies at the heart of WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter I strongly suggest you take to heart what both Gigs and Blueboar have said here. AniMate 00:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see it as being fairly obvious (personally) However, if it is not obvious to this number of people, it leans me in the direction of it being OR. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's OR. You cannot assume the reader will know anything about Juan (I'd wager that most people don't). From WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger effect

I have concerns about WP:NOR, WP:NEO and (arguably, but not such a priority) WP:CIRCULAR on the Dunning-Kruger effect article.

First, note that none of the article's sources mention the phrase "Dunning-Kruger effect". There is plenty of psychological research on these superiority effects (see Illusory superiority, Self-enhancement or Positive illusions) so there's a legitimate question of whether there is a separately notable phenomenon here.

The article exists now because it was de-merged from Illusory superiority. The justification given in the edit summary was that "the effect is composed of illusory superiority and illusory inferiority". This doesn't seem to be based on sources, and it at least looks like the "effect" was re-defined on the fly simply to justify the existence of the article on WP. "Illusory inferiority" looks like a WP:NEO.

The term itself seems to have originated on Wikipedia. Neither the article's initial creation as "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome" or subsequent renaming to "Dunning-Kruger effect" seem to be based on sources, and I haven't found sources that pre-date the appearance of these terms on WP. However, this isn't the focus of my complaint. Since I first raised the issue and merged the article into Illusory superiority, it was pointed out that some peer-reviewed sources use the phrase "Dunning-Kruger effect". They seem to come after the term's invention on WP, but I'm personally not so bothered about that. However, the article itself does not seem to be based on these sources so we've no indication that the "effect" defined in the article is not OR.

For completeness, here is where I first raise the OR issue: Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect#Title_constitutes_original_research and here is the merge discussion: Talk:Illusory_superiority#Merge_Dunning.E2.80.93Kruger_effect_into_this_article and Talk:Illusory_superiority#Delusion.2C_not_illusion

I would normally pursue this purely through article talk, but I'm being opposed by a couple of editors whose arguably uncivil tone and rather free interpretation of policy suggest that this will just become an edit war. One of them is User:Michael C Price, who performed the de-merge described above. He has already twice removed the OR tag. Thanks in advance for any comments. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The OR tag was removed because it was clear that the tagger was seeking references for statements which are accepted as factual and sourced (e.g. that the highly competent underrate themselves and that the D-K moniker is used in academic literature). If the problem is just one of providing refs then it is not an OR problem. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit of original research in the article. For example, the connection of the Russel quotation and the accompanying assertion that it was held a prior by philosophers for some time seems clearly over the OR line. Backwards attribution is rarely an uncontroversial or obvious matter in academic studies. Assertions of this nature need to be supported by reliable sources (possibly with the view attributed in-text). These points are relative minor in contrast with MartinPoulter's stated concerns, though still important to note. I do not see the problems that MartinPoulter perceives. A brief search indicates the term is discussed in reliable sources. Peer-reviewed papers have debated the perceived trend. There are even papers mentioning that others have questioned the substance of its existence as that particular model and others mentioning that the existence of such a phenomena is a generally accepted fact. There seems to be a clear, if focused, selection of reliable sources available for writing about this topic as framed. The Russel bit seems the biggest OR problem in my eyes. I think everything else is either acceptable or will resolve itself as the article is expanded with the available reliable sources. Vassyana (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you infer "the connection of the Russell quotation and the accompanying assertion that it was held a prior by philosophers for some time ". They are in different sections. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with MartinPoulter that the so called "Dunning-Kruger" is a neologism and trying to pad the article with original research to make it look more like an established topic is not acceptable. There is already an article on Groupthink, term which predates Dunning-Kruger (1972[40] vs 1999[41]). Perhaps the topics are not defined identically, but they address the same subject matter, and to present this as a new theory is disingenious. There really needs to be merger of this article into one or more more notable topics.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DK effect and groupthink are not subsets of each other. (Dunning & Kruger gathered data via questionnaires and individual testing - hard to see any groupthink effect there.) Merging of such disparate subjects will result in data loss. The exact phrase has google scholar hits, so it isn't a neologism. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If they are not subsets of each other, why do their subject matters overlap? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Partial overlap does not imply one is subset of another. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is rather a peculiar case. The topic is notable but it looks to me like the topic was given the name "Dunning-Kruger effect" by wikipedia rather than just some descriptive title. I can't see there was such a name before the article though there may have been. However the name seems to have stuck and we now have reliable sources using it and not just as a reference to the wikipedia article. A bit embarrassing really, it shouldn't have happened but it has and is now history and we're stuck with it is my opinion. Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Original research in Gregorian calendar

I believe this edit to Gregorian calendar is original research. The editor adding the material has already been informed of the original research at Talk:Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars, where he or she posted an earlier version of his or her conversion process. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Converting Julian dates to Gregorian and vice versa involves no original research whatsoever.

It involves nothing more than sixth - grade mathematics. (I may have got this wrong - British terms for school class levels are completely different from American ones.)

