Jump to content

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Irreligion in Mexico

Would someone please look at Irreligion in Mexico ... my initial reaction on reading it is that it is full of OR, but I need a second opinion. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And, although it has references, much of it is synthesis and it reads like a (very badly written) student's paper. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Irreligion is just as bad. And a Wiki search on Irreligion shows a lot of confusion, with this article having had Atheism in Mexico merged into to allegedly to bring it into line with other article titles, but there are at least 4 cases of 'Irreligion in country' articles being redirects now to either "Religion in country" (3) or "Atheism in country" (1) Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Zheng He

We have a new editor here who I think needs help with understanding original research. I think his/her heart is in the right place but there are problems with the new section "Zheng He Disputation". If anyone has the time and inclination to look at this, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I took just a quick look, and didnt examine the citations, but there are indeed lots of citations on that particular section. Doug, can you be more specific about the problems? It has indeed been cited in many places that the circumnavigation of the globe by Zheng He is not true and that the particular book mentioned (1421) is a bunch of BS. I must admit that I actually bought and read that book when it first came out, and believed it until I did futher research and used my brain and sat down with some of my history professors to discuss in detail the "research" that author had done. It's a good read, as long as you treat it as fiction, or as an alternate history (a what-if?) book. Doug, are you just wanting better citations for that section or am I missing a more serious problem?Camelbinky (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back, my hand operation was still inhibiting me from taking part much - it's better now. The edits were removed by another editor as WP:SYN and improper use of citations and the editor I was concerned about, Starstylers (talk · contribs), indef blocked for breach of a civility parole. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I am in the same boat as Camelbinky here; although I still hold it is possible that Chinese boats crossed the pacific prior to Columbus Menzes' evidence of this, even, is inconclusive at best and his circumnavigational claims that conveniently go everywhere except Europe are laughable. This has been widely debunked and it shouldn't be hard finding reliable sources to dispute specific claims.Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you are being unfair to Menzies', he claims that they did go to Europe, including London! Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN - Can we use a primary source to draw a conclusion?

WP:NOR says that we should not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. What if the source that explicitly draws the conclusion is a primary source? Consider the following example in our 9/11 conspiracy theories article.* This is an article on a fringe theory, so as ridiculous as these claims might be, it is what some conspiracy theorists claim:

A: Conspiracy theorists claim that there were reports of Israelis celebrating after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

B: Conspiracy theorists claim that Israel was responsible for 9/11.

C: Conspiracy theorists claim that the reports of Israelies celebrating after the 9/11 terrorist attacks is proof Israel was responsible for 9/11.

If a primary source (read: some nutcase 9/11 conspiracy web site) draws this conclusion (C), is it WP: SYN or do we have to find a WP:RS which ties these two claims together?

I'm thinking that the answer is 'no', but I'd like to get some feedback from editors more experienced than me.

BTW, for argument's sake, let's try to keep this question separate from topic of WP:WEIGHT (i.e. if no WP:RS has tied these two claims together, it's not significant enough to be mentioned in an article. This is a legitimate concern, but right now, I'm more interested in understanding WP:SYN). Thanks!

Supposedly Bin Laden bowed down and praised Allah after the attacks. I guess that means he was in cahoots with the Israelis. Synthesis is wikipedia editors drawing conclusions. If the sources draw those conclusions, that's not synthesis by us. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
We need the rest of the information to decide this problem.
A: Reputable newspapers reported the Israelis in question were celebrating before, during and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
B: Reputable newspapers reported that these Israeli's were being investigated for a connection to the 9/11 attacks, that some suspects fled the country and that all were involved in a Mossad front company plus a lot of other details conspiracy websites use.
C: Some conspiracy theorists claim that these reliably sourced reports of Israelies celebrating, the subsequent investigation and the additional facts reported is proof Israel was either responsible for 9/11 or, by far the most popular theory, had foreknowledge.
The connections are already there in the RS's, the conspiracy websites highlight the connections and call it a conclusion. They have really added nothing new to what the RS's have reported. They just ignored the same sources later rejecting the theory. Any intelligent person reading the original reports would come to the same conclusion in the absence of the later reports and as this is a documented conspiracy theory which is what the article is about is it really synth per WP policies? Wayne (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this gets more intriguing all the time. So Bin Laden was actually a Mossad agent??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not an OR case. Its an RS case. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Fullstop is correct... this isn't an OR issue... the synthetic conclusion "that the reports of Israelies celebrating after the 9/11 terrorist attacks is proof Israel was responsible for 9/11" is taken directly from conspiracy theorist websites. It does not matter that it is a synthesis... or even that it is a flawed synthesis... what matters is that the synthesis is made by the source. It is thus not "origial" to Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this issue (except that I think it's ridiculous to think this conspiracy theory true), but I would like to point out that many of you are spelling wrong, it is Israelis, no "e". A person from Israel is an Israeli (even if they are Arab, Christian, Armenian, or Ethiopian in heritage/ethnicity), the plural is "Israelis".Camelbinky (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
D'Oh!... Sorry about that CB... when you cut and paste from someone else's post without checking, you end up repeating their spelling errors. :>( Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User adding original research to article

User Arab Cowboy is deleting sourced info and adding original research to the Anwar Wagdy article. The source clearly says him being of Syrian origin, nothing else. http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Anwar+Wagdi+was+of+Syrian+origin%2C%22&btnG=Search+Books

He removes the source and changes the text to "His father, Yehia Wagdy El-Fattal, immigrated to Egypt from Syria with his family" but there is absolutely nothing in the source in that section that says anything of this http://www.aawsat.com/details.asp?section=54&article=477850&issueno=10815


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anwar_Wagdi&diff=309599237&oldid=309597832

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anwar_Wagdi&diff=311067612&oldid=311044697

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anwar_Wagdi&diff=311987093&oldid=311970536

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anwar_Wagdi&diff=312231384&oldid=312210124

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anwar_Wagdi&diff=312589942&oldid=312398264--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

A dispute has arisen on the Islam and antisemitism article. User:Nishidani has interpreted the lede of the article as meaning that any source that broadly discusses the topics of Judaism and Islam can be used as sources in this article, rather than sources that explicitly discuss Islam and antisemitism. Thus, if a source says that Muslim references to Jews as apes are indications of antisemitism, Nishidani can, in turn, bring any sources he feels relevant to refute or "throw light on" that claim, regardless of whether or not they actually discuss antisemitism. Furthermore, when confronted with the fact that he is adding material intended to create a counter-argument, he argues that if he merely removes the word "However", it suddenly is no longer a counter-argument.[1] The discussion is here: Talk:Islam and antisemitism#Latest edits by Nishidani Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a Jew, and even I find the article title itself a bit confusing insensitive and not all that accurate or encyclopedic. Islam itself is not antisemitic, by definition anti-semitism is hatred against Semites, not just Jews. If Islam was anti-semitic then it wouldnt have such a large following amongst Arabs. Plus it must be remembered that not all anti-Israeli remarks or actions are anti-Jewish and vice-versa; a hatred in the Arab or Muslim worlds does not mean they are "anti-Jewish" or "anti-semitic". The President of Iran himself has shook hands and even hugged Orthodox Jewish rabbis (of course it was an anti-gay conference in Iran so I guess if you hate the same things he does he overlooks your Jewishness). We dont have an article Catholicism and antisemitism unless it is under another name and trust me Catholics have been worse in history than the Muslims towards Jews. A source doesnt need to outright use the term antisemitism, but if he is using them in a manner that borders on synthesis or original research then they dont belong. The entire article probably shouldnt exist, I have no inclination to read the article based solely on the title which itself is a bit bigoted. Sorry I pontificated my personal opinions and didnt really get to the core of your problem. The article title is just too much for me, as a Jew I understand how it sucks to have a religion associated with ideas and beliefs that arent what the religion stands for and be stereotyped.Camelbinky (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the contention that the word "Anti-semitism is hatred against Semites"... yes, linguistically this is what the roots of the term indicate, but that is not the meaning of the term as used in modern society. Seriously, can anyone come up with an example of an actual anti-semetic statement in the last 100 years that was not directed specifically at Jews?
That said... I agree that Islam is not Anti-semetic (even if you narrow the term to mean "Anti-Jew")... no more than Christianity or any other religion is anti-semetic. There are definitely individual muslems who are "Anti-semetic"... and, yes, there are significant segments of Islamic society that are Anti-semetic (this is true even if you include other semites... there are elements of Iranian society that are Anti-Arab as well as Anti-Jew). Islam, the religion, is actually fairly Pro-Jew (since Jews and Christians are "People of the book" who the Koran says are to be favored over other non-muslems).
Finally, I have a lot of problems with "Group and X" articles in general... be it "Catholicism and X", "Islam and X" or "The Boy Scouts and X"... such articles often started as POV forks that set up false oppositions between the two elements in the title. And even when started in good faith, they often become POV magnets. So... I agree with Camelbinky that a clearer and less POV name is needed for the article in question. Blueboar (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

there is an rfc that just opened regarding merging this article into a more appropriate one, at least partly because of its name and the POV forkiness. camelbinky and blueboar, your input would be appreciated there. untwirl(talk) 03:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The introduction to the no original research policy states (bold in original, underline added): "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." That's a lazy answer, but one that directly addresses the question (no pun). I think the statement "the correct response is to fix the representation, not to add one's own counter-arguments" is spot on. If there's a problem with how sources are used or questions about their reliability, using off-topic sources and editorial rebuttals is the wrong way to going about addressing the issues. --Vassyana (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion might be a red herring. Jayjg lists five of Nishidani's sources, saying they don't address the topic "Islam and antisemitism." The three of those five that are accessible online do in fact explicitly address the subject of the article, and are obviously relevant. I can check the other two in a research library over the next few days. The interpolation of these sources into the text may need some smoothing (indeed the article as a whole is a bit of a mess), but there doesn't appear to be any WP:NOR issue.
Well, not in that section at least. There is in fact a very large section of the article, around 2300 words, which appears to consist entirely of original research. It's called "Antisemitic comments by Muslims," all of which are culled from marginal pro-Israel websites that neither discuss Islam nor present these remarks as representative of it, but rather record them as examples of incitement in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict.--G-Dett (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Which, as I pointed out, does not mean anti-semitism. Anti-Israeli sentiment does not equal anti-Jewish sentiment. There are alot of very ultra-orthodox Jews and Rabbis who are against a State of Israel because the creation of a nation in the Holy Land for Jews is one of the jobs to be performed by the Messiah when he arrives, therefore they dont think a semi-secular Jewish nation as Israel is should exist as a creation of us mere common-folk. That doesnt make them anti-Jewish themselves, just as Arabs and Muslims who are against an Israel are not necessiarily anti-Jewish. There are alot of Jews who reside in "anti-Israel" nations such as Yemen, Libya, and Iran who are loyal citizens of those Muslim states, and yes are persecuted occasionally but in more modern recent times other than some discrimination on holding jobs and living in certain areas they are not molested. I completely agree with Blueboar on his changes to my original ideas and still forceably think that the entire article needs a renaming and some oversight on a redrafting of the topic and its content. It's inflammatory and such thinking that Islam is anti-Jewish simply feeds their flames of hatred, by misunderstanding what they are angry about simply makes them angrier. Labelling their entire religion anti-semitic or labeling the comments of a few as indicitive of a systematic bias in the entire religion against their own brother-religion simply makes them not want to have a dialogue and makes them even more fanatical. But I guess some on Wikipedia may argue that Wikipedia should not be concerned with being careful not to create more terrorists, that this is just an encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that this topic has apparently been brought forth at the RS/noticeboard now too. Either someone is fishing around for the answer they want regarding this topic or the article has many issues.Camelbinky (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't know while engaged in editing that page that this discussion had taken place. Perhaps many will sigh with relief that my lack of awareness saved them the eyestrain of reading another extensive analysis of the way my work and edits were misrepresented.
I would like to correct the misimpression that might arise from the sentence: 'if a source says that Muslim references to Jews as apes are indications of antisemitism, Nishidani . .'
Laqueur said no such thing of course. He did not discuss the Jew = ape equation as 'antisemitic'. Neither does Lewis. Both mention the contemptuous metaphor as evidence of hostility, as against other evidence they mention of positive feelings for Jews in that text. The context is not therefore antisemitic. And since the reference to Jews as apes and pigs in Laqueur, who has absolutely no specialist knowledge for the text or period, came from his tampering with two passages, I added three more sources to show what other scholars, peers of Lewis, say of this metaphor in that text. No original research, therefore, just allowing the reader more RS on the theme touched on by Lewis (RS) and Laqueur (not RS for this kind of period or material).Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Socionics

User:Rmcnew concluded that socionics is hermeticism (see the looooonnng discussion on the talk page) and a protoscience, without direct support from any reliable sources (which, imo, there are only two: http://www.socioniko.net/en/ and http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/). MichaelExe (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely true that this is origional. Psychologists Spencer Stern and Rick Dulong have referred to socionics as a protoscience to avoid claims that socionics is a mystic science or mystic psychology. Also, while it is true that it has not been widely stated that socionics hermeticism, there is evidence that this is the case. I do agree that it could be considered origional research to claim that socionics is hermeticism in the socionics article; however, it is established by Dmitri Lytov and Alexander Bukalov that socionics has similarities and influences to the theories and philosophers who involved themselves cybernetics and synergetics, which are modern revivals of 17th century hermetic science.
There is also other argumentation and proof that socionics is hermeticism, that could be considered speculation, because the lack of direct evidence could mean that the similarities are circumstantial, meaning that some things could have only been losely borrowed from hermetic science, through another source that did borrow from the science, or the fact that socionics is a deductive science (socionics is not an inductive science in the least).
In any case, other than what is stated by a PHD, the speculation remains in the criticism section. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu and Pokémon Pocket Monsters

An dynamic IP editor has repeatedly removed information from the article claiming that it is original research and a synthesis to state that a manga series that was serialized in a children's magazine is not targeted to children, referred to as kodomo. —Farix (t | c) 12:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the article Electric Tale of Pikachu, that it's kodomo (yes, I know what that means - targeted to children :) ) is in the article, but not sourced. To my understanding (and trust me, it's far from complete) any claim an article makes has to be referenced. I don't see one for it being Kodomo. I'd say the IP is right Naluboutes, NaluboutesAeria gloris, Aeria gloris 16:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Taxpayer March on Washington

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Taxpayer March on Washington where certain editors have come to the conclusion that all RS (except for The Daily Mail) reporting the crowd estimate as 60-75,000 are leftist and biased (even Fox News and The Washington Times...I'm not kidding) It's gotten to the point where demands for US government satellite images are being "demanded". Repeated discussions and links showing their view is incorrect falls on deaf ears. The article has already been semi-protected, but a group of editors are feverishly "trying to find the truth"; this has resulted in a perfect example of WP:OR. Please see the talk page for evidence. Thank you. APK is a GLEEk 01:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a prime example of what I have noticed recently, Conservatives using Wikipedia as a forum for their fringe views. They have no place here in Wikipedia. Ignore them, but if they edit war use the proper channels to punish them. I do wonder what US government satellite images they want (a satellite would have to actually have been looking at that moment to capture something, we dont just have a dedicated satellite taking images of Washington!) and if there is a US government satellite image...are they planning on doing a head count manually from it?! (hope no one has any hanging chads!) Treat them as the freaks they are. Civility and good faith is reserved for those who use it themselves, they wont listen to reason, they've shown that repeatedly in the discussion already. "Fox News is leftist media", ha!, when a group says that then you know they are fringe and cuckoo. There are plenty of non-biased media outlets like CNN and the New York Times to quote, and it just makes it even better if Fox News is not disputing their numbers.Camelbinky (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life violence

Talk page discussion was here Talk:Pro-life movement#Violence against pro-lifers. More input there would be appreciated. Basically, is it original research to create a novel list of incidents of violence against pro-lifers taken from random news clippings if there are no secondary sources here.-Andrew c [talk] 14:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Representative money

An editor is trying to push the notion that "representative money" (an old fashioned phrase rarely used today) is just as important as commodity, fiat and credit money by misusing sources, refusing to source information, removing tags requesting he do so, reverting anything that doesn't support his POV. Two editors have been trying to explain this to him but he seems to be one of these fanatical gold bugs who thinks that gold certificates (an example of "representative money") have to be proved to be "real money," wiki-policies be damned.

I'm going away for a few days and hopefully others with an interest in economics will take a look. Read talk and look especially at these versions: 1' 2, 3. Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that same editor later put in enough refs to slide out of WP:OR category somewhat - since his interpretations can be dubious.
However, the same editor is at it again in History of money article where he's included big section on Representative money which is totally WP:UNDUE. (Since he tends to make stuff up and throw a reference at end, I'm sure there's continuing WP:OR.) It's funny, in 3 years, 3 months, and 12 days of editing, this guy's behavior is the issue that makes me most feel like throwing up my hands and walking away from the project. We need some staffers to spank these kind of guys! oi!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War

On the article Gaza War we document a dispute over how police killed during the conflict are classified by various groups. The Israeli government has asserted that they are "combatants" while a number of NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights have classified them as civilians or non-combatants. A report by the UN, specifically the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), covers casualties from 2005-2008 prior to the conflict. As part of their report they include Israeli police, border police and military in a category "Israeli security forces". One user is attempting to use this in the section on the dispute about the classification of police killed during this conflict. The OCHA report makes no mention of whether or not police are presumptively civilians or if the police killed in their reports are actually civilians or combatants, but it does include them with security forces while not actually saying they are combatants. But it does not address the casualties of this conflict at all, nor does it address the controversy over how to classify police killed during this conflict. My contention is that including this edit in the section on disputes over police killed in this conflict is original research to advance an argument. Each of the sources used in that section are explicitly discussing police killed in this conflict. The information that the OCHA report includes police in "Israeli security forces" is already included in the background section where we use the numbers from OCHA to provide statistics on the violence that preceded this conflict. But one user has been attempting to force in to the section dealing with casualties of this conflict the information that does not deal with the arguments presented in that section, placing it next to arguments that are specifically dealing with police killed during the Gaza War. Is it original research to include this line in a section dealing with a topic it does not mention at all? See also Talk:Gaza_War#police. nableezy - 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a clear-cut case of synthesis. I suspect the editor making that edit is probably correct factually, but I don't think this edit is in accord with policy.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It is factually correct but in this section it is used to advance an argument that is not made in the source. The factually correct aspect is included where it is relevant, in the background section where it is discussing the OCHA numbers. nableezy - 22:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Then it is a fairly open and shut case of synthesis. There's really no getting around that, unless I am missing something.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello JohnnyB256. Thank you for joining the Talk:Gaza_War#police. nableezy helped me to improve my edit. The article says that: The IDF included police in the militant's count. I propose phrasing: Israeli Police and Israeli Border Police reported between 2005 and 2008 with Armed Forces as "Israeli Security Forces" by United Nations OCHA-oPt.[1]. Based on following source sentence: Israeli security forces – are defined as any member of the Armed Forces, the Police and the Border Police.. Hope there is no ambiguity here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
But sorry, the way it is used is synthesis. I've responded further on the talk page for Gaza. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you've put words into my mouth. Did you read the discussion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Frankly the main basis of my thoughts on this was just looking at the edit itself, rather than the rather emotional discussion from both sides, which frankly I just didn't find very helpful. Evidently every word in this article has been argued over a zillion times, as evidenced by 56 archive pages.
I do think that it would be very helpful if more editors would please come in and comment on this. It really boils down to a simple question: does this edit constitute synthesis? In my feeling it does, but I could be wrong, and on an article of this sensitivity there really needs to be more input from uninvolved editors. I noticed, to my surprise, that this very lengthy and detailed article, which struck me as a very good piece of work, was only rated "start" by two of the projects in which it resides. Obviously there is a problem there, though I'm not sure what it is. More uninvolved editors are clearly needed.
In other words, help!!! Send in the peacekeepers.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
JohnnyB256, appreciate your opinion. Could you clarify how the addition violates WP:SYN? What is not allowed is combining multiple sources ( not a case here ) or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The source (and addition) clearly say: "UN OCHA-oPt put Israeli Police in the same row of their report table with IDF". Am I missing something? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I responded to the above on the talk page. I have a suggestion: since this is under the aegis of several projects, why not post a neutral note in one or all of them asking for input. You going back and forth with nableezy is not going to accomplish anything, as neither of you is going to convince the other. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(restoring indent) Maybe you could see this addition as irrelevant (syned) if you read the paragraph as HRW and PCHR opinions on Palestinian police classification by Israel and Israeli response. Maybe if we consider neutrality we'd see it as police classification dispute in general. The OCHA source used in the article to provide "background" info about I/P conflict in general. UN OCHA-oPt is secondary source which provides neutral information on the belligerent police force classification precedent. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But I read that as an Israeli view of the Israeli police, not the Palestinian police. All you need is for the source to make that point clearly for it not to be, in my view, synthesis. We have to be precise, particularly in contentious articles.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... do you read the UN OCHA-oPt provides Israeli view? I'd say the phrase is probably supported by source (Terminology chapter , page 4) and it was included in Background section by nableezy during discussion. Out of context if you ask me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Argox (breathing gas)