62.31.226.77 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The grade level does not matter... it is a routine conversion from one system of dates to another by applying a fairly simple mathematical formula. Not OR. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The "simple mathematical formula" is not stated in any reliable source. 62.31.226.77 made up the formula. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that this matters... the idea of converting between date systems is not original. Also, we do allow some degree of lee-way when it comes to basic math. I think the key questions is: Does the formula work? Do we end up with an accurate conversion? If so, I see no harm in it, even if it is original. If nothing else, I would deem it to be be an acceptable reason to invoke WP:IAR. If, on the other hand, the formula does not result in an accurate conversion then we should not use it. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the conversion procedure because it is wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor has reintroduced the false information in this edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

::::When you say "false" information... are you saying that the calculation results in an inaccurate conversion? Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Nevermind... my question was answered on the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Article needs attention

The article on Secret societies needs a lot of attention. Due to inconsistent inline citation, it is very difficult to know what is and is not sourced... so we have difficulty distinguishing what is and is not OR. That said, there is a lot that sure appears to be OR to me. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of American foreign policy is huge (200kb) POV/Original research essay

The article Criticism of American foreign policy is full of highly POV, uncited statements like But many of the good things and positive influences it has had have a tendency to be overlooked, as the news media has a tendency to accentuate negative results particularly when they're more attention-getting and tends to focus on critics, while overlooking subtler, slower, and more benign but positive aspects of foreign policy which are less likely to sell newspapers., and U.S. taxpayers are seen as subsidizing the defense of allied peoples who fail to carry their fair share of defense spending., and In the history of the world, the U.S. has an enviable record of accommodating peoples from around the world , and so on ... The author (the entire page was almost created by a single author) has mixed these statements in with several claims that he has cited, in order to make it look as if the article is well-sourced, and not OR. But both the numerous uncited OR statements such as the above, the choice of wording, the structure of the page (such as the categories that the author stated that most arguments fell into, without citing a reliable source that says that these categories are appropriate), and the choice/selection of topics covered are unacceptably biased and unsourced. I just noticed this article, and am about to have to step away from the Internet for a few days, but wanted to notify other people so they can start working on this as well. I'll get to it when I return. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• This article is totally unencyclopaedic. I have no hesitation in calling it that. A random selection of totally unsourced statements:
  • The Vietnam War was a costly, decade-long military engagement which ended in defeat, and the mainstream view today is that the entire war was a mistake.
  • Similarly, the second Iraq war is viewed by many as being a mistake, since there were no weapons of mass destruction found, and the war continues today.
  • The U.S. has a wide range of powerful allies, including Britain, France, Spain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India which it has won through steadfast support and intelligent diplomacy.
  • The entire first two paragraphs of the section :"Foreign policy in practical terms: effective or ineffective".

I doubt whether this article is salveagable at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an WP:AFD to me... – ukexpat (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

well, I don't know if that's actually AfD territory. there is a lot of scholarly work on this subject from a lot of different authors; It just so happens that there's a shitload of pundit/opinion stuff that washes out the scholarly work. I'd say the article needs some serious weeding, but there's probably a solid core down in there somewhere. --Ludwigs2 04:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is probably a topic here somewhere and AfD is not the way to go. A clean slate is likely to be the only way forward. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree -- I don't think that AfD is warranted at all. The article just needs a LOT of work, but the topic is valid and important. Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is salvageable. The references cited often to not draw the conclusions cited in the article. WP:SYNT violations galore. I've sent it to AfD. Pcap ping 15:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

DD-WRT#Controversy

This section consists entirely of legal analysis conducted by some Wikipedians on the talk page. I think it should be removed. Pcap ping 15:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It does look like the sort of thing that should have been on the talk page and discussed to find if there was an external source saying that sort of thing. What is there certainly does look like OR to me. Wikipedia should be describing the controversy elsewhere not starting up one itself. Dmcq (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it succeeded in doing so already: [42] appeared well after that section was added two years ago. I've made a note on the article's talk page. Pcap ping 18:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

There is an ongoing discussion at Scientific opinion on climate change concerning a statement in the lead "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007." which is repeated later in the article here. Both statements use this(PDF) source. The source is incredibly weak, especially for the strength of the statement it is backing up. The quote is from an editorial concerning a review of Michael Crichtons last book and seems totally inapropriate for the way it is being used in the article. There are also WP:SYNTH issues since the source states only the AAPG(American Association of Petroleum Geologists) dissents then cites a statement by the AAPG saying they believe in Global Warming. The article is basically a collection of statements by various organizations affirming that global warming is occuring. The article uses the obove statement to avoid having any discussion of dissenting views which a significant NPOV problem especially given the very weak nature of the source used. I brought up this issues as part of a larger discussion and there seems to be no progress being made in the current discussion. The eyes and opinions of some editors experienced in these matters would be greatly appreciated. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Original research & content forks

Following on from the discussion about the article Scientific opinion on climate change and it being a possible content fork, I am seeking some input from other editors about the unsourced content in the hatnote and lead of the article that define this topic. The current version of the hatnote and lead read as follows:

This page is about scientific opinion on climate change. For recent climate change generally, see Global warming. For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus. For opinions of dissenting individual climate scientists, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions. National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming.

The problem I have with this lead are as follows:

1. Original research has been employed to provide a defintion for what is the "Scientific opinion on climate change", rather than reliable sources that are directly related to the title of this article, and that directly support the information presented in the article itself. There have been many alterations to the hatnote and the lead, but the issue that the starting point is original research, no matter how many times it has been altered to "make the lead fit the article", has not been resolved by citing sources to support it.
2. None of the sources cited in the article define what is ""Scientific opinion on climate change", nor do any of them use or address the title of this article directly or in detail.

My view is that no matter how innocuous the lead is, it is wholly unsatisfactory for an article topic to be defined by analytic or evaluative claims that that are based on original research. My conclusions are that:

1. The lack of a recognised definition, one that is defined in terms of reliable source which would provide context to the reader, is absent. As it stands, this article can only be understood within the context of the over arching article topics (e.g. Climate Change, Global Warming etc.), and cannot be read as a seperate topic on its own. Its content, while in the most part, is referenced and ordered, address topics which are dealt with in other articles, and has expanded with no logical rationale other than to fit all of the content that has been added to it.
2. To establish the notability of this topic, and to refute the criticism that this article is a content fork, requires significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail, which are absent from the lead or the body of this article. For instance, the articles Climate Change, Global Warming and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are addressed directly and in detail, usually by sources which are expressing some form of opinion, whether it is scientific, economic, political or otherwise.
3. If this article topic can only be defined in terms of original research, then what purpose does it serve? One answer might be that it is simply an unintentional content fork, whose subject matter(s) are dealt with directly and in detail elsewhere by articles topics that are recognised by the world at large. Another is that this article, is in effect, a POV fork, designed to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of opinion that provide commentary, criticism or analysis about Climate Change, Global Warming etc., perhaps to avoid criticism or commentary that are the hallmarks of balanced coverage.

In short, the basis for inclusion of this topic as a standalone article is based on original research. Clearly there are several editors that disagree with the assertion that this article is a content fork (fair enough), but if the main issue is disputed, then at least consider the symptoms that are the badge of a content fork. The hatnote and lead to this article are original research, and do not define the article's subject matter in any meaningful way. Has any editor a view on this matter? Am I mistaken? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The following is a reply to this post of User:Gavin.collins, who has moved it elsewhere while I was typing the reply. The venue appeared appropriate to me. Pcap ping 15:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to address the WP:N issue, only the WP:SYNT one here, in accordance with the purpose of this venue. Any article in Wikipedia that uses two ore more sources that is usually a synthesis (as opposed to just a summary). WP:SYNT prohibits only a particular kind of synthesis: the kind that promotes a conclusion not supported by any of the sources cited, or at the limit, one that attempts to substantiate a claim from a marginal source with evidence from more respectable ones. If you list dozens of organizations that all have very similar positions, that's not a violation of WP:SYNT. Similarly, if you synthesize their position, which obviously will be expressed with different wording by different organizations, but without altering the meaning of their positions, that is also not a violation of WP:SYNT in my view. By the way, I did not have much trouble finding this source (first hit on google books), so it seems quite feasible to describe the scientific consensus as gauged by WP:SECONDARY sources, i.e. not directly from the organizations' statements. Given that, listing every organization that had a statement on this topic may be a bit overkill, but as long as the sum of those positions does not contradict how mainstream sources have gauged the consensus it's not a violation of WP:SYNT. Pcap ping 15:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin.collins moved his contribution to a new section at NPOVN [43]. Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have opened a discussion about related issues at WP:NPOV/N which relates to this article and how original research is being used to justify a content fork.
  In reply to Pohta ce-am pohtit, I would ordinarily agree that if you synthesize sources without without altering the meaning of their positions, then that is not synthesis. But if you start off an article with a lead based on orginal research which arbitrarily limits sources to those within the scientific community, then Voiceofreason01 argument that any discussion of dissenting views are excluded makes sense, particularly if those dissenting (or even supporting) views come from outside the scientific community. The original research in question is in the second sentence in the lead of the article Scientific opinion on climate change says:

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

Ordinarily, I would expect such a strong exclusion to be backed up by secondary sources, but here it is based on original research. I would also expect both sources from inside and outside of the scientific community to be included within any article, rather than being segregated. Newspapers and magazines regularly carry commentary, criticism and analysis on what the scientific community is saying, and it seems to me that excluding these sources is, in effect, intellectual apartheid.
In this context, I think what Voiceofreason01 is saying is valid: the source is being made to fit a purpose for which it was never intended. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow all of this, but preliminarily: is the dispute mainly over whether there are groups that dispute the predominant view, or is it mainly over whether individual scientists can be excluded from "scientific opinion," or is it impossible to simplify the dispute in this way? At least to me, the first thought is that it seems odd to suggest that "scientific opinion" refers only to the collective view of large groups. Intuitively, "scientific opinion" could either be any opinion that is grounded in the scientific method, or it could refer to the opinions of those considered scientists. I wouldn't think that "scientific opinion" would only regard the statements of groups. Or am I missing the point? This wouldn't necessarily be a concern with the scope of the article, merely a suggestion that the text might be clarified not to suggest a predominant view that "scientific opinion" is a sort of republican process in which only large groups have standing. Mackan79 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The article only treats science organizations individually, not all the individual scientists. It also includes surveys of scientists and synthesis reports about scientists opinions It doesn't include individual scientists opinions. See 'scientific opinion' in opinion or scientific consensus. The reasoning is that individual scientists can't talk as authorities on scientific opinion, only give their own opinions unless they produce a study or survey. The article climate change consensus describes the general publics perception of whether there is a consensus and also views of some scientists and there's also a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which lists scientists who've said anything significant which doesn't support the consensus. Dmcq (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but are you saying that this use of "scientific opinion" reflects its general usage as a term, or simply that the editors have chosen to focus on a subset of scientific opinion? It seems more like the latter, but then this would presumably need to be clearer. As far as scientists being able to address the general views of scientists, I admit that's kind of interesting. Perhaps in order to find an adequate secondary source we can't simply include the view of any scientist that we find, but on the other hand if reliable secondary sources discuss the view of a particular scientist, then that would seem to conform with our policies. I would still think that an article on "scientific opinion" would include predominant views in the scientific community, whether those came from groups or individuals (logistically, of course, the space would be extremely limited). This may be a different issue than Gavin is raising, also. Mackan79 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly thought tht was the general meaning of the term scientific opinion and what the opinion article or a dictionary says. There's also been articles on the consensus and they just discuss surveys and suchlike same as the article. The bit inn the leader is to make it clearer to people. Which scientists do you think should be in there expressing 'scientific opinion' alongside the various societies? Even Charles Darwin didn't express the scientific opinion on evolution. Dmcq (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My comment is only about the sourcing, "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate"[44] being used to support the statement "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007." The exact quote from the source is "AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming." I guess that you can argue that the bit about "national and international standing" is WP:OR. I also don't see anything about the year 2007. You can remove those bits from the sentence or simply find another source.