This entire article appears to be original research, as well as bordering on fiction. There is no such breathing gas as "argox" used in scuba diving, and the article appears to be concerned purely with how a mixture of argon and oxygen could be used a breathing gas. The only cited source which mentions breathing a gas containing argon is a study in rats, and it does not use the term "argox". The references are used to show that such a breathing gas could be used, rather than showing evidence that it ever has actually been used. A google search of the term "argox" in the context of scuba diving appears to only produce results derived from this article. 203.38.222.94 (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, I don't see much evidence that a mixture of argon and oxigen is even called "argox" by the scuba community. A Google books search turns up very few hits that refer to argox as a gas... but it is unclear if this is the same mixture that the article claims is used in the scuba context. Surely if "argox" was a common scuba term it would show up in all sorts of scuba related sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually "Argox" is cited in one of the external links. But that link also indicates that it is rarely used[2]. "Argox is still very rarely used and tested gas for breathing gas' inert component, and argon is mostly used pure as a dry suit inflation gas because of it's good thermal characteristics and relatively cheap price." I agree that there is insufficient sourcing for an article on argox as a breathing gas. Should be folded into scuba diving.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Pacific typhoon season

Some editors are insisting in designating Tropical Depressions with numbers that are not found anywhere. They can't provide any evidence that such a designation has been assigned by an official agency. Therefore, it is clearly an original research.Typhoon2009 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, its unverifiable, which is not the same thing as "original research". -- Fullstop (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, it is original research, unverifiable implies that it may in fact be true but there is no way to verify it, original research is a lack of written published material designating it as such. Unverifiable would be if climatilogists used the system but for some reason never wrote it in a book, this is not that case. This is original research because editors are inventing their own numbers.Camelbinky (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Totally disagree with this pointless conversation. The JMA Advisories in which the tropical depressions are put on in are archvied on various sites and in the logs on the talkpages, and we can verify which depression formed first which makes it ok to Say TD 1 so its no OR or unverifable and is a routine calculation. Oh and just for information this is the conversation we had about it and came to a consenssus to use the numbers. Jason Rees (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Still OR if only Wikipedia editors are the ones using this number system! You cant, no matter how many editors in your group agree to it, decide on your own way of numbering things. I cant get together with a bunch of editors and decide we'll have the countries of the world numberized, making Iceland=1, Norway=2, Sweden=3, Finland=4, Russia=5, Estonia=6, Latvia=7, Lithuania=8, Belarus=9, etc etc etc. Provide a legitimate source that numbers tropical depressions and not a source that simply lists the depressions in order of formation. Fullstop and Typhoon are correct that you cant use that system.Camelbinky (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

McDojo

The vast majority of this article consists of original research, and my attempts to remove it have been reverted several times. There are only two sources that even use the term, both of which are passing mentions, so following our sourcing policies this article should be no more than a stub. The article currently has 5 in-line citations, but three of them do not even use the term a single time. I would appreciate if an uninvolved editor could take a look at this and assist in removing unreferenced material. *** Crotalus *** 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The choice of name seems to be semi-arbitrary. This may be a legitimate topic, but perhaps a neutrally descriptive title should be used, with McDojo and Bullshido redirecting. Paul B (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, its mostly OR. And, perhaps "belt factory", which is mentioned in the Urban Dictionary's entry for McDojo (and is a redirect there), would be an appropriate umbrella term for McDojo and Bullshido. -- Fullstop (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

NOR overreach

See the last several edits on [3]. I have added an observation that two episodes have the same title (feat of Clay). I did not provide a source because 1 I can't find one and 2 it's an obvious observation and there is no dispute that the episodes have the same title. I know I have read before that providing a comparison of data, without analysis, does not require a source. That is what I am doing. --Ephilei (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A clarification (because it is not clear from your comment)... Looking at the link, the issue isn't there are two episodes of Birds of Prey (TV series) entitled "Feet of Clay", but rather that there is an episode by that name in Birds of Prey, and an episode by that name in Batman: The Animated Series... a completely different TV show. Mentioning the fact that two seperate TV shows entitle episodes with the same name is, in my opinion, essentially trivia (not worth mentioning). As for OR, because these titles come from seperate sources, mentioning them together implies that there is a connection between them... that is WP:SYNT. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, they are different shows. Are you meaning trivia is not allowed in WP? There is a connection: both titles of episodes of tv shows about Batman characters, the titles refer to the antagonist of each episode. Now, whether there is a connection beyond that, there is no source. Originally, I edited to say there was a production connection which was incorrect of me. --Ephilei (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's put it this way... Trivia is highly discouraged. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, highly. -- Fullstop (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

North Carolina Tar Heels football

Editor keeps on adding wp:or that the UNC football team receives favorable treatment from officials and has close relationship with conference commissioner. I reverted twice but user keeps on adding. Want to avoid 3rr. Example: [4] Thanks.

That's not OR that's vandalism.Camelbinky (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaza massacre

I'm concerned about the article first sentence:

The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה) by Israel, and known as the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) in parts of the Arab and Muslim world...[2][3][4][5]

Supporters of Gaza massacre parsing claim that the name each of the involved parties used, Operation Cast Lead and Gaza massacre, are placed in bold in the lead. There are many sources using "massacre rhetoric" around the world: a number of sources have been provided showing that this was the name used in among both Arabs and much of the Arab press, and, most importantly, by Hamas, the government of Gaza. Though other sources were provided where Hamas leaders called the event Gaza War, i.e. "common name". This phrasing sparkles a lot of contention: probably 10 complete archive pages, of the current 50+, are devoted to this issue, thus consensous is not very wide.

Such a name is clearly "leading" and probably constitutes an OR: none of the sources mention that "Name for Gaza War in the Arab world is Gaza Massacre". Instead many sources are synthesized to reach this "naming" conclusion. Your opinion is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This was the name used by BBC Arabic, Al-Jazeera (Arabic), Ma'an News Agency, al-Ahram, and many more news agencies, and was the name used by Hamas in numerous statements. See also here. nableezy - 16:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I raised this point myself on the talk page, and discussion belongs either there or on the NPOV noticeboard. This is not an OR issue as it is amply sourced, but is more of a neutrality issue, though i understand it has been discussed many times. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If the "massacre" part is properly sourced, it cannot be considered OR. I just added another common name for the war, which is thoroughly sourced i.e. "Israel's war against Hamas" -- gets over a million g-hits when it is in quotes. Almost 3 million sans the quotes. I agree the "massacre" word could be considered POV especially emboldened. It is essentially an opinion. It is also Israel's contention that it is fighting "a Hamas Terror war in Gaza" [5] but we don't call it "Hamas' terror war against Israel" just because Israelis call it that. Either way {massacre/terror war} - it is a descriptive opinion, not a description, i.e. "war". Stellarkid (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There are problems with your addition, raised on the talk page of the article. nableezy - 06:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Right or wrong, this is not the place to discuss it. Clearly a question of balance, neutrality, not original research.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of NPOV arbitration. I'd just say that such strange officially neutral naming does not really enjoy consensus. And if you look through SYN eyes on it is kind of fun: mix a lot of sources which call the event Gaza massacre and imply this is belligerent name. There are Gaza massacre sources in archives from all around the world, so there is also wide possibility to interpretation on region where such naming is valid. I still have concerns here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not arbitration, a noticeboard.[6]. You might have a shot there, an arguable case. I just bluntly think it's a waste of time to say that the Arab world doesn't use the term "massacre", and that someone just made it up. That simply does not seem to be the case. I'm not being bureaucratic here, just trying to point you to the right venue.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the more exact phrasing is that the event has been described as massacre. Both Gaza PM and Hamas head of politburo (the belligerent) called the event Gaza War in their victory speeches. Implying massacre being a belligerent name is synthed out of many sources describing the event. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue does belong here. The few reliable sources in which the term massacre are found only use the term in their quotes of Hamas spokespersons and other such propagandists. No mainstream reliable source has ever said "This is called the 'Gaza Massacre' by ........." Thus, using snippets to create illusion that this is a term used in mainstream sources violated WP:OR. The prominent display in the lede of this country-defaming term violates wp:npov as well, and belongs on the POV Noticeboard as well. But its far harder to reach a fair consensus over the subjective POV then the more objective OR, especially when dealing with bunches of Facebook recruits.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Any specific "Facebook recruits" you have in mind? And if looking for the name Hamas used why would we not use quotes from Hamas? And would you also like to remove anything sourced to the Israeli MFA and other such propagandists? nableezy - 04:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, I doubt that you'd find many non-Israeli sources referring to the Gaza war as "Operation Cast Lead." My concern about having the word "massacre" in the first sentence in boldface relates to neutrality. "Operation Cast Lead" does not present such a problem as it is a neutral-sounding name given to the operation by the Israeli army, whereas "massacre" implies a host of things that are POV. That's why I keep referring to this venue as inappropriate. Whether or not this is synthesis, it presents a neutrality issue quite so high. Neutrality trumps all other concerns. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnny. Maybe if the Gaza government had chosen a name like "Fight for Gaza" then there wouldn't be such a brouhaha. But some editors regard the Gaza term as objectionable, and so want to remove it. But as long as it carries an inline citation I think putting the term up alongside Israel's term is ultimately what we have to do, per policy, for neutrality -- as Wiki does not censor. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps. I'm not saying definitively that there is a neutrality issue, and should have used the word "possible" in describing that concern. Assuming the synthesis issue is resolved, there will then be a neutrality question that needs to be definitively disposed of. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC) To repeat a point I made to another editor: I'm not taking a position on the lead, one way or the other. I don't want editors citing me in order to support their position in the edit war. My feeling is that there is a deadlock and that there needs to be more dispute resolution.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Agada Urbanit and Brewcrewer that this does belong here. Virtually every verifiable English source that has been presented (at least recently) refers to the opinion that the assault on Gaza was a "massacre." This is why the RS's do not identify it as "The Gaza Massacre." Here at WP some editors wish to use their own understanding of Arabic and English grammar rules to claim that "The Gaza Massacre" is the Arabic or Hamas' equivalent of the name of the event, therefore entitled to be in the lede, emboldened as is "Operation Cast Lead." The trouble is that the English sources do not support this and per WP:NONENG we should be using RS as our standard, not other WP editors. The other issue has to do with standard English grammar, as supporters of "The Gaza massacre" as a name insist against all authority [7] that proper nouns do not need to be capitalized. Thus this appears to be an agenda-driven issue, and every change is reverted and met with yowls of "editing against consensus" WP:CCC, ridicule, and warnings posted on other editors' talk pages. With respect to the sources given below:

  1. A piece in Arabic not easily verifiable
  2. IslamOnline -this is the only one that even comes close to supporting the contention with this: "Hereby we are presenting a couple of press releases issued by some of the Muslim organizations in Europe as a reaction to the Gaza Massacre." Every other reference refers to "these massacres" "ruthless massacres" "horrendous massacres" "bloody massacres" "the first few hours of the massacre"
  3. An opinion piece, with even the word "massacre" in the title in small letters, referring to "the coldly calculated massacre...." and "the massacre in Gaza," consistently chanting the word over and over in a variety of contexts. It is totally a value judgment and not an RS. It includes such (POV ) comments as "we deplore the 'myth of Israel' as perpetual victim" etc.
  4. From the Palestine Monitor. Nowhere in the article is "massacre" capitalized. In fact, they talk of the "recent massacre" "their attack, or massacre"

We have been told over and over that Hamas calls it such but no one has yet shown that either. No one objects to including that the Muslims and Arabs consider this a "massacre" but we do object to it being emboldened and equated with OCL and Gaza War in the very first few lines of this article. This is a value judgment masquerading as a "name" in order to give the impression that Wikipedia puts its stamp of approval (consensus) on the so-called name, "Gaza Massacre," when in fact it is not so. Stellarkid (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NONENG allows for sources from other languages provided the relevant section is quoted and translated. And the translations that we have from RS also show Hamas representatives calling the conflict "the Gaza massacre". We do not restrict ourselves to English sources, especially when we are looking for an Arabic name. And the "yowls" are about edit-warring against consensus, bit of a difference. nableezy - 19:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is a short list of sources showing Hamas using this as the name of the conflict. Each of the names below is either a Hamas official or spokesman:
  • Sami Abu Zuhri: ".طاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدولية"
    Translation: "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the Gaza massacre on the flimsiest of pretexts will not withstand the results of international inquiries."[8]
  • Fawzi Barhoom: "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."[9][10]
  • Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre" [11]
  • Raafat Morra: "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre."[12]
  • Khaled Meshal: "واكد انه بعد "مجزرة غزة لن يكون هناك تبادل للجندي (جلعاد) شاليط ولا تهدئة.
    Translation: He stressed that after "the Gaza massacre there will be no calm or an exchange for the soldier (Gilad) Shalit."[13]
  • Khaled Meshal: "الرد على مجزرة غزة هو ما سيرى الكيان الصهيوني لا ما سيسمع"
    Translation: "the response to the Gaza massacre is not what the Zionist entity will hear but what it will see."[14]
  • Mousa Abu-Marzouk: "إن موجة الأمل التي قابلت انتخابك تضاءلت بشكل كبير بسبب صمتك على مجزرة غزة"
    Translation: "The wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre"[15][16]
nableezy - 19:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Not synthesis. There may be other issues, but this isn't it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy you say that "WP:NONENG allows for sources from other languages provided the relevant section is quoted and translated." While you are technically correct that WP does allow it, it actually says "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." It could be considered the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law. There are a number of sources that do refer to the "Gaza massacre" but as has been pointed out ad nauseum, they do not follow the rules for proper nouns, and therefore cannot be considered an official name, like "Operation Cast Lead", but instead a characterization of the Gaza War. As such it is opinion and POV and does not belong in the lede. Stellarkid (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR of sections claiming "Historically significant social movements"

This diff removes two sections entitled "Historically significant social movements of non-propertarian libertarianism" and "Historically significant social movements of non-propertarian libertarianism." The editor immediately reverted the sections and refuses to admit a) he is deciding what is historically significant; b) the first one isn't even referenced; and c) the third one is referenced by biased sources who are talking more about conservatives than libertarians. Comments in relevant talk section appreciated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Me and Romeo & Juliet, down by the schoolyard.

Might someone give a ruling on my proposed addition to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Me_and_Julio_Down_by_the_Schoolyard ?

"Cryptic" proof of a love story 

                roMEo & JULIet
 Good-bye to    RO__O_______E_   
 '''See'''?    You,   __Me_ & Julio_   down by the schoolyard.

Turns out it was a cryptic crossword clue.

"Deletions consist of beheadments, curtailments, and internal deletions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_crossword#Deletions


Romeo and Juliet, One beheadment, one internal deletion, and one slightly imperfect curtailment, and one masterpiece becomes the title for another. Me and Julio, down by the schoolyard.


Also : - "The House of Detention" was a WOMEN'S prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Women%27s_House_of_Detention

I cracked this one a few days ago. Any thoughts on how to revise the song page?

Prophit1970 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't put it in at all. There's a rule on Wikipedia: no original research. You may or not be right, but until you fall under the nebulous and not very well defined rules on reliable sources, you can't get it added to the article.
unsigned edit by User:Captainktainer

Hello, unsigned editor. By original research, did you mean:

a) Cross-referencing the NY House of Detention article? or b) Observing that Ro-o + Me = Romeo ?

Both of those may be verified easily - in Wikipedia, or by listening to the lyrics.

Prophit1970 (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard, this is emphatically original research. If this analysis hasn't been previously published in a third-party reliable source, no way is it acceptable for inclusion. I do cryptic crosswords, and it looks deeply unconvincing anyway: more like the alphabetical equivalent of numerology. 86.148.153.199 (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Is putting a quote in context WP:SYN?

At 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance an editor removed what was quite a bit of OR. He also removed this: [17] which I've put back. Basically the issue is that the author of the book, Gavin Menzies, has misused a quote and the edit tries to show this. It may well be OR or Syn, and if so is there any way to handle something like this where there is no reliable source making the point? If people think it should be removed, I'll remove it. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the diff [18] I'd have to say it looks definitely OR unless someone else has made this analysis of Menzies' use of the quote. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. It's so difficult with this fringe stuff that's so blatantly bogus that no one takes it seriously enough to respond to it. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. But a dig in Google News for mid-2008 could well find other reviews - you'd have to be even-handed and include positive and negative, but for instance, there's this Telegraph review and this one from the New Zealand Herald ("But 1434 suffers from the full range of logical errors that also saw 1421 pilloried by experts"). The later mentions the selective quoting: "The most obvious explanations ... are selectively plundered for support, or bypassed entirely"). Or there's this Otago Times one. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I've run out of time for a few weeks for doing this sort of thing, but I'll post them to the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Synth on Albanian nationalism

User:Megistias has changed the direction of the page Albanian nationalism (a week ago) and is applying WP:SYNTH allover the article. This article should also be considered for WP:TE and Vandalism. We would appreciate if anyone would just come and verify this! AnnaFabiano (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For each case that you think is synthesis, please post (or point to) the sentence(s)/phrase(s) in which the synth is perhaps occurring, and post quotations from the sources being used to mint that synthesis.
That's pretty much the only way that someone unfamiliar with the subject can determine if NOR is being abused or not. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply. I did not see your reply. Here are some WP:SYNTH's and Original Research.
  • "Albanian nationalism is a general grouping of nationalistic ideologies among ethnic Albanian communities." — (No references)
  • "The term is associated with similar concepts, such as Albanianism[1][2][3][4][5] and Pan-Albanianism[6][7], with irredentist aims towards neighboring nations, for the formation of a Greater Albania." — referenced: 1. ...dynamic that would remain essential for understanding the development of Albanianism..., 2. ...the religion of Albanians is Albanianism..., 3. ...frequently then and since, "The religion of the Albanians is Albanianism..., 4. ..Henceforth, Hoxha announced, the only religion would be "Albanianism...", 5. ...form a 'Greater Albania'. Although considerable attention was given to pan-Albanianism in the West... --- (Nowhere is claimed that Albanian nationalism is associated with those concepts).
  • "These ideologies were partially adopted during the People's Republic of Albania (1945-1991), which was more focused on Illyrian-Albanian continuity issue[8][9][10]." — referenced: 1. These ideas however were later criticized by scholars from socialist Albania and the Pelasgians were forgotten or at least left aside official history..Although Enver Hoxha himself supported the Pelasgic theory in his own writings, the directions he gave to Albanian archaeologists at the end of the ‘60s focused on the Illyrians and on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity..., 2. ...this mind set the future of Albanians outside the borders could be largely forgotten, and for fifty years families in towns near the border, like Peshkopia, could not even visit relatives a few miles away in Yugoslavia. Thus, where the national question is concerned, the communist state can be compared to someone living on a limited inheritance in a time of inflation. ....Thus there is an organic link between the decline and eventual collapse of on-party-state in 1990-91 and the reopening of the national question....The nationalist and Royalist Right have always claimed that Hoxha was in some ways a betrayer of the nation..., 3. ..but it did little more to encourage Kosovo Albanians to "unite with motherland". Indeed never wanting to create tensions with Yugoslavia, Albania had even returned members of illegal Kosovar groups who had sought shelter within its borders... --- (The first reference is manipulated, the actual file does not say that link - page 4 otherwise it only states that Albanian communist regime worked intensively on Illyrian-Albanian issue. Other references are totally not related to the sentence. And the sentence itself is not related to the previous sentence.)
  • "However these ideologies have survived largely intact[12] in modern Albanian society and institutions, as well have a degree of acceptance and proliferation in Kosovo." — (No verifiable reference)
The article is full of Original Research and SYNTH. For more examples you can see the article, or request them from me. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC) (AnnaFabiano)
Since the sentences of the first and fourth point have no references, they're unverifiable and covered by WP:V. The apropos-of-nothing mid-sentence attribution of the clause "However these ideologies have survived largely intact" to "Practice of Archaeology under dictatorship" makes no sense.
As it stands, the sentence of the second point is OR, since the article is saying the term 'Albanian nationalism' is associated with Albanianism and Pan-Albanianism, but the sources do not seem to be saying that (the concepts might be related, but the sources do not seem to be saying that either).
The sentence of the third point is incoherent. The sentence starts with "These ideologies", but there is nothing in the preceding sentence from which to adduce what the "these ideologies" is referring to. What "These ideologies" might be can't be determined from the sources either. Indeed, each of the quotations appears to have nothing in common with any of the other quotations, so even if the prose were fixed such that the subject of the sentence were clear, all those references couldn't possibly be referring to the same thing.
Perhaps the problems could be solved if the authors of those sentences used the talk page to explain what they intended to say? -- Fullstop (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
You can see the talk page Talk:Albanian nationalism. The editor that made the article User:Megistias seems to have a personal opinion on that issue and stays firm on it. There was a Third Opinion, which was also ignored. Since I have the same problem with this particular editor in almost all Albanian related articles, I believe that he should be banned from editing in all Albanian related articles so that the articles can develop easily and without edit-waring. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The article is fully referenced and the refs were so abudant in information-as i doubt i have to exhibit several hundred pages of material- that an admin even shortened them as they took up too much space footnote cleanup,footnote cleanup,footnote cleanup,footnote cleanup.Megistias (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Anna has linked the wrong article above,my article from the same author speaks of Pelasgians.Megistias (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
All my references are verifiable look at the article Albanian nationalism,Anna above has made a "mistake" by linking a 2008 article when my article is 2009 in the article and speaks of Pelasgians.Megistias (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Kosovo subsection was already sourced on the issue Albanian_nationalism#Influence_on_movement_toward_Kosovan_secessionism, and i have made soures even more verifiable in the article.The article is referenced fullyMegistias (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Those three refs that have now been replaced were a leftover from this version of the page history,that claimed falserly that "This ideologies were left aside during the".Megistias (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors from both parts have used incivil expressions, and I really wonder why Anna C. did not see the highly disruptive comments by User:I_Pakapshem on the same page that made the talk page a major battleground [[19]] [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]], [[24]] (writing directly to Anna C., no wonder he was immediately blocked). When an article is pov this doesn't mean we have to ban our opposition. Actually the alternative lead proposed by Anna C. is for sure pov too (characteristically, words such as 'nationalistic' or 'nationalist' are total absent) [[25]] but this doesn't mean a consensus can't be reached.Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My material is verifiable, Anna has a personal issue against me,

Diff on my talk page.First contact with Anna she tells me that i spread Propaganda and that i hate Albanians ."You, my friend, are very active in this "Albanians are not Illyrians" propaganda. I would say, you have real hate toward Albanians".

diff on Albanian nationalism,Anna writes."I would not be surprised if it would write "All Albanians are pigs, and they should all burn in hell!".

Almost every single sentence in the article has been referenced, but despite this Issues are being raised with little to no justification.Just because some users dont like the information that an article provides to the public doesnt mean it makes it POV,OR or something that has to vanish.Megistias (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Anna has seen fit not to inform me of the OR and proceeded to adress the following 3 users while i was not even aware of the OR and while she predisposed an OR verdict (with the above methods seen in my response).diff,diff,diffMegistias (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Typical positions in left-right politics

Does this table violates NOR and SYNTH? Specially contentious is presentation of views on science. -- Vision Thing -- 08:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ack KILLITWITHFIREYes. There are plenty of anti-mainstream-science folk on both 'left' and 'right' sides - it just depends which fields of science you look at. --GenericBob (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Definitely a lot of OR in that chart. Left-right politics do not break down as neatly as this chart implies, and it leaves out all sorts of shades of grey that exist. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

GenericBob: Here is what one of the sources cited for the section on science has to say about that, "At its most basic level, the modern Right's tension with science springs from conservatism, a political philosophy that places a strong value upon preserving traditional social structures and institutions. ... From Galileo to Darwin and beyond, this conflict has played out repeatedly over history." The Republican War on Science, page 5. The book goes on to acknowledge that some liberals have also been anti-science, but asserts that there is nothing in the philosophy of liberalism that opposes scientific progress in the same way that conservative philosophy opposes scientific progress, because of the changes it brings to existing institutions.

Blueboar: I agree that the table is a bad idea, and should be replaced with information in paragraph form. The table suggests that the Left and the Right are polar opposites, rather than points along a continuum.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article be based on more than "The Republican War on Science" ... one (somewhat simplistic and biased) book is hardly enough to make definitive and unhedged claims as to what "conservative philosophy" actually is... there are a lot of Republicans( and conservatives) who have absolutely no problem with modern science. Just as there are liberals who are "anti-science" there are conservatives who are "pro-science"... and both liberals and conservatives who take every stance in between. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of references to the disputed section. I expanded one. I could expand others. As for The Republican War on Science, here is what Scientific American said, "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists". Do you have a similarly reputable source for your claim that the book is "somewhat simplistic and biased"? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has subscriptions to Discover, Scientic American, Popular Science, National Geographic, and US News and World Report among other magazines that I pick up every month at the grocery store regarding science and/or politics I can tell you that it is very well cited in alot of places the belief that the Republican Party has a problem with science. No one, as far as I have read or watched on CNN or CNBC (the two places I get my news from) has said "ALL" Republicans and/or Conservatives (or "small c" conservatives) have a problem with science. But as a whole, the party has an image-problem, and that is very verifiable. Not everyone who identifies with a party or is registered to a party or even runs on a party's line for office holds the views of that party's plank, whether it is the state or the national party's plank, and some state parties do hold positions (usually only slightly) different than the national party. An article about the Republican Party's perceived views regarding science is a notable and verifiable topic that should be written about (and handed out to all potential voters around 2011, except in Kansas).Camelbinky (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is the review of The Republican War on Science in The Washington Post. It describes a book as "the journalist in him won out over the scholar, for he ends up trying to reduce the subject's complexities to the "good guy/bad guy" categories of TV polemicists. The resulting book is ill-formulated, overwrought and surprisingly unconvincing." and "Mooney has produced a book without much intellectual gravity. Instead, he offers a kind of conspiracy theory, which might be summarized thus: "If Republicans support a certain science policy, it's bad. If they oppose it, it's good." [...] when Mooney tries to distinguish between bad (i.e., Republican-backed) and good (anti-Republican) science, he applies these logical criteria in wildly inconsistent ways, according to whether they uphold his political prejudices." -- Vision Thing -- 08:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Which leads us to this question: whose views on the subject of science are more reliable, the reviewer for Scientific American or the reviewer for the Washington Post? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither. It means we need more than just an opinion piece as the primary source for such a contention. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

But Scientific American says that the book in question is "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced". If the reviewer for Scientific American is correct, the book is a good reference. The Washington Post says that the book is "ill-formulated, overwrought and surprisingly unconvincing". If the reviewer for the Washington Post is correct, the book is not a good reference. We could turn to, say Library Journal, to see what it had to say about the relative value of Scientific American and The Washington Post, but then someone could challenge Library Journal as biased, leading to infinite regress. We could supply other reviews, from Book Review digest, but thens someone could challenge Book Review digest as biased. Either we accept some sources: The World Almanac, Encyclopædia Britannica, The Oxford English Dictionary, and (I think) Scientific American as authoritative, or we just give up, and nothing can be established. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether the 'left' or the 'right' has a problem with science depends on the context. This debate is not about the left and the right, it's about Republican and Democratic party politics in the USA. The Conservative and Labour parties in the UK are right and left, but there is no correlation to the US right's reliance on the conservative Christian vote, and no particular 'right wing' dislike of science. Ideological free marketeers of the 'right' tend to dislike Climate Change science, but then again feminists of the left often dislike Sociobiological arguments. In the Communist Soviet Union science was disliked if it contradicted state ideology. Modern US experience seems to be being generalised here. Paul B (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Paul B is right. The distinctions made by that table don't work in a global context. And Blueboar's and Rick Norwood's earlier comments -- that the boundaries are not as clear cut as the table would lead a reader to believe -- are also valid.
The "which source do we use" question applied to sources like The Republican War on Science isn't really appropriate here. An article that intends to cover left-right characterizations in a global context can't assume that US-centric characterizations apply everywhere. That source would presumably be valid if the context were US politics, but its not applicable to "typical positions", as the section title states.
Indeed, the article should be using sources that distill that sort of thing from the ground up, and not resort to gluing together disparate country-specific sources. That's essentially the NOR violation in this case. ps: Slapping disparate sources together is a tip-off that the editors know how to use a search engine but otherwise don't have a clue of the literature on the subject. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Then change the article to being about left-right politics (or Democratic-Republican, or Red-Blue if you want) in the US and forget making the article international. I don't know why people are bringing up the UK and international concerns about the content or idea of an article regarding the Red state/blue state right/left Republican/Democratic conservative/progressive divide in the US. That is a verifiable and notable topic. Why does anyone think an article regarding that is not a topic that can be written about? I read plenty of books regarding it first as a poli sci major and as a grad student, I've written plenty of papers and articles regarding the perception of that split in the electorate of the US. I say the perception because Fiorina among others have shown the US isn't split red/blue, its just a perception.Camelbinky (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the examples given of right-wing oposition to science do not come from the US, and even the book The Republican War on Science, which is obviously about US politics, discusses the general subject of right-wing oposition to science outside of the US. The point which the cited book makes is not that some people on the Right sometimes oppose science, but rather the more general point that people on the Right value tradition, and science often goes against tradition. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Report re: Quilliam Foundation moved from WP:AN3

I've moved this report here from WP:AN3 for more input. Would be grateful if someone would take a look. CIreland (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jk54 reported by User:Avaya1 (Result: Sent elsewhere)

Over a period of about a year and a half now, this user has consistently re-inserted their large WP:OR into the article Quilliam Foundation, despite the efforts of numerous other editors over the history of the article. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=316382567&oldid=315693400

This is what his/her original version of the article looked like before we managed to cut it down http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&oldid=223641695

The user has continually reverted, with no argument, to greater or lesser extents the attempts to remove their Original Research essay, and apparently ignores the discussions against this. It would be helpful if an administrator could help out on this topic somehow, or at least look into the article and watch the article, because the process of reverting their original research has stubbornly continued for over a year. Avaya1 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion board for the Quilliam Foundation. All changes are discussed there and those with merit are applied. The user Avaya1 continually deletes sections of the article with no attempted discussion - there are no examples of this user citing any original work or problematic content - were he to do so and if such content existed it could either be referenced correctly or removed.
Arbitrarily deleting referenced critique of this organisation appears to be a biased approach favouring the organisation in question. With no history of contributing to Wikipedia except from making numerous reverts and vandalism on this article, this user appears to be a sock puppet for the

Quilliam Foundation. Jk54 (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Duff References to Support (arguably) Valid Statement

Request: Is or is not the following statement unjustified or justified by the references supplied

The first references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia
Supposed References :Foster P1 Allen, p. 172-174..


Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Boiling frog

I have some concern with how heating rates have been calculated and used in the Boiling frog article (in the Biological background section, paragraph beginning with "Goltz raised the temperature...") First, I'm not sure if calculating a rate of heating based on existing numbers of time elapsed, and beginning and end temperatures would fall under routine calculations, and second, the resulting rates are compared and contrasted in a way that none of the sources used in the article do. And that this in turn works to lend undue weight to one side of the crux that is the center of the article (i.e.: whether the rate at which water is heated is central to the behavior of frogs.) If anyone with more experience with original research could take a look, it'd be much appreciated. Siawase (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The different heating rates were noted by Sedgwick as an explanation for why the different experiments had different results, as cited in the article, but he remained qualitative and never calculated the difference. The calculation for Goltz's experiment is based on the numbers given in the Offerman article, which gave a temperature difference and a time range: "He heated the frogs in about 90 minutes from a temperature of about 21 degrees C to about 37.5 degrees C." The other number is a direct conversion of degrees/second to degrees/minute, which certainly fall under routine calculations. So the crux here is whether it's ok to take (37.5-21)/90. Rsheridan6 (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the above reply was from the editor that added the material in question. If anyone uninvolved could give some input, that'd be great. Siawase (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Party memberships and supermajorities in U.S. state legislatures

I recently came across a statement in the Hawaii Senate article about the Democrats having the largest share any house in the United States. That turned out to be incorrect (I edited it to say it's tied with the Rhode Island House of Representatives), but I'm wondering if the statement itself would constitute OR, since one could go through the articles for each state's legislature and look at the numbers. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a problem. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not OR for the reason that 1+1=2 is not OR. Anyone can go to each state's legislative website, see the share of seats each party has, and what state has the highest. We dont need a secondary source that comes out and explicitly says what state and political party has the largest share of a US state house. Secondary sources that mention which state and pol. party may get out of date very quickly and couldnt be reliable for long. The problem is not of OR, it is a matter of notability. Does anyone really care and has any state ever gotten coverage for that distinction? That though is not a matter for this noticeboard.Camelbinky (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just making sure about the policy. Thanks. Musashi1600 (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OR Trivia...

I came across this, which I believe is pretty clearly an example of OR, but I wanted the opinion of others more experienced with this particular policy. From Conan O'Brien (OR tag and comment which has been "nowiki'd" out is my addition to explain my tagging):

During the filming of the Friday, September 25, 2009 episode of The Tonight Show, O'Brien suffered from a mild concussion after he slipped and hit his head while running a race as part of a comedy sketch with guest Teri Hatcher. Upon impact, slow motion replays clearly demonstrated that Conan had displayed a Fencing Response with his left arm, indicating that a concussion had taken place.[1][original research?] <!--Source needed which uses this term in the context of this situation-->

Refs

(1) Hosseini AH, Lifshitz J. Brain Injury Forces of Moderate Magnitude Elicit the Fencing Response. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 2009;41(9):1687–97.

Now, regardless of the qualifications of a particular Wikipedian or the scientific / academic sources used, it is synthetic OR to make a claim tantamount to a "diagnosis" of a limb's motor response without a source which makes that particular descriptive claim about the event in question, correct? Regardless if the source explains what one is and how to judge it, to then apply that to a given situation becomes synthetic OR, right? A source making that particular claim is needed? I just wanted to make sure I haven't placed an unwarranted OR tag.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You're precisely correct. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. We could include a diagnosis if we find one in a reliable source; i.e. NBC has an article about the episode, where a medical correspondent or doctor discusses the injury and response. But we can't interpret the video ourselves. If a medical journal uses this incident as an example of the classic Fencing response, then I guess we could use that as well, but I suspect the immediacy and relevance of this event will have passed by the time that could happen, if it does. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What if sources are wrong?