Also, I'm a little confused at to what our sentence is saying. I get the impression that the AAPG used to have a dissenting opinion but changed its stance in 2007. If that is really what it is saying, the source doesn't appear to support that at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My problem with the AAPG source is the source itself. The source is an editorial review of a Michael Crichton novel and some criticism of climate change denial; the claim the AAPG is the only dissenting opinion is the authors opinion and is not backed by any research or study. The wikipedia article then claims that since AAPG retracted its denial of global warming there are now no scientific bodies that deny anthropological global warming is taking place. In this case the SYNTH exception for routine calculations does not apply because the source is very weak in making the initial claim. Similarly, the wikipedia article uses this source to cite some very strong claims, i.e. that no scientific bodies disagree with global warming, but while the source does explicitly state this, the weakness of the source seems to make this violation of WP:WEIGHT if not by the letter at least in the spirit. I don't have a problem with this statement being in the article, I suspect it may even be true, but allowing such an inadaquate source to be so important to the article weakens the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The article also references 'DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68. ISBN 9780262541930.', in the chapter Naomi Oreskes 'The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong?'. Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any connection between the statement in the article cited above and the the source from which it has been summarised. Of course it is possible to infer just about anything, but with such a strong statement, I would expect the citation to reflect what has been written, perhaps by direct quotation. For instance, the source does not use the term "dissenting opinion" anywhere in the text. It seems to me that link between with the statement in the article and the original source is just not there, and the reader should not have to make a leap of imagination to connect the two. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the reference? You can read quite a bit of that chapter with google books if you haven't access to the book itself. That particular chapter said all the major scientific institutions in the US with a bearing on the subject agree that climate change is due to human action. And that is based upon peer reviewed research. Anyway a leader is supposed to summarize an article and that is a reasonable summary of the position of the scientific organizations. Dmcq (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

{undent} I can't find where it says that part about "all major scientific insitutions", can you provide a direct quote or a page number? However, page 2 says that "the scientific community, with the exception of a few contrarians..." and that chapter Dmcq referenced makes numerous references to a scientific consensus, page 76 seems to be a good one. With some minor rewriting to the article either of these two sections of the text would be excellent sources and we could drop the offending AGU source altogether. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

On page 65 it says "Prominent scientists and major scientific organizations have all ratified the IPCC conclusions. Today all but a tiny handful of climate scientists are convinced the earth's climate is heating up and human activities are a significant cause." On page 68 it says "In the past several years, all the major scientific bodies in the United States whose membership expertise bears directly on the matter have issued reports or statements that confirms the IPCC's conclusions." The AGU one really only backs up when dissenting opinion within scientific organizations ended, without it one might be left with the opinion that it went back much further or more recent. The main complaint as far as I can see of the person raising this section in the OR noticeboard is that the article does not give some dissenting views and thinks scientific opinion should be redefined to include not just surveys of climate scientists, the results of studies of the subject and the pronouncements of organizations but also the opinions of individual scientists. Putting them in without doing a survey or listing a very large number would be OR as far as I'm concerned. Well in fact doing our own survey sounds like OR and how would we get a decent representative selection of quotes to let people infer their own impression of scientific opinion? Or are there particular scientists people would like to nominate as being so august they pronounce scientific opinion of themselves and wouldn't that also be OR? 16:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I see it now, that's fine. My main point in bringing this here was that the original source was just this(PDF). And then some WP:SYNTH to say that there are no opposing opinions among scientific organizations. The AGU source is woefully inadaquate to make this claim. This "Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren" source seems good enough, stronger sources would still be better. I say we dump the AGU source entirely and just go with this one. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the book would be a better source than the PDF cited in the article. However, such a source as the book has no place in the article because the views of any one particular scientist (even if they are published in reliable source) are disallowed by the original research in the lead:

Scientific opinion on climate change.... does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

It is not clear to me how such a strong statement of opinion that defines the article's subject matter can be sustained without citing a source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The chapter describes the results of a synthesis survey of the literature done by the author to determine scientific opinion, it is not of itself stating the authors opinion though I suspect one can guess the author's opinion having done the survey. The particular statement is not a statement of opinion but of fact, something which a couple of years of heated debate on the subject here on wikipedia has not found any counterexample to. Dmcq (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on what subject? This is the question. It seems to me that many articles feature the opinion of one scientist or another. But their article titles do not start with "Scientific opinion on......(your choice of subject matter here)". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article Scientific opinion on climate change is about scientific opinion on climate change, just like the title says. And by the way the book is referenced from the article in the bit about disagreement by organizations so there's no point saying it would be a better reference. That's where I got it from, I'm not saying anything that's not covered by the article already. In particularly as it says in the leader of the climate change article "In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, climate change usually refers to changes in modern climate. It may be qualified as anthropogenic climate change, more generally known as "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW)." Questions 20 and 21 in the 2008 Bray and van Storch survey are fairly typical "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" and "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?". Those questions are about opinion, not about scientific results.

If he article Scientific opinion on climate change is about scientific opinion on climate change, then why don't any of the sources cited in the article say precisely that, or provide any definiton of what is the scientific opinion on climate change? There are lots of sources, sure, but none of them address the article title directly or in detail. In short, there isn't any coverage of "scientific opinion on climate change" per se. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked the references but for instance in the article the American Association of Petroleum Geologists say 'the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models', They do not define scientific opinion because they know what it means, it is what you find under scientific opinion in opinion and they know what climate change is about. And they are giving their scientific opinion on climate change in an official statement. If an association like that can understand what scientific opinion on climate change is about without needing dictionaries and glossaries to explain what they are saying in a public statement I think wikipedia can do the same. Dmcq (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that Dmcq understands what "scientific opinion on climate change" is, but it is strange that no external source exists to validate his views. The citation from the AAPG mentions "scientific opinions", but only in passing, and does not constitute a significant coverage that is need to identify Scientific opinion on climate change as a seperate standalone article topic in its own right in accordance with WP:NAME.
What is needed is significant coverage from at least one external source to provide a valid difference between this article and other related topics, such as Climate change and Climate change consensus, for example. Without setting meaningful distinctions between what articles cover, there would be one article topic which could be split into many content forks all addressing the same subject matter from random viewpoints. For example articles with titles such as "Scientific opinion on..", "Scientific concerns about...", "Scientific views on..." are content forks because no meaniful distinction can be drawn between these terms. Instead, article should be separated in terms of the major real-world activities/ideas/processes such as Climate change or Global warming, not by the opinions that different groups of editors have about the emphasis that shold be given to different aspects of the same subject. The bottom line is that when content is organized into articles, it should be divided according to some rational, encyclopedic criteria. In Wikipedia, the basis for what is encyclopedic critera is external validation. It seems to me that that as an article topic, Scientific opinion on climate change is not a recognised topic by the world at large, and the reason why it features as a standalone article is because its contributers are ignoring Wikipedia's content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not about editors opinions. It is scientific opinion. They're totally different subjects. Just because it says opinion in the title doesn't mean the contents are anything to do with editors opinions. I see you have trouble drawing a distinction but that doesn't mean there isn't a straightforward distinction. The subject is noteworthy or otherwise all those scientific societies and surveys and papers wouldn't have written about it the scientific opinion. And the controversy is certainly notable because all those pressure groups and newspapers have written about it. People want to know what the scientific opinion on climate change is and they want to know about the controversy surrounding it. And if any of those other titles were used it would be scientific view or scientific perspective or scientific consensus and they would all mean exactly the same thing. If you have bothered to read the references you have seen the two are deal with differently so even if you don't understand the difference you must see that people treat them differently. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dcmq claims that the article topic in not about editors's opinions, yet there are no external sources to define its subject matter, only original research. The statement that "People want to know.." is a form of mass attribution which is not admissible in Wikipedia. The existence of this article topic needs to be externally valididate in accordance with WP:NAME; if Dmcq can cite a particular source that does this, it would be more useful to this discussion than his own opinions on what this article is or is not about. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement in that policy for the name like you say and as I have already pointed out to you. Please use wikipedia terms if you're going to keep quoting policies and not refer to 'validation' which is a term for something completely different. And since you're going on about policies this talk page is not part of wikipedia article space and your business about mass attribution is about article content. Dmcq (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The requirement for a recognisable name that is "commonly used in reliable sources" is indeed a requirement of WP:NAME. This is supported by Wikipedia:NPOV#Article naming which says: "If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors". If Dmcq can cite a source to substantiate the article tile, then that would settle whether or not Scientific opinion on climate change is or is not based on original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

{undent}Naming conventions are there to ensure that articles are not inherently biased, are clearly written and accurately represent the content of the article. This article seems to satisy those requirements. From Wikipedia:NPOV#Article naming: "...which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." The title "Scientific opinion on Climate Change" is meant to differentiate this article from Climate Change Consensus. Since both articles seem to cover distinct material I don't see a problem with WP:FORK here. Naming conventions do not require that the article name be specifically used in sources. The section of policy that you have quoted seems to refer specifically to wider controversy concerning the topic of the article, it doesn't apply directly to disputes on wikipedia. As an example there are some towns in Europe that have both a French and German name, the policy you quoted would be used to resolve which name should be used for the article. Can you cite specifically from policy why you feel the name of this article is inappropriate? Also what specifically about the article is original research? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC) WP:NAME says "While not always possible, the ideal title is:" before that bit quoted. It is not a requirerment, that bit is guideline. Titles don't have to be ideal in every way. And as for Wikipedia:NPOV#Article naming Voiceofreason01 said it all. There is no neutral point of view problem about the article name. And following on about the bringing back to earth about OR I'll have to say my answer is just informative and has little to do to do with the purpose of the noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01 asserts that this article title accurately represents the content of the article, yet an examination of its content indicates that it addresses topics dealt with directly and in detail in other articles. The term "climate change" is cited over 50 times, while the term "scienfic opinion" is cited only once, while the term "scientific opinion on climate change" is not even cited once. Using your analogy of the towns in Europe that have both a French and German names, would you not think it unusual if the town's name was not cited at least once in the article?
The problem is, the lack of a clear and externally validated defintion of what is "scientific opinion on climate change" is a defect which has not been rectified by the hatnote and the lead, which comprise of original research. Simply grouping a large number of different sources together and giving them an title designed to fit their subject matter has resulted in the creation of an article topic that is entirely original and based synthesis of sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The topic of the article has been written about in books, it has been the subject of surveys, it referred to and statements made about it by learned societies. And please refer to sections in policies and not use strange own terms like validated when referring to them. You cannot validate in any meaningful meaning of the term, you can only make your mind up from the evidence and consensus amongst editors is how things are decided in wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If it has, then why are there no books, scientific papers, scientific organisations or surveys cited in the article that actually use the term "scientific opinion on climate change"? It seems to me that your opinion that the topic has been written about is not supported by a single shred of verifiable evidence.
Scientific opinion on climate change is an article comprised of more than 10,000 words with over 100 citations. Yet there is not one reference to the term "Scientific opinion on climate change" in any of the soruces cited, not even a casual passing reference to the term in the entire length article or its reference list. Quite frankly, I think the absence of the term in the article is bizarre. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You are just repeating your error about WP:TITLE. Not an original research issue. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the article's title is defined by the original research in the lead, this is indeed an original research issue.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The title names the article. The topic is a notable one and needs no OR to invent it, for instance [45] refers to both the exact title and topic of the article. But the exact words as occurring in a paper are not necessary anyway for a title. The title just has to follow WP:TITLE. It uses common terms and is an easily found and recognizable name for the topic. The title is not anybody's "own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions" nor is the topic. The only research involved is as approved by WP:OR, that is collecting and organizing sources about the topic. I fail to see why you consider this pettifogging a useful way to spend any of your finite life. Dmcq (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article Dmcq mentions[46] is not included in the article Scientific opinion on climate change, and in any case, it would not qualify for inclusion because it is a paper that "includes the views of individual scientists". Lets face it, if there is evidence that "Scientific opinion on climate change" is not a recognised article topic in its own right, there is no better evidence to this effect other than the article Scientific opinion on climate change, because it does not cite any references which refer to it! --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Which scientists opinions? You're not saying that an analysis of some surveys is just the opinions of the scientists doing the analysis are you? Dmcq (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is what the lead says: "This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions". The problem with the lead is that it is original research. Where these ideas come from, I can only guess. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that an analysis of some surveys is just the opinions of the scientists doing the analysis? If not which scientists were you referring to above? Dmcq (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the lead arbitarily excludes the views of individual scientists. Since this statement is original research, its validity is deeply suspect. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The article you avoiding answering about shows it is not original research. Your arguments seem to add up to I don't like it. Your views are very much against the consensus at the article. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The scientific paper that you cited[[47]] does not feature in the article Scientific opinion on climate change. Is that not weird or what? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