An article was not started on Chad Schaffner, a man who robbed between 10-15 banks over many different states, who was recently arrested and made the news throughout the United States (including AP wire and CNN, Fox News channel and other national outlets and the major newspapers) and even made the news in the UK and probably was mentioned in other countries. But here is my question concerning if there had been an article written about him, and I'm sure the question applies to certain other articles about people that rely primarily on news outlets- I know for a fact that the information presented in the media concerning his arrest is full of wrong information and much of it is not accurate even in the closest approximation of what happened. What would we do in that situation? It is my word against the published reports of reliable sources. The difference is- I was actually there when the arrest happened, I talked to the police, the FBI, the suspect, his wife, the man who turned him in, and the America's Most Wanted TV representative who showed up two days later; the news outlets did not, in fact the one police officer they do show giving a press conference is one I do not recognize from that day (though he may have been there), and he provides some wrong information. An article written would be full of the media's version of what happened, and unless I somehow got published my account of what happened, how would I be able to say "that information is wrong, it didnt happen that way"? I would probably be accused of original research, though no research was done. Shouldn't we be concerned with truth and not just repeat what published material says? Any suggestions on what to do in similar cases? (or if someone does make an article on that bank robber, though probably it wont happen)Camelbinky (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

NOR is really very simple: thou shalt not write (on Wikipedia) what hath not been written (elsewhere) before.
So, the solution to your problem is this: write your story elsewhere, and ensure the RS revised theirs, and then you may cite them. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a really crappy answer, though most likely all that is allowed on Wikipedia. We should really have a better policy that allows the RS sources to be taken out of an article or at least flagged for our readers that they might not be the full account. I obviously cant get into detail what or why I was there but this whole absoluteness on Wikipedia is ridiculous that RS sources are taken as the word of God even when wrong, this is a perfect example of a problem with Wikipedia. Obviously I'm not going to write a book on this issue, and if I were to correct the statements the news outlets have, I run the risk of ruining my career and if not that then enough time may have already passed where no newsoutlet other than extremely local ones of the area in question would even care, if even those cared. It is a matter of 15 mins of fame. Alot of current events news outlet heavy articles may even be having this problem, the Duggar kidnapped victim, the Casey Anderson murder trail, probably have people out there like me who are saying "well that's not exactly true". There has got to be some sort of medium ground between "oh well, reliable sources need to be taken at their word" and still keep OR out. In my opinion me being there when it happened and having first hand knowledge does not make it OR. There has got to be some way we can keep to high standards of the truth, and not to high standards of copying others information. Wikipedia is not trusted because we simply get things wrong, it has nothing to do with the fact that anyone can edit here, we need to start worrying more about wrong information being cited as fact than we do with making sure there are citations.Camelbinky (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
RS sources are not taken as the word of God. You must be confusing Wikipedia with Conservapedia. :) Unlike them, Wikipedia is not a purveyor of TheTruthTM, but rather of what verifiable reliable sources say. On Wikipedia, divine revelation is promptly reverted as unverifiable or fringe.
Seriously though... look at it this way: reliability comes from using reliable sources. This is not only true for RSs, but Wikipedia too cannot hope to be considered a reliable source if it does not rely on reliable sources. Get it? -- Fullstop (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I get it, and its frustrating that there, so far, doesnt appear to be a solution to what I see as a major problem. The fact is that in this case every single news outlet then can not be considered a reliable source; they were not there when the arrest occured and they have gotten the facts wrong. Therefore whether it is the AP wire, CNN, or the local ABC affiliate of the area (they at least did show up the next day) they can not be considered reliable. No news outlet was on the scene at all the day it occured. I can understand that some may say "well, your own word on what happened isnt verifiable", I understand that, I'm not asking to be a source myself, I'm just trying to figure out a way that in that type of situation we would be able to say "the news got it wrong, we cant use their reports". I do think we need to worry more about keeping the truth in our articles instead of just saying "its a reliable source, so its reliable", well then if you are going to rely on that, then there is no other choice but to say in this case those news outlets arent reliable, since you are saying we have to rely on reliable sources, in this case I am the more reliable source, I was here and the media was not.Camelbinky (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
It is frustrating when one knows that something is false, but can't correct it due to Wikipedia policy. I know there are mistakes in my own "reliable" writings, which could be quoted back at me to "correct" information I have written here on my specialist topic. Fortunately it is not an area that attacts wikilawyers. In practice consensus usually trumps policy, but on matters concerning living people and legal proceedings the 'truth' is subject to strict regulation, just as in real life! Paul B (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad someone knows what I'm talking about, and has first-hand knowledge of similar situations. Speaking of "legal proceedings" I find it ironic that my testimony, if I was needed to testify which I'm sure I wont, would be admissable in court concerning this matter, but all the media coverage would not be admissable. The exact reverse of what Wikipedia allows! Its all because obviously I couldnt then, and cant now, tell the media what happened because of my job, its not my place to talk to the media and truthfully none of the media or public's right to know this stuff anyways despite what the media says about "the people have a right to know", and therefore they got the story messed up by talking to people who werent there and by assuming things they couldnt possibly verify. If I had been allowed to have a press conference, I could have set the matter straight. The America's Most Wanted representative does have the right information, but unless they decide to do a story on his capture I wont have a published source for the RIGHT information because they are the only ones in a position to publish the information, everyone else with the truth really cant. (Some of the news reports claim the bank robber was featured on the tv show, he was never featured on the tv show, he was only on the AMW website though they may have been planning an episode on him)Camelbinky (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hang on a second. You need reliable sources to put information in, not to take it out. False information does not belong on Wikipedia, even if it has a "reliable" source. I'm not aware of any policy that says otherwise. -- Zsero (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Read (or re-read) WP:V, which clearly says that the standard for including something in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth". I agree that this policy sometimes leads to troublesome results, but the problem is that there are some subjects where people simply cannot and will not ever agree on what is "true". If a source can be shown to be unreliable per WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, etc., then it (plus whatever it was "substantiating" in an article) could of course be taken out. Richwales (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Zsero is right. If information presented in wikipedia is known to be false, then it has to go, regardless of what allegedly "reliable" sources say about it. It is not wikipedia's place to publish original research. But it is also not wikipedia's place to present false information as if it were true. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:VERIFY the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I gather Camelbinky is a primary source, per WP:PSTS. If the sources are wrong, then eventually more accurate sourcing will appear, or if Camelbinky chooses, s/he can have a more accurate source published which can can then be cited. Is there a particular article this refers to, or is this a hypothetical question. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The word "verify" means "to make true". If an alleged fact is known to be false, it is not appropriate to state it in wikipedia as if it were true. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Here's a trivial hypothetical: Let's suppose that the only source I can find, and let's say it's The Wall Street Journal, states that President Obama has green skin. You could include that with its source. Or you could say he has brown skin, which would be original research. Or you could say nothing about it at all, because the only source is clearly wrong. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? The evidence is overwhelming [26]. 12:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
That's what I meant when I wrote that "in practice consensus usually trumps policy". If all active editors agree that a "fact" in a reliable source is not a fact at all, then it can be corrected. That's fine where there is no ideological conflict at stake or wiki-pedants who insist that the source says X so Wikipedia must say X, even though everyone who knows about the topic accepts that it's an error. Muntuwandi/Wapondaponda is being naive, I think, when he says that "eventually more accurate sourcing will appear." There are many areas in which published reliable sources are few, and in which a mistake can be copied from one source to the next - even in academic literature. Paul B (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
If you can convince the rest of us that the sources are wrong, it would be asinine to include such information. Anyone who seeks to include information that they believe to be false (and not simply outdated) because the sources say it should be banned. For instance, if Poor's Manual of Railroads says a railroad extended to Mountaintop, but all other sources show it going only to Foothills and don't mention Mountaintop at all, and no grade up the mountain is visible on topographic maps, we can assume that Poor's is incorrect (and was probably reporting on a proposed extension). But we can't then say that an extension to Mountaintop was proposed, since we don't have any reliable sources for that.
On the other hand, if we believe, as an editorial judgment, that the sources are more likely to be correct than you, we can and should state what's in the sources. The obvious example of this is fringe theories, where an editor may be convinced that George Washington was born in Uganda and that all the sources are incorrect. --NE2 13:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that consensus trumps sources. However the guidelines have been established for a reason. We cannot take the word of a Wikipedian without some sort of independent verification. If the sources are wrong and there is a way for an independent person to verify that the source is wrong, then it shouldn't be used. But if the source is wrong because of the opinion of a Wikipedian, then that won't do. In many of the articles I have been dealing with, some scholars publish fringe theories that don't make sense and will obviously be debunked in the future. However, as these studies appear in peer reviewed journals, we have no choice but to include them per NPOV, if an editor insists. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The unfortunate wording "verifiability not truth" sometimes leads editors to think that "truth" does not matter. That's not the case. Truth does matter. But it's not enough. It must be backed up by reliable sources. To "verify" means to "make true". That's what the sources do. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't mean all points of view. If all other editors agree to keep it out, the insisting editor loses. --NE2 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The wording "verifiability not truth" can be misunderstood. Truth is in fact more important than verifiability, but verifiability is what keeps the truth in check. More often than not, something that can be verified in reliable sources is true. Cases where all reliable sources get it completely wrong do occur, but they happen less often. This is why "verifiability not truth" will on average still work out to deliver the truth. If CNN, BBC, New York Times and Al Jazeera all publish similar information, should we believe the unpublished opinion of a wikipedian acting as a primary source who believes otherwise- unless there is a conspiracy theory. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've stayed out of the discussion I've called so that it may flow freely and cover more than just the situation I presented. I do come back to this discussion to address Wapondaponda's last sentence of his/her last post, if it was directed at my specific issue. Yes, of those sources you stated that covered this story (sorry but I cant verify if Al Jazeera covered the story and if they got it right, maybe they did!) I am not saying there was a conspiracy to get it wrong. I am saying they got it wrong because the news media relies on the AP wire to such an extent that pretty much all coverage was a carbon copy. I guess in a way I am a primary source because I was at the location and saw what happened and no representative of the media was present (if they had shown up the state police had already been asked to threaten them with tresspassing if they remained), and they never spoke to the suspect, his wife, or the FBI agents on the scene, and I did. So, yes, it is my word versus theirs, but if I was willing to lose my job I could scan and download to Wikipedia internal documentation that proves 1- I was here, and 2- corroborate what I say is true and the news media simply got things wrong. This happens when people involved in crimes are told "dont talk to the media", I cant get my story out. I'm sure this happens more than you think because people involved in crimes dont cooperate with the media and the police spokesman talking to the media has no first hand knowledge of what happens because he/she wasnt there and they may not have all the information because he is not the one who spoke to the suspect and isnt involved in the case, he's just a spokesman (which seems to have happened in this case when the police spokesman spoke on the camera because he was contradicted by the America's Most Wanted representative and by the suspects wife, both of which I met).Camelbinky (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again, you're all making this far more complicated than it needs to be. Reliable sources are needed to include a statement of fact, but they are not required to exclude one. That is the sum and total of it. If anyone here thinks I'm mistaken, please cite the policy or even guideline that says so. -- Zsero (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "[reliable sources] are not required to exclude" a statement of fact. However, as far as I can tell, WP:NPOV requires us to include all significant views which have been published by reliable sources, and doesn't allow editors to leave stuff out because they believe it is not true.
In my view, using verifiability, not truth, as the threshold for inclusion, doesn't mean that we are presenting material in Wikipedia as the truth, we are just stating that it has been published by credible, competent sources, and is not our own work. As long as readers understand that, I don't see a problem with it. It's not our remit to assess all material published by reliable sources and decide whether it's true or not - that is essentially original research. --hippo43 (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to present information as factual if it is known to be non-factual. We are editors, not mindless parrots. The way around the problem, in your scenario, is basically to say "so-and-so says this". That's especially applicable for fringe theories. An obvious example is the alleged Apollo moon landing hoax. The article doesn't say we didn't land on the moon. It merely cites the opinions of those who make that claim. But go back to my example from earlier. Suppose there was only one source that described Obama's skin color, and said he was green. Suppose that was in the Wall Street Journal, which by anyone's reckoning would be a "reliable source". You might say, "according to WSJ, Obama is green". That gets wikipedia off the hook. But you can't just say "Obama is green", because that's clearly false. So it's better to simply exclude it altogether. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Anything that is false, but still cited, must be removed for the safety of our readers. We cant go around spreading false information just because it has a citation. Fringe theories are a different matter, that I have no opinion on, because they are fringe theories and the articles make that clear so we are already not promoting that information as fact. In a mainstream article, even if clarified with a statement as "according to xyz news" or "according to abc, author of jkl book" we are, by citing it and putting it in our article, implicitly saying we trust the source and its information. Something is false, remove it.Camelbinky (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the view "if it is false, remove it" is that editors occasionally disagree on what is false, and the way those disagreements are resolved is by sticking to what reliable sources say, and if necessary carefully attributing statements to sources. --hippo43 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
My problem is, to convince "the rest of us, that the sources are wrong" I need to do OR, I need to rely on primary sources. If somebody manages to place a statement about a "fake" incident, how can I prove that it has never happened? I will not find any secondary source, as nobody writes about things that did not occur. This problem will not occur when the author of an article is forced to present a primary source or a secondary source that fully reveals its primary sources. In this case everybody can verify the statements. If the author presents only secondary sources everybody can only verify whether he is able to make a correct quotation.
If I read an article on wikipedia I want to read facts (= relied on primary sources) and not opinions (= secondary sources). Having primary sources at hand I can verify facts, but with secondary sources I can only verify, that it has been written elsewhere. Would´nt this reduce wikipedia to some kind of a comfortable search engine? -- 82.113.106.99 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Kube (formerly known as k-b-l-e?)

(Note: the article section this thread refers to is Glenn Beck#Radio.) Maybe the following problem could serve as a primer as to what is and isn't (inappropriate) "original research" on Wikipedia. (Either that, or it may reveal how there are two camps on Wikipedia who interpret the "no original research" policy on Wikipedia differently. We'll find out is the case, depending on how the comments stack up here, I guess -- assuming anyone chimes in with their opinions here, as I hope they will!) OK. Here goes.

[This -- ] P r o b l e m [ -- has to do with Glenn Beck].

[And now the -- ] B a c k g r o u n d

You see, OK, Glenn as a youth and his buds would reenact Golden Age of Radio scripts at this radio station in a rural area where he grew up, which broadcast from the town of Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A. . . . But here is where there is a dispute among editors to the BLP. One camp believes that --

Two years later, at age 15, Glenn began to work part-time in the big city of Seattle at a station with the call letters of K-B-L-E, at 93 on the FM dial, [where, incidentally, yada yada, Glenn would deejay R-'n'-R music on his shift Sundays, C-&-W tunes on his shifts weeknights, and inspirational hymns or whatnot in a Christian-radio type gig for his shift Saturday].

But the other camp believes that --

At an unspecified time during Glenn's youth, Glenn would begin to climb on the Trailways or Greyhound or whatever it was, um, bus to Seattle, where he worked at a radio station with the call letters of K-U-B-E.

Now, I haven't followed at all closely this dispute between these two camps, but from what I can make out of it in passing, the gist of the camp that holds to the initial version is the fact that the radio station that is now called KUBE was at some earlier date called KBLE. Whereas, the second camp is more strigently following the details provided by Glenn's unsanctioned biographer Alexander Zaitchik, whose recent three-part piece on Glenn in Salon simply names the radio station in question as KUBE.

[And now our -- ]  E s s a y  q u e s t i o n

Is it original research to say in a Wikipedia article that Glenn worked for KBLE (which was not yet KU<BE) starting when Glenn was 15 years old, in Seattle, Washington? And, more importantly, Why?
______
Ps Here is a link to a discussion of this issue on the article's talkpage. ↜Just M E here , now 04:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the sources do not say he was 15 and they say KUBE. Original research was deciding the age was under 17 by one line from Salon stating "midteens" which contradicted another line in the same article and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. If you are going to bring it to a notice board please follow the complete discussion so there isn't an unintentional misrepresentation. Also, this is low priority and we should be finding a source with his age anyways.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The word "anyway" is always singular. Racepacket (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Alibi

Can I get another set of eyes on this issue? I'll try to set up the chronology of events as best I can.

  • Since, due to my real life role, I am very familiar with criminal law, I found the added content at odds with established legal principles. Since the content was unreferenced, I moved it to the talk page for discussion: Talk:Alibi#Disputed Paragraph. I initially, erroneously thought it was implying that it was disputed the content was related to Canadian criminal law (looking back, I see that I was mistaken). However, the discussion quickly turned into one about reliable sources and original research. See, for example, AlexFekken's comments and my reply.
  • A small exchange took place as to how WP:OR applied to obvious facts: [29] and [30].
  • Subsequently, AlexFekken added the following to the article: [31].
I agree with the history given, but the statement "I found the added content at odds with established legal principles" is very odd and not supported by anything. If it refers to the fact that not disclosing an alibi is illegal in Canada, then it is obvious that illegality per se is not at odds with my point that disclosing an alibi creates a risk for the defendant. It is also cannot be at odds with Canadian law in practice because in my discussion (before re-publishing my point) I gave an example of how a defendant in Canada was convicted (and the conviction later overturned) mainly because "evidence" was biased to fit the (lack of) alibi. In addition I clarified very early on that my point wasn't specifically about Canada anyway. So what does this statement mean and why is it presented now as if it (still) were an argument? The fact that it is raised in the opening sentence suggests to me that it probably is the primary reason for disputing my entry. And the fact that it is unsupported and apparently contradicted by the facts further suggests to me that perhaps the "policy issues" are the real coatrack here. AlexFekken (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the first sentence isn't so bad, especially after the following change: [32]. I don't think there are synth issues, and I am not going to get into a primary/secondary source argument given the other references in the article.

Actually, by introducing the word "conversely" this modification implies (the unproven statement) that this is not controversial in Canada whereas my original statement was neutral in this respect (it wasn't specifically about Canada any more). I would also like to point out that this implied statement about Canada seems to be based on original, unreferenced and unsubstantiated research. So the change does the opposite of making the sentence "[not] so bad". The only possible good thing was moving the reference out-of-line (thanks). AlexFekken (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

However, it seems to me the second paragraph/new subsection is still trying to draw a conclusion from a case example, and I think that's original research. Anyone else have any thoughts? Singularity42 (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the real problem with the long quote is that it is from a web page that 1) is advocating a particular cause and 2) cites Wikipedia on its page. If Wikipedia cites people who cite Wikipedia, there is a credibility problem. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I definitely agree with point one. Although point two would generally apply, the part of the web page being quoted is the part that doesn't cite Wikipedia. Anyway, at the moment the content has been removed as coatracking, so it's not a major issue for now. That being said, I don't think the editor's intentions was to coatrack, and the WP:OR issue may turn up again soon with a different example. But resolved for now? Singularity42 (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
With respect to the "long quote": I can halve it and still get enough data out of it to support the point that was made. I would be happy to do that if I could see what the problem was in the first place. The good thing of the quote as it stands (stood) is that it shows how both presence and lack of alibi can be used against the defence at the same time. AlexFekken (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, it wasn't about the quote being long (my mistake) but about "advocating a particular cause" (I assume the second point has been dealt with as irrelevant?). It is easy to find additional references but of course they will all "advocate" cases or causes where available alibis were used to bias the evidence against a defence. So what sort of reference would you like to see? AlexFekken (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as the argument "the second paragraph/new subsection is still trying to draw a conclusion from a case example, and I think that's original research" is concerned: note that the "conclusion" in question consists merely of putting a conclusion that was made by others in context. So are you suggesting that quoting a source and suggesting that it is relevant to the current context is unacceptable because it is "original research"? AlexFekken (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My summary of events is as follows: AlexFekken (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My original text deliberately did not mention any examples (and therefore the accusation of "coatracking" cannot apply there) because I wanted to make a general and logically perfectly valid point. I was then coerced to provide "reliable secondary source" information because apparently any argument that goes beyond '1+1=2' is "original research" and therefore unacceptable if no secondary source is given. I still maintain that this is close to ridiculous (given the bare minimum of logic required to follow and validate my point), but I decided to proceed and re-write my entry while trying to stay within policy nevertheless.
But obviously any reference that I can give to support my point must refer to concrete examples to be reliable (because of the nature of the statement) and therefore can be regarded as "coatracking" or else lead to an example-driven discussion (or both) that I wanted to avoid in the first place by appealing to basic logic and common sense. So if I keep the discussion neutral then my text will be rejected as "original research" because the conclusion goes (barely) beyond '1+1=2' while it will be rejected as "coatracking" if I provide any form of support in the form of "reliable secondary sources".
The only possible way out of this Kafkaesque situation that I can see at the moment would be to provide more examples. But depending on your mood that could go either way as well: you can then either accuse me of doing even more coatracking or accept that I am trying to make a general point here like I did in the first place. So what do you suggest because I do think my entry should be restored in some form or other, if only to counter-balance the currently created impression that disclosing an alibi is all good, which it obviously isn't. AlexFekken (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't provide "examples," provide reliable sources (preferably legal ones, in this situation) that support what you're wanting to add. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this info original research?