And your point is? Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should it? It's a large article with lots of links. Details about the surveys are already linked to in the article. If you want to try sticking it in somewhere i guess it wwould probably stay in but I feel no great inclination to edit it myself to put it in. Dmcq (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is one thing to claim that the topic is a notable one based on this source, but then to say that you feel "no great inclination to edit it myself" is a pretty good indicator that your heart is not where you say it is. The fact is, this article does not cite any sources which address the topic of "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly or in detail is a good indicator that topic is not notable in itself, and that it is essentially a content fork. The only coverage to suggest it is a topic in its own right is provided by the orginal reasearch in the lead, which is not supported by any citation anywhere in body of the article itself. This is a very long article, but its scope and subject matter are not defined by any verfiable souce, nor do any of the 100 or citations provide such a defintion. The lack of evidence to the contrary, and the absurd excuses provided in support of the claim that this is a seperate standalone topic in its own right indicate that this article is supported by an editorial walled garden in which Wikipedia's content policies do not apply. To be honest, I don't know how any editor can justify this intellectually bankrupt position. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem unable to distinguish between a title and the topic, I notice the same problem above in #Dunning-Kruger effect where you obviously also have no idea what the topic is and confuse it with something completely different. You object there to the existence of the article based on a problem it had in the past with the name. There a name was given to the article rather than a description of the topic, that was wrong because there was no generally agreed name. Here you think there is no topic because there is no standard name. The title here is a description of the topic not the name. As far as I'm concerned there is no need to stick in references showing the exact form of words used. I only quoted that example to show that the exact words are used to describe the topic covered by the article. Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you if it was so straight forward, but unusual "segmented" article title is not verfiable, since it is not even mentioned once in passing by even of the 100+ sources cited in the article itself. There is complete absence of any signicant coverage that address the "topic" of scientific opionion on climate change" directly and in detail, which is also very odd, because this article is over 10,000+ words long. This whole article topic is defined by the original research in the lead, which indicates that this "topic" is an entirely original creation.
I must admit, it is not possible to prove that a topic is a content fork, or prove that its content is original research, but I have never read an article title such as this that is so original as to be so disconnected from its content and its sources. To demonstrate that this article is not original research, it must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Despite its lenght and the number of sources, this article fails to do this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any useful purpose discussing further with you. I believe you intend going back to the talk page and raising all this sort of stuff again. The almost certain result is that you will be disruptive again and achieve nothing except possibly drive away some good editors. I think you actually believe you are trying to do something right but that sort of thing is harmful to wilkipedia. Endless wikilawyering on policy pages or noticeboards is one thing but the development of articles should be in accordance with WP:Five Pillars which is based on the consensus development of an encyclopaedia. Endlessly arguing because you believe you are right is not in accordance with consensus, it is disruption. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Dmcq sees any useful purpose in these discussion is his own concern. The evidence in support of my criticisms of the article is quite strong: Scientific opinion on climate change is a very long article (10,000+ words) by any standard, well sourced (100+ citations), yet it does not contain a single passing reference to the article's title. Instead of dealing with evidence that the lead of this article is orginal research as an open window, it seems that the Dmcq views criticism as a wall, which by definition precludes any access to reality. This extreme attitude, which considers all criticism as harmful, is not a valid rationale for accepting or rejecting criticism. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, Dmcq needs to re-examine the points raised above on their own merits, rather than dismissing them as disruption.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether you think your evidence is strong or not is not relevant. Your action would constitute disruption just like it did before. Wikipedia is built on WP:CONSENSUS. If you continually argue against consensus you cause disruption not the improvement of wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Its very relevant. I don't know of a single article in Wikipedia that does not mention its article title in the body of the article. This issue has not been addressed, but it will be. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:TITLE#Descriptive titles and you'll see Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy given as an example of a descriptive title. But go ahead and try changing that policy first please before going and pushing your ideas on that articles talk page. Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not my problem. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that does not validate or provide a precedent for the use of original research to define an aritcle topic, which is the problem with the article Scientific opinion on climate change. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That example is given in WP:TITLE as an example of good practice for a descriptive title. It is exactly what you have to deal with if you want to pursue your ideas. I will not be replying in future except as required by any ANI or whatever to deal with your disruption you might cause as I am asuming your reasoning here is not in good faith. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:TITLE does it say that article titles should be based on a definition of its subject matter that is original research. In fact, it goes on to say that "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view". I think you will find describes "Scientific opinion on climate change" perfectly. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Limbaugh: Phony soldiers