I think this info: "Rather than making an English dub of the original, the American production team put together a "new" production with English-speaking actors spliced in with the original Japanese footage in varying ratios. Due to the very Japanese nature of many of the Super Sentai Series' stories and design, the American shows vary detail to appeal to a Western audience. However, they typically dub many of the action sequences featuring the characters in costume and the mecha (referred to as "Zords" in Power Rangers)." in the Power Rangers article is original research, so I added a citation needed tag to that info, but User:Ryulong removed the citation needed tag saying "obvious enough" and "It is something that one uses their common sense to infer". So is that info original research? Powergate92Talk 18:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is "obvious enough". I especially think the opinionary comment about the series having a "very Japanese nature" which affects the show's appeal to a Western audience needs to be cited. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this disputed, unsourced statement in compliance with Wikipedia content policies?

Per [33], trying here. See Talk:Catholic_Church#RFC:_Does_a_sentence_without_a_source_meet_WP:Verifiability_requirements.3F. Gimmetrow 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Entire article without sources?

If I've placed this in the wrong board, please let me know. The article Vokkaliga has had a huge amount of material added, none of which I can determine the sources. There's no way to tell if the material is pasted from another sources, or original research. I'm not an expert on this topic, related to India caste system, so I'm reluctant to edit it, other than placing a citation warning. I'm not sure the importance of the article, but I thought someone knowledgeable in the topic might wish to take a look as the article appears to be getting out of control. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

After ArglebargleIV removed the copyrighted material, someone went in and put it back in. I've left an advisory on ArglebargleIV talk page.BashBrannigan (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the copyright violations and semi-protected the article. I have also blocked the offending editor for one week since he was previously warned about copyvios. Vassyana (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Song name

Hi, if a song is recognizable but its name is not noted in the source is it then original research to add the name to the description (specifically in File:Ram Narayan - Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg I recognize that he performs Raga Jog, and I also own a recording where Sabri Khan performs the same composition, and it's in several versions on YouTube as well, but I have no source for this being Jog in the specific video)? Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to say that someone is playing <song name>... although if it seems pretty obvious who it is, then it would probably be OK to mention who it is, too. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream Media

Would appreciate some people take a look at this article. Was a redirect to Mass Media until early October, when someone decided to copy-and-past the Conservapedia article on "Mainstream Media" here to Wikipedia. Not sure if this is the right venue to bring this to, but it appears that almost the entire article is a WP:OR nightmare. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No matter where you take this the matter is the same- you can not copy-paste from Conservapedia over to Wikipedia. It is not a RS. My opinion is to return it to a redirect.Camelbinky (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a copyvio timebomb because Conservapedia doesn't have a free enough licence.
The phrase "This license is revocable..." in their copyright terms is enough to nix an article dump like the one there. We have to relicence it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL, but our assertion of those terms would suddenly be null and void if they revoked their licence. CC licences are specifically irrevocable—we cannot in good faith assert a CC licence if some party has the right to cancel the licence. Therefore, it's got to go. (Maybe Knol or Citizendium has an equivalent we can import?)
I'll note this on the talk page, and have a word with the editor that imported it, then revert to redirect until suitable content can be tracked down. TheFeds 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. Yobol (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

User:Likebox has, over a period of years, attempted to push an original viewpoint into the articles Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Halting problem that is not in the literature. The "original research" is to rephrase the arguments in these articles in terms of "quines", a technical concept in computability. LIkebox acknowledges [34] that "The issue is entirely pedagogical. I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake." Nevertheless, Likebox introduces these proofs in the articles.

The issue here is not that the proofs are incurably wrong, although they have minor issues and would require some significant editing. The fundamental issue is that none of the important texts in the field present these things in the way Likebox is proposing. We generally try to follow the texts in articles, rather than creating our own organizational frameworks.

This has all been discussed with Likebox before, as these talk page threads show:

It would be very helpful for some uninvolved editors to follow these pages, as Likebox has already (today) reverted the removal of his novel proofs from both pages mentioned above. It is very frustrating for the frequent editors of the page to revert these edits repeatedly while trying to explain (again) that the content isn't appropriate. For example, Likebox has already reverted twice each on Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Halting problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To editors: the issue with the texts in these Godel's incompleteness theorem article is that they fail to communicate the main point of Godel's text, and they fail to prove the theorem. The proof that I presented is a streamlined and modernized version of Godel's original paper.
While the exact text of the proof does not appear in the literature verbatim, it is merely filling in gaps and changing notation on proofs that are 80 years old, and very well understood. There is nothing wrong with the proofs, except that they are different than the usual textbook presentations.
So why should Wikipedia have a non-textbook presentation? The reason is that the textbooks are generally very bad at communicating the result in a way that a non-specialist can understand. Laypeople and undergraduate students have a notoriously hard time with Godel's theorem. The new text is completely comprehensible by a layperson, or an undergraduate.
To deal with issues of streamlining and modernizing scientific and mathematical articles, the Wikipedia guideline WP:ESCA has been proposed. Within this guideline, the discussion on incorporating material that fills in steps in the derivations or proofs of well-known results is to focus on clarity of exposition, and correctness of the derivation. This is to prevent out-of-context quoting from textbooks, and to allow scientifically knowledgable people to fill in gaps in proofs without fear that the way that they will do it (which always involves some arbitrary choices) will be criticized as original research. If the result is well known, the method of proof is well known, then some change in the details of the presentation is not a problem.
These new policy guidelines seem very sensible to me, and I am reopening this issue to see if the policy change will allow text which was challenged before to remain. I am convinced that this text will make it possible for everyone to understand the proof of Godel's theorems. This is a major goal of Wikipedia, and I hope that it can be acheived.Likebox (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Halting problem: that article is OK, but since the proof I put on Godel's theorem is essentially the same as a proof of the Halting problem, I put the same proof on Halting problem for completeness. There is no dispute about the correctness of the proofs, just about whether they fit on Wikipedia. I hope that they do.Likebox (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You may be entirely correct in everything you say, and still in the wrong in trying to use Wikipedia as the place to publish your results. You need to submit your manuscript to a refereed journal (the American Mathematical Monthly might be interested). After it is published in a refereed journal, then it can be used in Wikipedia. But Wikipedians are not referees, and should not be expected to act as referees. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This result is not original to me. It is a different presentation of a standard proof, due to Godel and Kleene, and designed to make the proof method and ideas involved clearer. It's explaining the proof by rearranging and streamlining the steps. This type of thing is essential, because proofs can be streamlined over time so that they are very easy to understand. Godel's theorem has resisted these simplifications in the past, mostly because mathematicians did not want to give up the theorem to computer science.
I disagree that Wikipedia editors should not act as referees. The text of every science article is in danger if they do not. The reason is that sentences lifted from sources without understanding can be put together to make grossly misleading text. For example: "Energy is neither created or destroyed (source), but some claim that the world could run out of energy(source)." That's utterly misleading, and needs to be edited based on evaluating the detailed context of the meaning of "energy". To deal with issues like this, the policy WP:ESCA has been proposed. This policy asks Wikipedians to act as responsibly as referees as much as possible. When there is material dealing with specialized terms, to evaluate them with understanding, and to try to discuss as much as possible to acquire understanding.
In the case of this proof, the method is well known. The rearrangement is more pedagogically effective, because it works to teach the theorem in minimum time to the maximally ignorant. I know this from experience, because whenever someone wants to understand Godel's theorem, I tell them this proof. It takes about 10-20 minutes, and then they understand. For standard presentations, the time-to-full-understanding is at least a few days of intensive thinking.Likebox (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Likebox. We have to consider that Wikipedia today is not what it was when it was just started (in 2002 I think). We now have many articles on highly technical subjects that are not small stubs which have been written by people who are "experts" in the subject. Here by expert I mean someone who, with some effort, could teach the subject to students at university level, it does not necessarily mean that the person is a professor who has hundreds of peer reviewed publications on the subject.
Then as Likebox points out here, you want to present the material in a way that is accessible to lay persons as much as possible and that requires one to present the material in a different way than can be found in most textbooks, because most textbooks write for university level students. That can require dicussions from first principles on the talk page. Such discussions for technical topics are recommended as explained here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Likebox, your energy analogy doesn't hold. The no original research policy would discourage such source misuse as written. It specificies that on-topic sources should be used in context. Obviously, the two kinds of "energy" in your example are distinct topics. No exception or loophole from the no original research policy is needed to prevent such occurances. Regardless, novel interpretations of topics are generally prohibited, including non-routine simplifications (especially those methods with a potential to unbalance the article). WP:ESCA may be an interesting guideline proposal, but no original research is a long-standing policy that is echoed in another fundamental policy (WP:NOT). Accessibility is good, but there's a world of difference between simplifying presentation and using novel interpretations to carry the point. Also, it is explicitly not Wikipedia's place to rectify the shortcomings of available sources. "NPOV" is a fundamental and non-negotiable policy that requires us to present our coverage in accord with the body of reliable sources. It may be a good idea to have a project where introductory material is made to counter the shortcomings in available literature, such as a series of pages at Wikiversity, but Wikipedia is the wrong place for such efforts as Wikipedia has multiple fundamental policies opposed to such an approach. Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As Likebox is continuing to add this material, I have started a thread at WP:ANI#User:Likebox and tendentious re-insertion of original research. Those who commented here might be interested. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also now a long discussion at the ESCA talk page about Likebox's "proof". Since Likebox others there seem to interpret WP:ESCA as endorsing such "proofs", editors interested in the general issue of OR and related policy may wish to comment. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Counting Google hits and dictionary entries to support a claim

Is it OK to do Google searches of the number of occurrences of words, and cite the results of one's search as a reliable source in a Wikipedia article; or is this original research? Similarly for counting the number of occurrences of words in dictionaries. Also, if citations to such searches is allowed, is it OK to make inferences based on the results of these searches in an article?

Here's why I'm asking. Espoo (talk · contribs) has recently inserted into Daylight saving time claims of this form:

  • "News websites prefer daylight saving time." (citing the results of Google searches conducted by Espoo)
  • "Since however use of daylight savings time is very frequent on websites in general and on British university websites and even much more common on U.S. university websites, this indicates that daylight savings time is much more common in speech at least in the United States. " (citing the results of Google searches conducted by Espoo)
  • "According to some experts, the change from "saving" to "savings" in spoken English was already 'virtually accomplished' in 1978." (citing the results of more Google searches conducted by Espoo, plus one paper by an expert that is not talking about spoken English)
  • "Dictionaries and other reference works mention these variants but list daylight saving time first or use only daylight saving time." (citing several individual dictionaries and reference works consulted by Espoo)
  • "Dictionaries base their choices more on use in printed sources than in speech, so this indicates that more printed sources use daylight savings time than daylight saving time". (citing no sources)
  • "Current United States legislation uses only daylight saving time, but the name used in the 1976 legislation was daylight savings time."(citing no sources)

Espoo had inserted similar material earlier; when I reverted this, partly on the grounds that this was original research, Espoo then reinserted the material, saying "I don't have time to discuss this in more detail now than in the following comments, but believe me, you are quite wrong in your claims about OR. If you'd read the links provided, you'd understand that it's perfectly OK to add information about Google hits..."

Discussion on this topic so far has been in Talk:Daylight saving time #"Saving" versus "Savings"?. Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Definite OR, IMHO. While posting the raw Google scores isn't OR (edit: but probably violates other WP guidelines/policy - about the only place I can think of where it might be appropriate is illustration in an article about search engines), attempting to interpret those numbers most definitely is. Number of Google hits is not a very reliable metric. --GenericBob (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Google search result listings are not a reliable source. They aren't even consistent from user-to-user (e.g. UK results are different to US) or from minute-to-minute. Google is particularly not useful for determining the popularity of terms since Google goes to great efforts to find suitable results rather than just a list of all pages mentioning a term, and will often include variant spellings of a word in its search criteria. When discussing language issues, we should cite reliable sources that discuss language issues. This use of Google is clearly original research. Colin°Talk 08:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Straight OR. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Google search results can be linked and discussed on talk pages to help make editorial decisions, but they should not be used as a source in an article. Agree that in this context it is OR. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll agree with the chorus here that analyzing Google search results is an extreme example of OR (it's not even an analysis of a reliable primary source). -- Atama頭 20:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Also Google results can perpetuate a commonly-used inaccuracy. Ty 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Routine calculations

Resolved

The policy allows for this, but it is a little vague. A question has recently come up, which goes something like this. List of Outer Hebrides has a section called "inhabited islands" that list the area and population of the individual islands, both of which are sourced. It would be a trivial arithmetical exercise to calculate the population density from this information. However, so far as I am aware there is no external source that could provide an external verification. Assuming this is the case, does this count as OR?

The presenting issue actually refers to the island of Rùm which is in the Inner Hebrides, which don't have a list of their own at present and I've used the above example to simplify things a little. The compromise we came up with is to state that Rùm is "one of the most sparsely populated of all Scottish islands" rather than give it a specific ranking. Ben MacDui 19:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of case where you can use your own judgment, certainly if these matters are not disputable or disputed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

We've been having a discussion over here about whether or not creating a list in this way is OR/SYNTH. Can anyone from this noticeboard give a convincing argument either way? If so, it's likely to affect the article's AfD debate and the direction the article is taken in. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 19:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall that list is clearly original research. The classification of scientists into categories based on bullet points in the IPCC is not supported by any reliable source. The characterization of "scientist" is arbitrary and runs afoul of original-research concerns as well; there is no particular reason, for example, why one would expect an emeritus professor of nuclear physics to be more of an expert about global warming than anybody else. Eubulides (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I should note that the AfD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination)‎. Some feedback there on the OR issue would be welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

UNGA resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict in comparison with other conflicts

Talk: [35] (and [36])

An editor has researched various Wikipedia articles and www.un.org regarding the number of UNGA resolutions issued in relation to various conflicts and has combined them into a table in order to support and illustrate the thesis that there is a disproportionate number of UNGA resolutions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. The sources used (the Wikipedia articles and www.un.org) do not openly state that thesis, of course.

Is my understanding of WP:SYNTH completely wrong? To me, this seems like a black & white, clear cut WP:SYNTH violation. A & B are being used to advance position C. I am not the only one who has tried to remove it. The opposition to removal is currently limited to one editor. Factsontheground (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you're quite right. I've removed it. Such an analysis might be legitimate if it was sourced to a reliable source (though plagiarism might be an issue with reproducing a table), but this is plainly personal original research by synthesis. The choice of countries in the comparison and the timeframe are due solely to the editor responsible, not to any reliable source, and the compilation is clearly meant to advance an unsourced position on the issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from a Treaty is original research?

I've been told that quoting verbatum from a publically available treaty between two governments is "close to WP:OR". The article in question is Soviet invasion of Poland and my entire edit was removed. The wording was as follows "However, this explanation fails to take into account the wording of the Anglo-Polish military alliance Agreement of Mutual Assistance Between the United Kingdom and Poland.-London, August 25, 1939.. Such treaty contains no commitment of the British to land expeditionary forces, in Romania or anywhere else, or to start a ground offensive against Germany. It also contains no commitment to respond within 14 days. Furthermore, the treaty speaks of a contracting party becoming “engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter”: Poland did not declare war on Germany and her troops were ordered to not attack Soviet troops." If this is original research, shouldn't we be rewriting a lot of articles? Varsovian (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's more than just quoting the treaty verbatim. That's asking the reader to make a comparison and draw a conclusion, which is contrary to WP:SYNTH (which is a type of original research). You need a reliable source that has made the comparison and/or drawn the conclusion. Singularity42 (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. In your opinion would the text be acceptable if the section "Furthermore, the treaty speaks of a contracting party becoming “engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter”: Poland did not declare war on Germany and her troops were ordered to not attack Soviet troops" is removed? The full text is currently "Moreover the Soviets might have taken into the consideration that France and Great Britain did promise Poland, in the case of war, to land expeditionary forces within two weeks (via Romania)[citation needed]; the exact date of the Soviet invasion might have been simply a sum of the date that France and United Kingdom declared war on Germany plus 14 days, which equaled September 17, 1939. The failure of France and the United Kingdom to help Poland either by sending expeditionary forces or by starting a full scale ground offensive against western Germany, or even by bombing the industrial areas of western Germany, might have prompted Stalin to invade.[28] On the same day, the Red Army crossed the border into Poland." but the text of the treaty between Poland and the UK contains no commitment of the British to land expeditionary forces, in Romania or anywhere else, or to start a ground offensive against Germany. It also contains no commitment to respond within 14 days. Varsovian (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
the published text of a treaty is not necessarily it's intended meaning between the parties, nor to the general public either, as various other treaties around that date make notoriously evident. The interpretation of the meaning really has to come from a reliable secondary source--and if it is controverted, from several. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point (especially given the secret annex signed to this particular treaty).Varsovian (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The safest thing to do is to copy ideas from reliable sources, such as books. If you do this, Wikipedia will not be cutting edge but you won't have any original research questions. Ipromise (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparing poll results is WP:SYNTH?