Hello. Here is the context for the following issue. Facts: Rush Limbaugh used the term "phony soldiers" when talking to a caller about soldiers and war critics. Limbaugh claims that he was referring to one actual fake soldier and not real American soldiers. His explanation is hardly implicit because at the time he used the term, "phony soldiers", there had been no mention of Jesse Macbeth, the fake soldier he claims to have been talking about. Limbaugh finished his conversation with the caller and two minutes later, for the first time, mentioned Macbeth. United States Senators, Media Matters, and many others roundly criticized Limbaugh for this and claimed that he was calling our own troops "phony" for criticizing the war. In a nutshell, that's what happened. I am making no claim as to what Limbaugh meant- I am merely stating the facts of the case. The article, before being changed, presented the facts and explained the positions of both sides (Limbaugh and his critics). I also included a link to Limbaugh's website which shows the actual transcript from his conversation with the caller and his comments afterwards.

Now here is the problem:

A certain user (ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!}) has taken it upon himself to change well sourced, accurate, impartial info to original research. Here is the first diff [48]. If you check his source, komonews?, [49] you will see that it does not say ONE word about what he proposed that it said. The statement chelydramat made while sourcing komonews is not accurate and is merely parroting the defense offered by Rush Limbaugh (basically using Rush's explanation/opinion of what happened instead of just describing what actually happened). Since komonews did not even mention Limbaugh I would argue that it is clearly original research. I tried to explain this to chelydramat on the talk page [50], but that didn't stop chelydramat from reverting [51]. He included his same original research, but this time he provided no source saying, "The old source isn't really needed here so I won't use it again."

All I want is for the article to have a NPOV and just state what happened using accurate sources.

It is now devolving into an edit war and I would like some outside opinions. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I now have 5 sources which support what I wrote. [52] [53] [54] [55][56] --Brendan19 (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

The edit Brendan19 has made (currently in violation of the spirit of WP:3RR [57][58][59][60]) is violating NPOV by deliberately inserting the out of context interpretation in the front of the section and is inaccurate since those sources consist of others making their own interpretation of what Rush Limbaugh said. The first edit was made with no attempt at discussion on the talk page 15:27, February 21, 2010, with a message on the talk page following 05:36, February 22, 2010. The Komonews, which was originally included to give context to the controversy, is accurate as far as it's subject matter is. I removed it in an attempt to address Brendan19's rather narrowly stated objection, especially since Macbeth's story was already sourced later in the section. My edit here also incorporated the ref for the transcript (right after the quotations from the transcript) and the mention of the piddling time difference it took Rush to read Macbeth's story. Contrary to Brendan19's assertions he is using those edits to violate WP:SOAP, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 16:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If claims are sourced to published news sources, they aren't original research. If the article is labeling "who is right and who is wrong" in the dispute by going back to a transcript, that IS original research--whenever editors find themselves judging primary sources to settle a "who's right/who's wrong" question to a well sourced, real world dispute, they are overstepping into offering "novel conclusions". Whenever these "he said, she said" disputes are covered in the articles, the key is to describe the dispute, and not to become another participant in it by weighing the arguments for yourself. Cover the "fight", don't pretend wikipedia is supposed to referee it! Professor marginalia (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Continuing, now having given the section another look, I think the whole thing needs a scrub. It needs better sourcing...that transcript and mediamatters are being interpreted far too much. Attacking Limbaugh, we all know, is one of mediamatters core objectives, posting 2 or 3 articles per day attacking him. It's a participant in the dispute, not an unbiased or objective source. Limbaugh's transcript is a primary source document-not that you can't use it at all, but it should be not be used to the way it has been, which is basically to counterbalance mediamatters. You need to let the mainstream secondary sources guide how the subject is described in the article. All opinions or interpretations about what Limbaugh meant or said must be explicitly attributed to the source that said it. The "two minutes later he said" stuff should come out. CNN can do this level of deconstruction of who said what from the transcript, but not wikipedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. If you read the current page you will note that the first sentence of the phony soldiers section is supported by two CNN articles, one Fox article and two other reliable sources. This sentence seems to be what ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} has a problem with. He would prefer his own unsourced sentence found in this diff. That's the main bone of contention.

As to your claim that a transcript and MediaMatters are being "interpreted" I would have to ask what you mean. It looks to me like the current article merely says 'CNN says this is what happened. Here is what was said... Rush claims this and MediaMatters claims that. Now here's a transcript if you want to decide for yourself.' --Brendan19 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, those are the sources you need rely on. However the section does not really use them to any degree, does it? Except to say that Limbaugh made the remarks on his broadcast. Each of those sources wrote about the controversy those remarks made, whereas the article here is a transcript replay, largely between what mediamatters says he said (who wasn't identified as a party in the dispute in any of those news articles) and the transcript itself. What the section should do is to describe the dispute the way the secondary sources do, ie 'Limbaugh's remarks were denounced by senator so and so who said thus and such.' The whole Jesse MacBeth account goes further down the rabbit hole--it wasn't mentioned in any of the news accounts and it does not belong here at all. The section in the article almost entirely abandons the narrative taken in the news accounts and constructs an altogether new one about the disputes between Limbaugh and mediamatters. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am always bothered by questions like this. It may not be against the "rules" to mention all of this... but in articles about controvercial people like Limbaugh, I think we need to ask a few far more fundamental questions. Why is it necessary to mention this event in the first place? Is it really encyclopedic for the article to discuss what is essentially a "gottcha" moment? Does mentioning the event really tell the reader anything important about Limbaugh? Something that the article does not already convey to the reader?

I am by no means trying to say we should ignore how controvercial Limbaugh is... but let's put this into historical perspective... Limbaugh has said far more controvercial things that this. If we were writing this article 10 years from now, how likely is it that this event would be mentioned? Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but the simple answer is that we include things like this for completeness. To many, the only notable thing about Rush is that he says outrageously controversial things. Does that mean we should ignore anything that puts him in a positive light? Of course not, and vice versa. Another point is that when you ask if each criticism/controversy is necessary it is easy to say exactly what you did he "has said far more controversial things" than this. By that logic we wouldn't have any of his controversy on the page. That would make the dittoheads happy, but it would be an unfair representation of who Rush is. This is, in fact, a tactic they have used frequently to whitewash his page. I see that they have pretty much eliminated his McNabb quote and most of the context surrounding it. The man was basically fired from ESPN for saying things that many perceived as racist. This came back to bite him in the butt when he attempted to buy an NFL team because of the outrage from many players and owners, but none of that is in the article. To read it now you would think that only one person was offended by his comments and an equal number of people (one) defended him. Is that really what happened?

Basically, to ignore his controversy would be to redefine how he is perceived. --Brendan19 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that ignoring this particular controversy would redefine how Limbaugh is perceived. Limbaugh is known for making outragious and controvercial statments. I will even say that doing so is what defines him as a media persona. There comes a point when listing every controvercial statement he makes becomes redundant. Also, we need to be careful that we do not give any particular event undue weight in the name of completeness. Blueboar (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that ignoring this particular controversy would redefine him. What I am saying is that when you make that argument you can make it for each controversy and before you know it there is no mention of controversy in an article about an extremely controversial figure. It's a slippery slope my friend.

Also, my point in discussing this here was to address the original research being performed by chelydra. From here on, I'm going to try to stick to that aspect. If you wish to get into more specifics about the content of the limbaugh article I welcome you to comment on its talk page --Brendan19 (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but I maintain that the section has dived into areas which have not been demonstrated to be notable beyond mediamatters, which is woefully insufficient, and abandoned what was demonstrably notable as covered by secondary sources. All the other concerns expressed here are valid in terms of judging whether something is notable enough to qualify for an article intended to take the broad view, where recentism etc are key concerns. I maintain that most of the particulars cited in that section were never sufficient to qualify in the first place. If mediamatters were the benchmark for what is and isn't notable to say about Limbaugh, there would be two or three scathing new criticisms of his comments cited for every day he has been on air. There are 4 or 5 cites demonstrating notability for this remark because this quip drew criticism from Harry Reid etc. That's bypassed nearly altogether in the article, which instead dives headlong into the quotes and "you be the judge" type evidentiary stuff. If you can't find find secondary sources who bothered to dive in deeper in this hotly controversial episode, which was covered by 5 independent news sources at least, wikipedia doesn't "fill the void", it "leaves it alone". Wikipedia doesn't investigate the news, and it doesn't "set the record straight." It's not snopes. That's not the role of an encyclopedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I also hear what you are saying and I agree with most of it. The sources I used in the first sentence say much more than what I used them to say and you could certainly use them to change the section, but I will tell you what I told blueboar- if you wish to comment on things besides original research then please go to the talk page for the Limbaugh article and do it. You can also have a hand in editing the article if you want. On this noticeboard I am going to stick to original research stuff.--Brendan19 (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, this noticeboard is best left as a "safe space" for those looking for advice or perspective rather than a place to solicit reinforcements. Unfortunately, this often leads to diffuse replies that don't help in building consensus in the article itself. It's a balancing act to be constructive rather than legalistic. Focusing on the more narrow question about original research, it is original research whenever the source cited doesn't make the claim, but is instead used to give context or supporting evidence bolstering a claim that isn't citable in secondary sources. In simple form, any claim about Limbaugh needs a cite that makes the claim about Limbaugh. It can't use a cite that merely "shows an example of Limbaugh at work". Doesn't mean you can't use examples from Limbaugh-basic rule of thumb is that you need an intermediary source to justify focusing on that example. The same holds for the subjects of his remarks, as in this case the Jesse MacBeth story that doesn't mention Limbaugh at all. That's clearly synth if it's used to source a claim rather than used as supplementary background. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

break 1

I would say WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOT#NEWS comes into play. If people are still talking about this incident in a few months, then it makes sense to include; otherwise, there are severe WP:RECENTISM problems. There's no evidence (yet) that this incident is encyclopedic, though the McNabb incident surely is. THF (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Then would you advocate deleting the phony soldiers controversy article and expanding the McNabb section? If so, I agree with you.--Brendan19 (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This remark was made in 2007. Is it notable today? Professor marginalia (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It was mentioned again in a 2008 piece a year after the incident, so I stand corrected. Perhaps using that reliable secondary source to provide NPOV balance against the bogus MMA slur will resolve the issue, incidentally. THF (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue for me is more one of relevance to the topic. The McNabb comment is relevant to the topic of Limbaugh because it directly affected Limbaugh's life and career (he had to resign his job at ESPN becuase of it). The phony soldier comment has not had a similar effect on the subject's life and career. It might well be a notable enough controversy for an article on its own, but in the context of an article on Limbaugh I question whether it is worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree; to fairly cover the issue would require three sentences, and then you have a severe WP:UNDUE issue. It belongs as a "See also", and that's it. THF (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)