This source says that 64% of Turks would not want to live next to a Jew. It also says, "three in four respondents said they would not want to live next to an atheist or anyone drinking alcohol." Assuming that the questions were asked separately (as opposed to asking Turks if they would live next to an alcoholic atheist), this means that 75% of Turks would not want to live next to an atheist. Is it WP:SYNTH to say that there are more Turks unwilling to live next to atheists than than Turks unwilling to live next to Jews? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would be Synth... It is very easy to commit OR with polls. Also, it sounds as if the source (a news story about the poll and not the poll itself) has already done some combining of questions in reporting on it. The report that "three in four respondents said they would not want to live next to an atheist or anyone drinking alcohol" combines two things that are not related... We don't know the percentages of those who objected to atheists vs those who objected to people drinking alchohol... it could be 74% objecting to atheists and 1% objecting to alchohol... it could be 1% against atheists and 74% against Alchohol... or it could be a more even split. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that they were asked seperately. My question is if the source says 64% for Jews and 75% for atheists, can we simply say that more Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists? This is a well reported on poll so establishing that it's actually 75% specifically for atheists should not be difficult, but I want to understand policy regarding this claim before I start googling. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should compare seperate parts of any source (especially polls) and draw our own conclusions based on that comparison... doing so is definitely OR. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
How does this differ from summarization? I really don't think that WP:OR ties our hands quite so tightly, especially given this description, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The OR problems are, as I have explained at length at Talk:Discrimination against atheists, and as Blueboar also indicates, that the proposed edit is not a descriptive claim but a (pointed) comparison, made by a WP editor, not the source. As well as being an edit this "reasonable, educated person" knows cannot be verified as accurate, because the necessary statistical analysis/information (such as the margin of error etc) is not reported.--Slp1 (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"Can you quote the sentence that specifically says that "turks are less willing to live near atheists than jews"? If it did, there wouldn't be a problem. But it's just not there. You are assuming that this is the case from the numbers given, (and you may be right) but on WP you can't do that per No original research." - Slp1. This is the point I'm questioning. I understand the statistical problems you've finally decided to explain and am awaiting the opportunity to view the data myself pending your response on the page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

It is a commonplace fact of polling that polling data is not transitive, that people commonly prefer A to B and prefer B to C, but when offered a choice between A and C, they pick C. This poll gives us no information of what Turks would say, given the choice of living next to a Jew or an atheist. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That is beside the point as I was not proposing to write "which group Turks prefer to live next to." I was proposing to write about "which group has fewer Turks willing to live next to them" which comes directly from the source. In any case, I've decided against inclusion as we have multipled conflicting sources on what the study says. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I am also concerned about this being tied to the article on Discrimination against atheists... an article that has had problems in the past with using inappropriate examples. The fact that many Turks may not want to live next to an atheist is not "Discrimination"... it is "Prejudice". The two terms are not identical. So I have to question whether it is appropriate to discuss this specific poll in that article. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against atheists

The previous thread has drawn my attention back to this article. It was raised here a while ago (I forget when)... and at that time it was improved somewhat... but I think it still has OR issues. In several cases, it discusses examples of prejudice against atheists as if they were examples of actual discrimination. I agree that prejudice is often a prerequisite for discrimination... but I do not think the two terms are the same. What the article lacks are sources that show a tie between the examples of prejudice and actual discriminatory acts. Please take a look and help clean up the article. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This argument is laughable. Discrimination and prejudice are listed as synonyms at dictionary.com.[37] The article infact has sources that specifically connect everything to the word discrimination, which would be apparent if Blueboar had taken the time to read them, except the polls which Blueboar referred to as examples of "prejudice." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's three more places that list them as synonyms:[38][39][40] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly. Prejudice does not imply an actual act, it is a feeling or bias or belief. Discrimination however is the actual act of unfair treatment, often motivated by prejudice. The two words are similar (hence synonyms) but not equivalent (hence the different definitions). nableezy - 19:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree that prejudice and discrimination are different concepts. These highly reliable sources all clearly define discrimination as prejudice in action. [41][42][43][44] They are not synonyms, and I'd be inclined to agree that the polls are evidence of prejudice, but not discrimination. I have two additional concerns about the article (which I should note, I have largely written). One is to question why this article is called "Discrimination against Atheists..." while almost all the similar articles are called "Persecution against Christians/Jews/Hindus...". The term "persecution" obviously raises the bar higher than discrimination. I'm not sure why this is, but I suspect it may be related to the campaigning and advocacy of atheists (particularly in the US, it appears) regarding their claims of discrimination. Much of the article consists of complaints and observations attributed to atheist sources, mostly unconfirmed or taken up by any external source. Not necessarily an OR problem per se, but an issue. --Slp1 (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind having "discrimination against X" articles... but I do think such articles need to establish a) what definition of the term "discrimination" is being used... and b) that reliable sources agree that what is being discussed in the article fits that definition. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In looking at sources, I find discrimination and prejudice are frequently mentioned together. This is not surprising considering how closely they're related. Perhaps we could simply change the name to something along the lines of "Prejudice and Discrimination against atheists"? On a side note, there were originally two article addressing this topic, one was "Persecution of atheists" and the other "Discrimination against atheists." About a year (or two?) ago I merged the two and kept the name of the more complete one with more current examples. Persecution of atheists had more historic examples. Should still be in the history of that redirect page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OR in caption?

Please see Talk:Żydokomuna#Original_research_insertion_into_picture_description. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor selections of papers

Could someone have a glance at Genetic research into dyslexia and Talk:Genetic research into dyslexia? An editor wants to post links to personal collections of papers (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/myncbi/collections/public/1rm-wyOOe7mOm3bJzXVnuq6/ - where the "1rm-wyOOe7mOm3bJzXVnuq6/" is code for a PubMed user bookmark by this editor) minus any secondary source for the criteria for collation. I strongly feel that this is original research. Views? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand what we mean by "Original research". When we use this term, we limit it to Wikipedia. We are referring to information and ideas that have not been published elsewhere... situations where Wikipedia is the first place of publication. If something has been published elsewhere, Wikipedia isn't the first place of publication, and so the material is not considered "original research" as we use the term. Hope this clarifies the situation. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The material itself isn't, but I'm concerned whether the user selection of a subset of that material (by criteria we can't see, and which aren't based on any secondary validation) is skating on the edge of WP:SYNTH. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This one of my online PubMed research paper collections, all of which are listed on user:dolfrog and part of my wider research paper online collections which can be accssed via my Delicious bookmark account Research paper collections or collections collated on Deliciouswhich could be open to personalisation as I have done with my TOP 20 research paper category The last two collections types which are based at delicious are purely lists of research papers with no ready option of alternative research papers. With the PubMed collections the whole vast collection of PubMed's archives of research papers are available to anyone who follows the link provided, as is the link being discussed. dolfrog (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


from WP:Synth __________________ "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. _______________________

If there is no comment about content of the collection of papers, only a collective title, how can be a synthesis of anything. it is only a collection of research papers, which have already been published in scientific journals, If you follow the link to PubMed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/myncbi/collections/public/1rm-wyOOe7mOm3bJzXVnuq6/ PubMed provide the option to view related research papers of your own choice, so the viewer can use this collection as a starting point to carry out their own research and created their own research paper collection.

It could be a synthesis by bias in selection (e.g. only papers supporting a particular theory). It would be preferable that there be no personal element in the choice. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest have you ever looked at the content of any of my Research paper collection, if you can find such a bias please let me know so that i can correct it. To eliminate personal choice is impossible unless of there are others who create their own collections of research papers on the same topic. You are very welcome to participate, Wikipedia relies on good research. The more research the better dolfrog (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

An external link to an anonymous editor's collection of papers. Why would that ever be considered? We don't link to random web pages. It's not an original research issue until you start considering the content of the papers. That issue does not even arise here. We don't link to random web pages. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it maybe a WP:EL issue, then? There just seems something deeply wrong with a Wikipedia editor bundling up a personal selection of papers on a database, accessed by a single bookmark, then linking an article to that bookmark. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the link is not official, it's not identified, it's not part of an official organization on genetic research. It's vandalism at this point, since the editor is not listening to the community. It serves no purpose. Collections of articles to go into a wikipedia article are discussed by responsible, interested editors on the talk page. The editors reach some kind of consensus about the most relevant, important articles to include as references or as additional reads.
There's no where on wikipedia that an editor wholesale decides his search at a database is representative further reading for a topic and posts it wholesale in an article. Gordonofcartoon, stop reverting, post a 3RR warning on this user's user page, and get help from 3RR or AN/I. You're not going to win this one because your opponent is doing something else besides edit wikipedia and you appear to be trying to write an encyclopedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is an inappropriate external link. It's also a SYN and NPOV problem in that an editor is using his own, personal criteria to select and group information. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as Ronz points, the link is inappropriate. There are many problems with it. I posted at AN/I simply to remove the burden for remediation from User:Gordonofcartoon.[45] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism: not just a religion

diseneous For over six months, the Judaism article has said:

Judaism (from the Greek Ioudaïsmos, derived from the Hebrew יהודה, Yehudah, "Judah";[1] in Hebrew: יַהֲדוּת, Yahedut, the distinctive characteristics of the Judean ethnos)[2] is a set of beliefs and practices originating in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), as later further explored and explained in the Talmud and other texts.

This was true

This is what I below refer to as the consensus version. Note: no sources were provided

On November 9, User: Navnløs changed "set of beliefs and practices" to "religion." Note: She has not provided any sources to support her position

On the Talk page, she provided this explanation:

  • "The reason for the change was just for the sake of uniformity and matching other big religion articles such as Christianity and Islam."

I do not think this is a good enough reason to change consensus. I also do not think that discussion over the course of one day is enough to change consensus. Finally, I think a change in consensus should invluve the use of reliable sources.

I provide as complete an explanation of my pattern of consistent reverts as possible on the talk page here. The simplest reasons are:

  • Judaism is unlike Christianity and Islam in that it refers both to a nationality and a religion. To understand Judaism one must understand why these two elements are inextricable. But in this regard Judaism is quite unlike Christianity or Islam
  • I have now provided three sources. One is from a historian who says that Judaism during the Hellenic period referred to many things besides religion. Another is from a theologian who says that the observant Jew ("Halackic man," one who observes Jewish law) shoud not be characterized as the "religious man." The third is from a theologian who argues that Judaism is not a religion but a "civilization."

Since that time, user:A Sniper has accused me of violating WP:NOR[52]. User:Bus Stop simply rejects my sources.[53]

  • I have since provided two more sources from the web

There is a long history of reverts. I would rather not continue this revert war. I would rather have a discussion informed by sources. I have tried to provide reliable sources, and Navanlos,A Sniper, or Bus Stop either disparage or ignore my sources, and refuse to provide any of their own. The page is now protected and I am hoping thoghtful discussion will suffice to resolve the matter. I see WP:RS as key to resolving this dispute and appreciate the comments on editors experienced in this kind of issue, who have time to read through the relevant section of the talk page. The discussion is here Slrubenstein | Talk 11:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Can you find a less complex topic? The primary source of "beliefs and practices" is the Torah, and the Talmud etc. are of far less importance. Use of "Hebrew Bible" IIRC refers to the intersection of the Tanakh and Christian Old Testament. And we have still to deal with the issue of "genetic tribal Judaism" as opposed to "religious Judaism" etc. which opens up a whole can of worms. (Yes, I have known atheist Jews who practice Judaism practices.) Clearly "religion" could be a section under Judaism, but I think Judaism is often broader than religion. Collect (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
A constructive comment if you make it on the talk:Judaism page. I hope people with constructive comments will make them in the context of the current page protection/edit warring discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


I really don't see this as an "original research" issue. It's not OR to call it either a set of "beliefs and practices", nor a "religion". I donm't see how this board can't adjudicate on which is better phrasing. However, it might be worth noting that the situation is comparable to Hinduism, which is similarly a network of practices and an inherited national/ethnic identity. The consensus on the Hinduism page is to call it a "religious tradition". Paul B (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wealthiest historical figures

There is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wealthiest historical figures (2nd nomination) where one of the issues relates to original research. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Map by individual

This relates to Banned Books Week [BBW], particularly to references to a map. An individual created the map. That map was then promoted by the American Library Association [ALA] as its own without attribution of authorship, giving the appearance the map was the work of the ALA, as evidenced in the LA Times. When an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal [WSJ] questioning the ALA for its policies regarding BBW, the ALA responded in a letter to the editor. The WSJ printed other responses. One was from the individual who created the map where he specifically disclaimed any connection to the ALA. This was published after the LA Times article, else the LA Times might have known the true authorship of the map. A web site in the External Links contains a link to a subpage that happens to be that map, so the map is available to anyone who clicks on the sublink from the ALA's page.

I say the map is not a reliable source (original research, so to speak) for reasons given here:

Another editor says it should be included anyway because the ALA is promoting it as its own and media have reporting the ALA has done this:

The other editor, User:Atama, and I have been working cooperatively and professionally on the article so this is purely an issue of the application of Wiki policy.

The issue of whether the ALA has plagiarized the map may go toward other Wiki policies, but I do not believe it to be relevant to the question of whether the map itself is original research by a person about which we only know, maybe, his name, his place of residence, and his not being affiliated with the ALA.

All guidance appreciated. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not emotionally invested in this, so if it's not worth including in the article that's just fine, like LAEC said this is more of a question of policy. LAEC has already given my reasons for including the reference, so I don't have much more to add except to say that I'd also like to see a third opinion or more. -- Atama頭 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It's been a week. Any comments anyone? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Circular sources have been used, such as WP -> somewhere else -> WP with a reference of that somewhere else . That doesn't mean it's correct. Ipromise (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else wish to comment? The more the merrier. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't Original Research as Wikipedia defines that term... Wikipedia was not the "first place of publication" for the map. Also, per WP:NOR#Original images we allow user created images (so even if it did originate on Wikipedia, it would be OK). Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Atama, if what Blueboar said is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then I have filed this request in the wrong place. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have filed nearly this same request on the RS/Noticeboard. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

SOCE

Does a reference showing that Donnie McClurkin said "I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality" indicate that McClurkin is talking about Sexual orientation change efforts?

Specifically, this removal is contested at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts#McClurkin, with a discussion whether or not the aforementioned conclusion is WP:OR or not. Gabbe (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

German American article sourcing question

There is a sentence in the German American article that says "From Ohio to the Plains States, census maps show a heavy presence in rural areas into the 21st century. (See maps above and below.)" - I have some issues with the way the sentence was sourced:

  • The sentence doesn't say which maps they are.
  • The maps are there are File:German1346.gif and File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - The first map has no key (check the edit history and a reader won't see it) and therefore it has no value as a source - The second map shows counties where German-Americans have a plurality, but it is problematic to say that a plurality would be a "heavy presence" - also a reader would be unable to tell which counties were classified as rural just from looking at a map. Also the sentence says "rural areas" and a reader cannot separate out counties and specific areas from the counties just by looking at a map.
  • I believe that the sentence needs a secondary resource that explicitly says "U.S. Census maps show heavy concentrations of German Americans in rural counties in the 21st century" - Doing this would be perfectly compliant with Wikipedia sourcing requirements.
  • When I pointed this out to the editor who opposed my fact tag on the sentence (his edit summary said "Open your blinded eyes; the maps are in the article"), he proceeded to ignore my discussion, so I am taking it here.
  • Would you agree with this? How should the sentence be revised? How should it be sourced? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
First, the sentence is poor English... what it should say is: "Census maps show a heavy presence in rural areas of Ohio and the Plains States, into the 21st century." (The way it is written, the sentence means that census maps located in Ohio or the Plains States show a presence... the assumption being that if you looked at the same census maps elsewhere they would magically change and not show the presence). But to your point... I agree the statement is a bit overly broad. It would be better to either stick to specific statements and cite a specific map (or the census itself), or use a secondary source that analyzes the census.Blueboar (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is making the case for critics in a criticism section original research?

The issue here involves the following paragraph taken from the "Criticism" section of Council on American-Islamic Relations:

  • Critics of CAIR, including six members of the U.S. House and Senate,[6][7][8] have cited ties from the CAIR founders to Hamas. The founders, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, had earlier been officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), described by a former FBI analyst and Treasury Department intelligence official as "intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership."[9] Both Ahmad and Awad participated in a meeting held in Philadelphia on October 3, 1993 that involved senior leaders of Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation, and the IAP.[10][11][12] Based on electronic surveillance of the meeting, the FBI reported that “the participants went to great length and spent much effort hiding their association with the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas]."[13] Participants at the meeting discussed forming a "political organization and public relations” body, “whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous."[14][15] Critics also point to a July 1994 meeting identifying CAIR as one of the four U.S. organizations comprising the working organizations of the Palestine Committee of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization and supporter of Hamas.[16][17] At a 1994 meeting at Barry University Awad stated that he is, "in support of the Hamas movement, although CAIR has sought to discredit his comments, stating Hamas was only designated a terrorist organization in January 1995 and did not commit its first wave of suicide bombings until late 1994, after Mr. Awad made the comment.[18][19]

It strikes me entirely as a violation of WP:NOR to write criticism in this fashion. The sources being used in this paragraph are a mixture of press releases, court documents, senate testimony, and various other documents most of which are not reliable secondary or tertiary sources and many of which are hosted or written by groups known to be partisan regarding CAIR (like the Anti-Defamation League, which in this instance sits on the opposite side of the Israel-Palestine political fence, or the NEFA Foundation). My issue here is not with the POV nature of the sources, but rather with how they are being used. The first sentence above states that 6 members of congress and the senate have cited links between CAIR and Hamas (it should really state that they are critical of CAIR because of such links ... but that is another matter). Then after making this claim the paragraph attempts to establish such a link by piecing together various other primary documents and secondary sources. The direct assertion of someone being critical of CAIR isn't even in the paragraph at all, which is mind boggling. I'll spare you all from my opinion about what happened here, and why it has been written in this manner, but what I really want to know is if this is an OR issue. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about entry POV and general content issues

As one of the editors involved, I need to say that the real problem is not with how the paragraph is written. Yes, it can be much improved but the reason it reads this way is because there has been a concerted attempt to keep "negative" information off the page. In fact, the above editor has gone on record in the discussion page as saying he believes such criticism to be based on "conspiracy" theories and "guilt by association" so he can hardly hold himself up as an example of objectivity. Before this new material was introduced, the article read like a press release for the organization. The only critical material allowed was from the most dubious sources which appears to be a way of discrediting the criticism. If the paragraph is a seeming hodgepodge of sources, it because an attempt was made to satisfy the unending demands for different sources. The ADL is a good example. Yes, they sit on the opposite side of CAIR but aren't critics generally partisan by nature?? The point is that the government has produced evidence suggesting that CAIR is a Hamas front and a variety of actors including Congressmen, NGO's, etc have pointed to this material in their criticism. That criticism, media reporting on the criticism, and the documents used as a basis for the criticism have all been cited and still it isn't enough. So yes, it needs a re-write but the core information also needs to say or what is the point of this article? If its just going to regurgitate the organization's own materials, why bother?Sgmiller (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss the issues you raise. The problem is precisely that it is not criticism which is being cited at all, but "evidence" put forth to bolster a claim ... that CAIR is tied to Hamas in some way or another. I believe this to be a violation of WP:NOR. If you want to discuss POV issues take it to WP:POVN and I will be glad to join you there.PelleSmith (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it is the wrong venue but the "evidence" was only raised because the critics, unless easily discredited, were not allowed to have a voice. If this had been an honest attempt to come to terms with the organization, there would have been no need for discussion here, but we can certainly take it up on the article pageSgmiller (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
In the "mixture" of documents you mentioned, you failed to note the Washington Times, a book published by Yale University Press, the Dallas Morning News, a link to the document referenced by the morning news, the New York Sun, the World Tribune, and the Texas Cable News. That sounds like enough sources of secondary criticism to me. You're right in asserting the Anti-Defamation League would be partial in their criticism of CAIR, but as this issue has already been discussed on the talk page, that doesn't mean its criticism is not notable. The Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson criticisms were left in the article, and of course they could be considered partisan as well, that's precisely why they're mentioned in the criticism section. The primary source listed after the source of the ADL criticism is merely the document in question, and does not stand alone as a citation. I think your proposal regarding the wording ("X and x are critical of CAIR, vs. "Critics of CAIR, including x and x") is merely semantics.—DMCer™ 22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's list the sources used in this section under the claims they are sourcing:

  1. Press release from four congressmen
  2. Press release from a senator
  3. Washington Times piece on Barbara Boxer rescinding an award
  4. “Levitt, Mathew, Hamas:Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad
  5. Blog post from the Dallas Morning News "Crime Blog"
  6. Editorial from Accuracy in Media
  7. Supposedly an Associated press news piece hosted on some unreliable website [60]
  8. Levitt again
  9. A local news piece in the Dallas Morning News from the same Crime Blog reporter as above
  10. An official court document which appears to be a transcript of a tape recorded conversation
  11. Blurb on the website of the Anti-Defamation League
  12. A primary document with the original Arabic and a translation hosted by The NEFA Foundation
  13. A copy of the congressional record for some period of time documenting various letters and other primary sources being entered into the record -- hosted on the Federation of American Scientists website
  14. Senate judiciary committee testimony by Mathew Epstein of Steven Emerson's "Investigative Project"

Most of these sources are primary documents, press releases and blogs (please note that I am discussing the above paragraph and many of the sources you claimed above are not even in that paragraph). But that is just part of the problem. The real problem is how you are using these sources to synthesize a defense of a criticism.PelleSmith (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you intentionally leaving out the New York Sun, the World Tribune, and the Texas Cable News? I have to question your argument when you call the CBS affiliate, KHOU (TV), host of the "supposed" Associated Press story (which if I remember correctly, was disseminated by numerous outlets), unreliable. Not to mention your omission of many of the sources in your list above. The Dallas Morning News story is acceptable, as WP:BLOGS states that blogs published by, "Well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper, ...." The post in question is essentially a news story. We're not talking about a random blog hosted on Blogger. —DMCer™ 23:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. Rather than taking issue with the paragraph, why not re-write it so that it is not a "defense" of the criticism but still retains the core of the information. That would show me at least that this issue of "original research" is not just yet another tactic to sanitize the article because you believe the criticism to be unfounded.79.193.90.50 (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Another note, once again it just seems just disingenuous to try and discredit the press releases which were use to cite examples of criticism. I am 100% positive that if CAIR had responded to a criticism with a press release, you would have no problem citing it as a source. Why on Earth would it matter if a critic has made his criticism in a press release?Sgmiller (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
See WP:SELFPUB. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as...[the material] does not involve claims about third parties."
In other words, we could use Daniel Pipes' blog on info about him trying to clear himself of some allegation, but not if he is making allegations about others ("third parties"). Similarly, we can use CAIR website, when they is providing "information about themselves", in "articles about themselves" (i.e. Council on American-Islamic relations), so long as they are not making claims (esp. negative ones) about others ("third parties").
This is wiki-policy.VR talk 17:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "self-published or questionable sources" making claims. The Criticism section is reporting criticism made by U.S. Congressmen, the FBI, and NGO's regarding CAIR. Its very interesting that you use Daniel Pipes as an example because you had no problem citing him (and Emerson) when they were the only ones included in the Criticism section. Now that the Criticism is referenced to more "mainstream" sources, all of a sudden it becomes a problem. As I wrote above, the previous editor said here that he considered the criticism of CAIR to be "crank" and "xenophobic" and directed against and organization which he, on his own, deemed "law-abiding." I believe that Emerson and Pipes, being somewhat controversial, were cited previously as the sole source of the criticism in order to discredit the criticism itself. I also see no sign that the previous editors were either aware of the actual substance of the allegations against CAIR nor did they seem knowledgeable about any aspect of the subject.Sgmiller (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that the piecing togethor of primary sources and secondary sources in some cases here is inappropriate. I have not looked through all of the sources, but looking at one of them showed me that it was bieng used inappropriately (I raised the concern at Talk:Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#What_is_this.3F, and the discussion is ongoing). Unless the critics (secondary source) specifically cite a primary source in a clear manner, we shouldn't be pretending that they have cited the primary source as such. The primary source can still be used if it is relevant, but can't be connected to a secondary source (e.g. "critics ave cited...").VR talk 17:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The one isolated primary source has been removed.Sgmiller (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

.79.193.88.236 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Great power & G8

I was wondering if I could get your input on if there is a sufficient source for the addition of the G8 image to the Great power article or if it is WP:OR. Follow the link to the relevant conversation Talk:Great power#G8 Solution x2. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page discussion, it is definitely not OR to mention the G8 in the Great power article (as there are reliable sources that discuss the G8 in the context of being a meeting of great powers). Since it is appropriate to mention the G8, it is also appropriate to illustrate the article with an image of the G8.
That said, images should illustrate information discussed in the text of the article. They should not present information themselves, and should not be used as sources of information. At the moment the G8 is not actually discussed in the article, and it is confusing to have an image illustrating something that the article does not (yet) talk about. To fix this problem, I would not remove the image... I would add discussion the G8. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see, if Blueboars assessment can be respected at the article´s forum. Lear 21 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok so viewfinder has said this
(We requested) transcriptions from academic passages linking G8 membership with great power status. Perhaps I have missed something, but I still cannot see any such transcriptions. G8 membership, which excludes China, does not imply great power status or vice versa. Therefore the inclusion of the image is based on OR and POV...
I was wondering what others think. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
We do not need academic sources for anything like this. any RSs will do. But the real question of whether this is totally obvious. That's a qy of common sense. Note there are unquestionably great powers that are not members, notably China. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Faraday Institute

Is it synthesis to state that the activities of this institute include "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion", on the basis of the following citations:

...these citations being examples of the "public commentary", rather than any third party stating that public commentary is an activity. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You can use their Web page for this. At [[61]] point 4 states "To provide accurate information on science and religion for the international media and wider public."--LexCorp (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That's already included in the article (which is fairly heavily laden up with material sourced to the FI itself). The above is making the (very similar) point a second time, from these WP:PRIMARY sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
the consensus about these seem pretty clear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faraday Institute. it seems a little POINTy to fork the discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Except DGG that this thread precedes the AfD. Your claim that it is a "fork" of that AfD (whose nomination, which you likewise misrepresented as being "based on what was on the talk page", makes no mention of synthesis) is therefore a misrepresentation, and your conclusion of WP:POINT unfounded. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: On the original query and after reading the whole citations I conclude that:

Do not mention the Faraday Institute or the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

Do mention the Faraday Institute but does not comment on the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

Do not mention the Faraday Institute or the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

Do mention the Faraday Institute but does not comment on the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

Do mention the Faraday Institute but does not comment on the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

Do not mention the Faraday Institute or the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

Do mention the Faraday Institute but does not comment on the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". So it does not support the sentence. Using it as support for said sentence is WP:SYN.

So basically all the citations fail to support the "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion". A clear case of WP:SYN--LexCorp (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

political affiliation

Have noticed that earlier this month editor Twobells (talk · contribs) was warned for "clear BLP violation" and edit warring [62] concerning James O'Brien (radio presenter).

So my query is may the person's political biased agenda be somehow duly noted in this biography? - check [63] 20:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

All that says is that he is a Labour supporter. That's it. Nothing to show "political biased agenda" as claimed. Without a proper source, it doesn't go in. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Free per click

The Free per click article was created by a user that mentions himself and his blog. It remains that way currently.

90.206.167.51 (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Creator and primary contributor to that article matches the name on the blog listed in the External Links. I'm removing them as commercial links for the moment, and noting the COI. Ravensfire (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
After no additional information added to article, and nothing else found in a second search, I have listed the article for deletion. Ravensfire (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Einstein fourth theory?

I'm really new to editing on Wiki, and I'm confused so I wanted to ask someone for an opinion. I apologize if this is on the wrong noticeboard - it seemed like the best place for it.

I found this article on Lieserl_Einstein, and saw that the following paragraph at the end of the Notes section:

A new theory - called 'The Fourth Theory' - on Lieserl's fate has been put forward for the first time by British researcher Tim Symonds in late 2009. He postulates Lieserl was indeed born with a serious mental handicap and by the time she was 21 months of age Albert Einstein and Milos Maric decided she should be killed as an act of mercy ('mercy-killing'). Although in the Austro-Hungarian Empire infanticide was against the Law, it was widely supported in the case of handicapped infants, with at most a suspended sentence.

When I noticed there was nothing cited, I started some research with the intention of adding a citation. The only examples I have been able to uncover so far are book reviews written by someone named Symonds. For example, Powell's [64] and Amazon [65]. The reviews are all in response to Michele Zackheim's book, which is cited in Further Reading.

Should this be marked as 'citation needed' or would something like this be considered original research, speculation, or something completely different? I do not yet feel comfortable with my grasp of Wiki editing (or policy) to do much more than add citations, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks a lot. CallieLee (talk)

A review on Amazon is definitely not a reliable source. I would tag the paragraph for citation, and leave a note similar to this one on the talk page... then wait a few weeks... if no citation is given after that time, remove it. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Never mind... I have tagged it for you. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the section. Though Einstein is no longer living, that's a serious accusation to make with no sources to back it up. Plus, it shouldn't be in the Notes section in any case. If the deletion gets contested, we'll see, but I don't see it surviving. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem on my end. I think it was just a matter of timing in any case... I doubt anyone could have come up with a reliable source for it.
Actually, I have to wonder whether the subject is really notable enough for her own article. It seems a clear case for the application of "Notability is not inherited" to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Update

Of note, User:Tim symonds appears to be inserting this information again. Given he is supposedly the author of this conspiracy theory, I've warned him about WP:COI. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: UFO religion

Please see Talk:UFO_religion#RfC_Church_of_the_SubGenius. Discussion relates to WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

On the bioidentical hormone replacement therapy page, one editor in particular (Hillinpa (talk · contribs)) has continued to insert primary sources to support a point. Bioidentical hormones are molecularly identical to those produced in the body, but are dealt with as a class explicitly by an extensive number of sources. These sources converge on a point that "bioidentical hormones are promoted as better than conventional HRT" though there is considerable conflation with the practice of custom-compounding by pharmacists. Critical sources do not say "compounded bioidentical hormones are unproven and dangerous but noncompounded bioidenticals are both safer and better". Though the sources do tend to specify "compounded BHRT" are inappropriate, possibly unsafe, and definitely unproven, the point has been ventured by Hillinpa that "noncompounded bioidentical molecules are safer" - with reference to primary studies that do not use the term "bioidentical" at all. Some diffs:

  • [66] - the IMS has some good things to say about progesterone (which other sources label as bioidentical but it is not identified as such in the article) but its overall point about bioidentical hormones is found on page 3 (of the PDF, 184 of the original article) "There are no medical or scientific reasons to recommend unregistered ‘bioidentical hormones’. The measurement of hormone levels in the saliva is not clinically useful. These ‘customized’ hormonal preparations have not been tested in studies

and their purity and risks are unknown." I have removed this point, and it has been replaced repeatedly [67], [68].

There are whole articles and position statements dealing with bioidentical hormones as a class, I see no need to invoke studies of specific bioidentical hormones, particularly when there are articles that address claims made about specific hormones. I see this is pretty explicitly both original research, and the use of primary sources to debunk secondary (and more than a bit of cherry-picking). Meanwhile, there are many position statements and reviews that are universal in criticizing BHRT while never saying the problems would go away if only compounding and related accretions were removed [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. Though bioidenticals and compounding are clearly conflated, there is still no mainstream support for a wholesale change over to bioidentical molecules to treat the symptoms of menopause.

Anyway, I could dig up more diffs to support relevant points if required, but the sources essentially speak for themselves. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OR Venn diagram that was added to several drug articles

Re: File:Drug_circle.gif

See: Talk:Psychoactive_drug#Thoric.27s_chart

Is there something that should be done that might discourage editors from adding this OR diagram to articles? Proofreader77 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Higa and Sean Fujiyoshi

The article about YouTube celebrities Ryan Higa and Sean Fujiyoshi is heavy on original research. Many of the claims are based on interpretation of YouTube statistics, rather than on thirrd-party sources. I am deleting bad pieces, but obviously I cannot fight the fans of Ryan and Sean. Here is an example of typical OR I've just deleted:

(nowiki): After posting a variety of videos such as solo-rants by Ryan, the duo garnered much success with a series of "how-to" guides such as ''How to be Ninja'', ''How to be Gangster''.<!-- The following reference proves that the video is private and that it garnered much success because of the 22 million+ views--><ref name="gangster">{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/user/technoairplaneman#p/f/27/khFhF64P3VQ|title=Technoairplaneman's channel|publisher=[[YouTube]]|accessdate=30 November 2009}}</ref> and ''How to be Emo''.<!-- The following reference proves that the video is private and that it garnered much success because of the 18 million+ views--><ref name="emo">{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/user/technoairplaneman#p/f/26/pK4bLMd0avU|title=Technoairplaneman's channel|publisher=[[YouTube]]|accessdate=30 November 2009}}</ref>

I bet it will be restored in minutes, with angry comments on my talk page. Please intervene. Laudak (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

SECOND NOTICE

As I predicted, unreferenced original research was restored without proper referencing. See Talk:Ryan Higa and Sean Fujiyoshi#emoval of unreferenced text. Laudak (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First, kill all the lawyers

Can some cool-headed neutral parties please peak in on this article, specifically the section labeled "Academic status of the J.D." ? It appears to be OR to me but the Talk page is a complete mess and I'm not having much luck getting the article's regular editors to address the issue. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? --ElKevbo (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It's an odd mix of sources, some of which are perfectly OK, and others of which don't qualify as reliable sources under WP:RS, (eg, Austin Peay Dean's Council Meeting Minutes? - it's a primary source, not really appropriate to use in the article) but 99 44/100% of this section of the article is pretty unremarkable and noncontroversial. Fladrif (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Maharishi Effect

The article on TM-Sidhi, a practice related to Transcendental Meditation, covers something called the "Maharishi Effect". According to this theory, when a sufficient number of people are practicing TM-Sidhi there is a positive effect on the surrounding area, leading to lower crime, less violence, increased crop production, etc. The theory has been studied extensively by the faculty of the Maharishi University of Management (MUM), who have conducted numerous studies proving the existence of the Maharishi Effect. So far as I'm aware, it has not been studied by independent researchers. Though the studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals, the Maharishi Effect may qualify as an "exceptional claim".

One study in particular asserts that the Maharishi Effect led to a major reduction in crime in Merseyside, the district that includes Liverpool. The study specifically discounts the influence of other factors, including the expansion of a drug treatment program. The Home Office of the UK published a study that attributes the crime reduction to that drug program. The discussion of this study is at Talk:TM-Sidhi program#Merseyside crime statistics. Here is a diff showing the deletion of material on the Home Office study.[82]

Is it original research to briefly mention the Home Office study's conclusion in our discussion of the MUM study?   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If both studies examined the same set of circumstances then no, it is not original research. We present alternative viewpoints on various claims all the time in articles, especially those dealing with fringe topics. For example, in Intelligent_design#Defining_science the sources used for "[f]or a theory to qualify as scientific" do not specifically name Intelligent Design. --NeilN talk to me 02:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The studies do not examine the same set of circumstances. --BwB (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
How so? The MUM study used Home Office data, and the two studies cover roughly the same period.   Will Beback  talk  03:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from the "Maharishi Effect" study:

A significant amount of crime is related to the economic needs of drug abusers. A successful drug rehabilitation programme could be expected to have positive impact on the crime rate. However, expansion of the numbers being treated at the Liverpool Drug dependency clinic did not take place until July 1988, too late to account for the march 1988 fall in crime.

(olive (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

If I understand this correctly and to summarize the quote above: The fall in crime occurred in March of 1988. Expansion of numbers in the clinic, indicating that more people were coming into the clinic for treatment, thus reducing numbers on the street committing crimes, occurred after the March fall in crime. So that would mean these times do not intersect.(olive (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

The MUM study covers five years, so a four month period doesn't seem to be highly significant. However I wouldn't object to including the study's reason for dismissing the effect of the drug program.   Will Beback  talk  03:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
In any case, that doesn't say the two studies cover different periods.   Will Beback  talk  04:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The timing of the increase in drug treatment isn't clear from either study, and difficult to pin down because it didn't involve just one clinic but a massive inter-agency front involving several clinics, the regional health authority, social agencies, police. The effort is referred to vaguely in several sources as getting underway in the "mid to late 1980s" The funding for the increased drug services was approved in 1985, and looking at the crime graphs, I would guess (this is just for background, not for the article) that the program must have been well underway by the time the MUM study commenced in 1987, because the acquisitive crimes preferred by drug users (burglary of dwellings and theft from vehicles) peaked in 1986-87 and fell steadily from 1987 on (see graph on p. 11 of the Home Office study).
But let's not get off point here; the issue that needs to be resolved at this board is whether a source that doesn't refer explicitly to the Maharishi Effect must be disallowed per OR. I am reading from the few comments here that that's not the case, but just want to make double sure before I put the source back in (incorporating Tyrenius' comment below). Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

How about providing all the information, as in NPOV, so readers can make up their own minds, rather than withholding pertinent material that any reader would want to know about. We are here to inform. However, the editorialising "suggests another explanation" should be removed.[83] Ty 05:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Northing in our policies suggests we can override WP:OR to inform the reader. Could editors comment on that. Of course NPOV must be met if we have reliable verifiable source that present multiple views. But I don't see that this gives us permission to insert OR material to satisfy a perceived NPOV. NPOV relies on sources that directly reflect the topic of the article. If we open the door for OR to inform the reader , where does it stop.(olive (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC))
No it doesn't (as I've discussed above). Please point to the part of the NPOV policy you are using to make your claim. WP:RS are used to back up the specific statements and do not have to include the topic of the article by name. --NeilN talk to me 15:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not making a claim, and I didn't open this thread. I am referring to WP:OR "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." and WP:Synthesis:

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

This means that I cannot take a comment that is sourced, and then, add content that is sourced but says nothing in it in anyway about the topic of the article, and then connect the two comments so that another position is implied. In this instance the falling of the dow is in the source not connected in anyway to the topic of this article . I can't synthesize content this way any place, but especially not on an encyclopedia where even a whiff of OR is to be avoided. I cannot say, well, in order that NPOV be met, I'll go ahead and synthesize in this way .... so that in effect NPOV over rides OR. I don't have to show where NPOV says this shouldn't be done. Those who think this is acceptable had better be able to show a policy that allows Original Research and synthesis.(olive (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

Olive here has mistakenly invoked another recent example of this argument on the same talk page. In this case, a claim was made by TM spokespersons that the "Maharishi Effect was responsible for the rise in the Dow Jones index to 14,000+ followed by a prediction that that the Dow would top 17,000 within a year, as a result of this effort. An editor followed that claim by simply pointing to the Dow Jones Index to show what the Dow actually did during that year. The same editor who is arguing that using the drug study source as described above constitutes OR, made the same claim in the case of the Dow Jones; the Dow Jones index could not be used as a source because it doesn't refer directly to the Maharishi Effect, as repeated above. Woonpton (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Woonpton. You're right. Several discussion on OR going on in the last few days and I ended up posting on the wrong page. I apologize for any confusion.(olive (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC))
No, this is completely incorrect. WP:SYNTH does not apply as the counter-claim is taken from a single source. We can say Person X claimed yyy(source 1). However, zzz happened(source 2). Two statements, two independent sources, no WP:SYNTH. --NeilN talk to me 21:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% with those who conclude that this is neither original research nor synthesis. What we have are two sources, each examining the causes of a reduction in crime in Merseyside, and coming to different conclusions. One source says: "Crime went down because 100 followers of the Maharishi were bouncing up and down in Skelmersdale six hours a day." (Only a complete cynic would ponder whether that was simply because it took 100 dangerous criminals off the street for most of the day, and left them too tired for criminal activity the night after.) The other source says: "Crime went down because the police implemented a crackdown on drugs and street crime." It is simply responsible editing to neutrally report what both sources say was the reason for the crime reduction; it is certainly not original research nor synthesis. It draws no conclusion that one theory or the other is right or wrong. It is a misinterpretation and misapplication ofWP:NOR and WP:SYNTH to claim that unless the second source says: "the Maharishi Effect isn't the reason crime went down" that it should not or cannot be used or presented in the article. Fladrif (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider these points:

  • We don't know if both the ME study and the gov't study examined the same circumstances. Should we want to find that out, we would be doing OR to do so. We as editors are attempting to connect the two studies. if we don't do the research we are connecting two possibly very unrelated studies, and implying inaccurate information. That's why sources must be directly related to the topic of the article. Then the connection of the information is self-evident and requires no editor input and connections =OR.
  • This related example:

Bob says the temperature will not rise above zero on Dec 24, 2009. The weather report for Dec 24, 2009 states the temperature rose to 20 degrees.

Juxtaposing those together IMPLYS that Bob was wrong, but the real problem is the Weather Report doesn’t mention Bob, nor are we sure they’re looking at the same things. Maybe Bob’s prediction was for his warehouse freezer unit. We need to know they’re talking about the very same things in relation to each other.

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C.

  • Make no mistake about it, we are dealing with an instance of OR. Is it technical. Very likely. Can this instance of OR be ignored. Perhaps, with editor agreement. But not for an instance should we assume this isn't a case of IAR, and if we ignore all rules in this instance we open the door for the same kind of scenario for viewpoints you don't agree with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
  • My preference is to stick strictly to the policies and not open doors for any more contention that we already have.(olive (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
Round and round and round we go. NO, we are NOT dealing with an instance of OR. We are dealing with you, who contrary to the unanimous input of uninvolved editors, cannot or will not grasp the difference.Fladrif (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The two studies cover the same data - crime in Merseyside between 1988 and 1992. The study done by the Maharishi researchers concludes that their meditating reduced crime. Presenting that finding alone, when there are contradictory conclusions, gives the false impression that there is no other conclusion. That's a problem when dealing with obscure studies that have never been replicated. No independent sources discuss this study. Maybe we should avoid using studies like this to begin with.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Will, what is the exact start date and end date of each of these studies? --BwB (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If you need copies of the studies I can send them to you.   Will Beback  talk  03:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The studies are both statistical analyses of the same data: recorded crime in the area covered by the Merseyside police force during the 1980s. They both examine data from roughly the same time period: 1980-1992 in the case of the TM study; 1979-1994 in the case of the drug-crime study. The time period of particular interest to both studies is the brief period (1987-1990) during which crime fell in Merseyside. The main difference between the two studies is that the TM study looks only at the total crime figure and concludes, using some statistical analysis, that the falling crime was due to improved harmony and coherence in the collective consciousness as a result of significant TM presence nearby. The other study examines the data broken down into crime categories (also readily available to TM researchers from the same source, and readily available now to anyone interested in looking at the data themselves) and notes that the decrease in total crime was impelled by a decrease in the acquisitive crimes that tend to be committed by drug users: burglary of dwellings and theft from vehicles. Other crime categories, such as violence against persons and criminal vandalism, increased during the same period. Since there was a massive inter-agency drug treatment program underway from the mid 1980s on, affecting over 5,000 drug users in the area, it stands to reason to consider that the drug program and the decrease in acquisitive crimes might be related, although the study simply presents the data and notes the apparent relationship without insisting on the conclusion. Woonpton (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If this was the case then we would not be able to have alternate viewpoints on any topic. A says B. C says D. Oops, can't use A's research because it doesn't mention B. Oops, can't use B's research because it doesn't mention A. Ridiculous. --NeilN talk to me 14:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if the Center for Inquiry or another skeptical organization has not commented on the TM-related claims here. From what I've seen, it's quite typical for such studies regarding the crime benefits of TM to be countered in short order by skeptics in reliable sources. I would also be surprised if there were no critical response papers issued, which also seems typical for the topic area. I'm not familiar with this specific study, but if such sources could be found it would seem to resolve this matter neatly. I can try to hunt down some sources over the weekend, or someone could contact the Center for Inquiry with a request for informational assistance. (They are pretty helpful folks in this regard, as it suits their mission to provide assistance in disseminating counterclaims of this sort.) Vassyana (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of many papers that specifically rebut the TM claims. It may be that uninvolved scholars don't see it as worth their time. I was mistaken when I characterized this study as obscure - it is mentioned often by people within the movement, and it is mentioned occasionally by others. All you need is love and peace - but not in destructive Britain, so maharishi pulls out The Guardian, Monday 15 August 2005, The town that lost its guru The Independent August 17, 2005.   Will Beback  talk  09:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Asian fetish

This article could use some new eyes with expert knowledge/mediation/constructive input; I'm posting to several WikiProjects that seem relevant and to RfC. I have already done so on WP:Cleanup (other ideas just about where to seek help are also welcome). Article was created 06:51, 20 April 2004 by an IP. There's thirteen talk page archives and five Articles for Deletion discussions; there are 122 watchers and about 400 daily page views on average. Has never reached much of a consensus regarding the subject, content or sources AFAIK. Concerns about OR and SYNTHESIS have been repeatedly raised, most recently by me in the second-to-last second of the Talk Page "Asian fetish." I don't want to fall into the trap of doing so myself either. Thanks! Шизомби (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Pdeitiker's edits

This thread concerns

and edits associated with the following articles

Pdeitiker appears to be quite knowledgeable about population genetics and potentially can be a very effective editor. However, there are a number of problems with his editing. Firstly, he tends to use an unnecessary amount of jargon and technical detail in his edits. He is also unnecessarily verbose and other editors have complained about this diff. In less than a month the Talk page archives have increased from 2 to 7 in much part due to verbose threads. While this started as a minor inconvenience, it is now becoming disruptive and detrimental to articles in question. For comparison here are two version of the same article

The after version is I believe not accessible to a general audience.

The genetics articles are indeed technical, and it may not be obvious to editors unfamiliar with the articles, that there is unnecessary verbosity and technical detail. This is probably why the problems persist as this jargon tends to intimidate other editors. There is a consistent theme in Pdeitiker's verbose edits. In several articles the main goal is to increase the level of uncertainty about the underlying science of the article. IOW, the message is that Wikipedia editors who report what is published from reliable sources are reporting bad information, and only he has is able to provide good information. Pdeitiker claims to be an "expert" who has access to some "behind the scenes" data that no one else on Wikipedia has. For example, he states "I have a wide body of research and reviews literally 1000s of pages on the early african period, that you do not have access to"diff A typical example, Pdeitiker has increased the range of age estimates for mitochondrial eve from 170,000 years ago to 270,000-70,000 years ago, somewhat based on his own calculations done here. He has started to do the same with haplogroup A as well. In summary Pdeitiker has engaged in a pattern of original research in several articles. The original research is masked behind jargon, technical detail and verbosity. Overall it involves putting his own idiosyncratic spin on scientific information that is at odds with mainstream interpretations. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The above critique on the Jargon is true, the page needs to be reduced to a general audience, there is no doubt about that but we must start with a representation of the field of the literature, not misstatements and mis-sense of the literature as the previously 'fallen' page was. Someone dumbed down the page to such a point that it bordered on being a Fox-News op-ed piece. Jargon is not original research. Detail is not original research. Original research would be me taking my personal data indicating very high number of rare mutations in the mtDNA, reducing all the peripheral lineages about 2 to 3 fold in TMRCA (as Endicott has done, maybe somewhat more) and then restating the TMRCA based on my belief that the CHLCA occurred 7.6 million years ago. That would be original research. I haven't done that.PB666 yap 10:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The genetics articles are indeed technical, and it may not be obvious to editors unfamiliar with the articles, that there is unnecessary verbosity and technical detail. This is probably why the problems persist as this jargon tends to intimidate other editors.
There is a consistent theme in Pdeitiker's verbose edits. In several articles the main goal is to increase the level of uncertainty about the underlying science of the article. IOW, the message is that wikipedia editors who report what is published from reliable sources are reporting bad information, and only he is able to provide good information. Pdeitiker claims to be an "expert" who has access to some "behind the scenes" data that no one else on wikipedia has.
Let me make it quite clear, I have not increased the level uncertainty about underlying science, in the case of mtDNA I am containing the level of certainty. I removed the opinion piece about the MRCA being 6000 years old, another paper places the TMRCA at 504,000 years in age. I have tried to represent the range fairly as I possibly could.
Let me make it also clear that the TMRCA for Y-chromosome ranges as I have stated, I have papers stating a MRCA in the 20-30 ky range it was very common for claims of 40,000 years to be made in the 1990s, more recently they have placed the range from 40,000 to 110,000 years, and a few new papers are claiming that the range is older and larger. Simply stated we have to represent the science the way it is Muntawandi, not the way we would want it to be. After 25 years of studying MA I have very careful not to place myself in a position of stating a claim that will be shown false tomorrow, as so many editors of the Y-DNA pages have done and was a major cause of conflict on those pages. MW is the kind of editor, he has been accussed of being an Afrocentrist, he likes to represent things from a very insular point of veiw, he is not accustomed to thinking about issues the way scientist think about problems. Its a major problem with editors in the HGH project altogether. Their favorite author or someone publishes a paper with their favorite POV and all of a sudden we have a new theory section on a Y-DNA page and dirty laundry lists of population data points cluttering up pages. For this reason most y_DNA pages are unrated, WP:TLDRPB666 yap 10:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
"I have a wide body of research and reviews literally 1000s of pages on the early african period, that you do not have access to".diff

A typical example, Pdeitiker has increased the range of age estimates for mitochondrial eve from 170,000 years ago to 270,000-70,000 years ago, somewhat based on his own calculations done here. He has started to do the same with haplogroup A as well.

Muntawandi- that is called good editorial judgement, originally the article posted a TMRCA of 171,000 years. Setting with 4 papers here in front of me there are TMRCA's of 108,000 years, 192,000 year, 194,000 years 198,000 years, 171,000 year, 207,000 year, 215,000 years, and so on. The oldest TMRCA is 504,000 years, the youngest, from a breif extract is 6000 years. But I don't mind at all, if they think 108,000 to 198,000 years is better, I have no problem with that however those are only median most recent estimates these are no confidence ranges, each one of those has its own confidence range.
Here is what Endicott and Ho says "The estimated TMRCA of all human mitochondria from the interantlly calibrated analysis of the contactenated data set was 108 thoushand years (Kyr) (95% higher posterior density [HPD]:82-134 kyr):in contrast the externally calibrated estimate was 162 kyr (95%HPD:122-213 kyr)." IOW using the same data set and two different methods the authors came up with a TMRCA range of 82,000-213,000 years. That is just one author. Lets check the rest of the authors? At the time I changed that I did not have Endicott and Ho, only a review that included this, so I will alter the low end of the estimate to 82,000 as per the text. The previous estimate of Ingman was 171,000 years +/-50000 years at 1 SD (68% confidence) at 2SD this is 71,000 to 271,000 years. That's what it is, I don't like it, I would prefer to exclude Ingman because is it not particularly good, but that is what the 2SD range is. "The age of the most recent commmon ancestor (MRCA) for mtDNA on the basis of the maximum distance between two humans(5.82 x 10-3 substitutions per site between the African Mkamba and San), is estimated to be 171,500 +- 50,000 yr bp." In standard scientific nomenclature that represents 1SD range (68.4% confidence) and confidence intervals are generally 2SD = 95.4% standard acceptable confidence range. However with TMRCA estimates the intervals are skewed upward because of the nature of the coalescent methods. None the less I presented the ratio, rounded to 10,000 years for what they presented. See Talk:Mitochondrial_Eve#Off-track for problems of previous page MW had worked on. Which confidence interval do I use:
  • Ingman et al used a very late CHLCA and did not correct for selection. Claims no selection exist and 5 more recent papers argue that selection exists.
  • Endicott et al uses archaeological anchor points but ignores two points, Liujiang and Qazeh 9, and a recent find in India.
  • Soares corrects for purifying selection but gives no confidence range.
  • Mishmar corrects for regional selection and gives a much smaller than typical confidence range.
As a consequence I chose to use Ingman et al which has the widest confidence range. This covered all of Endicott, all of Soares and all of Mishmars ranges very therefore in essence if covers all of the ranges published in the last 5 years.

My opinion, the range is between 190,000 and 270,000 years based on Whites recent research. So I am not representing my POV, I am representing uncertainty created by the literature.

These are the most recent papers, if we go back to 1990 to 2000 the TMRCA estimates grabbing popular literature and other analysis are from 6000 to 504,000 years. PB666 yap
In summary Pdeitiker has engaged in a pattern of original research in several articles. The original research is masked behind jargon, technical detail and verbosity. Overall it involves putting his own idiosyncratic spin on scientific information that is at odds with mainstream interpretations.
Muntwandi is upset because I reverted his edit from earlier today and he is threatening to revert one of my edits on the Haplogroup A (Y-DNA page). I have posted a reply here. The Mitochondrial Eve page lost its FA and GA status last spring because of very sloppy editing and overweighted on popular science, I had made no edits to that page before it lost its status, clearly the editors of the page like MW were aware the page had issues, when I brought these issues to the editors they basically said 'fix it yourself', at the same time I began redoing the page I was pummelled by two new papers which have upset the entire feild. Endicott et al. 2009 basically argue to stop using the CHLCA as an anchor. On paper written by Tim White, basically sweeps away all younger CHLCA estimates, for external calibration mentioned above it raises all the TMRCAs by an unknown amount. The second issue that occurred at the same time is that another papers, Soares et al. 2009 that has done a rather careful correction for one type of selection. I have done another form of analysis showing that selection is far worse than Soares attributes, however, none of the data that I have personally generated has been used on the page; however my results are mirrored by Endicott and Ho, Endicott, Ho, ...Stringer (2009). This is one paper that is yet to be fully integrated into the page and another, Mishmar et al, to be added will basically fill the gaps in referencing that are left. There are literally 100s more references, even the major positions from the last 15 years would double the size of the article. One cannot represent all the positions, however unlike the previous version of the page one must at least try to represent each paper faithfully and not misrepresent their conclusions as the previous page had done.PB666 yap 10:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree with with any of these calibration techniques at present, for the record White is correct about the CHLCA, Endicott is correct about the level of selection and the severity of its effects on bottlenecks, Soares is correct about the need for better rate discrimination; however neither use Whites revised CHLCA, and they both use highly different techniques to reach highly different conclusions. Soares does not go far enough to correct for selection, ignores regional selection. Mishmar ignores purifying selection. Ingman ignores selection altogether. Gonder does not describe their rate classing, or how they dealt with selection etc. Without a good choice I have therefore I have bent over backwards to represent every POV and every possible interpretation. About the only paper that I present on the mtDNA page that I strongly agree with is "Bayesian coalescent inferernces of major human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup expansions in Africa. Atkinson, Gray, and Drummond, however I have not given this paper undue weight in the article. They state that the TMRCA is 150,000 to 200,000 years ago, but was written before White altered our understanding of the Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor. Consequently this affirms, I am trying to represent the literature as a whole and various interpretations that are subject to change and not my point of view. I still have references to add to this page and some updates while scrathing down the contribution of individual pieces of literature. And to affirm what MW wrote, I have literally hundreds of accumulated papers on the topic of mtDNA over the years. Dozens on the singular topic of the mtDNA MRCA, starting from the late 1970s all the way until November of 2009. Most use the CHLCA as an anchor point, 2 of which use archaeological data points. Most point to a TMRCA of ~200,000 years but those which do not will not be excluded from the article. PB666 yap 10:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Up until I found the page looking for a reference in August I found an incredible amount of misstatements indicating to me that none of the editors of the page were aware of either the importance of the topic, or current research on the topic, some of the statements on the page were out-and-out misrepresentations (avoiding the word 'lie') of the literature. Muntawandi has constantly defending the dumbed down version as he has made a number of edits to that version. However, such scientifically inaccurate material cannot be allowed to persist, particularly given the reviewers comments in spring. I would hope that MW would work with me on improving and simplifying the article, however he seems dead set on reverting it to its 'fallen' position. MW as you may know has issues with WP see his block log. Despite this I would like to work with MW to help improve these articles, however he needs to change his stance on the previous version of the article before we can move forward on this. PB666 yap 09:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I should state, I hope MW will work within the context of the articles talk.pages, that he will learn to start making comments about specific issues, using the comments subpages to come of with list to improve articles rather than taking the all or none approach which has gotten him into trouble in the past. He has a tendency to use these Adminstrator notification boards alot, and tends to get into edit wars with folks alot. I see this as an opportunity for us to work together. I have set a goal of improving the Haplogroup A and B pages to B status by the end of the year. MtEve is a much more serious problem and will require more work, however specific critiques concerning a paragraph or section are welcome, really welcome. MW has done very little work in promoting articles as per wikipedia standards, this is a core problem with the pages that he works on. Not to single him out, but the only pages that are in the process of improvement within the HGH project are the ones I am trying to promote. Yes he adds alot of content, but frequently it is highly debatable content. In terms of the R1a page, I have simply critiqued what has been added and have made strong suggestions about how content is best presented for clarity, readability and to prevent further social/ethnic clashes (for example such as the one regarding R1a's origin currently going on the talk page). "Block has served its purpose. User must start collaborating productively as indicated.", not my words but admin words.PB666 yap 10:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
As expected a lot of detail. I suggest focusing on specific issues,
  • Technical detail
  • Jargon
  • Verbosity
I believe this is what leads to original research. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Simple as can be stated:
  • There has been alot of research and many papers which describe time of MtMRCA.
  • There is a wide range of MtMRCA
  • These is also a wide range of confidence intervals
  • I am not responsible for these
  • I must fairly reflect opinions in the field without entering my own bias

In the previous main-page MRCA dates were given as

  • Theoretically 3000 (not a MRCA study but a critique based on HVR sites that saturate qucikly)
  • 6000 (same reason)
  • 140000 (no justification)
  • 171000 (Ingman et al)
  • 280000 (Cann et al) (140,000 to 280,000 years)
  • These contradictory where thrown about the article without justification. However I justify the TMRCAs, I intercompare the TRMCAs, and I describe how these are important with regard to population structure.
The following dates were excluded.
  • 3000-6000 years ago. The letter that published these was not a bonafida coalescence paper, they were critiquing the use of HVR 1 and 2 sites. To explain breifly, the sites vary quickly as seen in different samples of the HeLa cell line, they saturate quickly, its not that the TMRCAs are 6000 years, its that in pairwise analysis in humans it is difficult to measure a TMRCA >10,000 years because of saturation (saturation = reverse mutations and homoplasies) at these specific site . Most modern studies, including those that force the use of HVR1 and 2 exclude these sites (16182, 16183, 16194, 16519)[Ref on rate = Fukuoka Igaku Zasshi. 2002 May;93(5):85-90.Maternity testing using mitochondrial DNA analysis.Tsuji A, Ishiko A, Hirose M, Takasaki T, Ikeda N.; and PMID 19500773)
  • 140000 is not excluded but treated for what it is, the Cann estimate.
  • 171000 is not excluded but treated for what it is, the Ingman estimate.
  • 106000 year L0d estimate "date the most ancient mtDNA lineage L0d to 106,000 BP." was excluded because it was a misstatement. Gonder et al. MB&E 24(3):764 states clearly in the text of the article. "Our TMRCA estimate for the global mtDNA genome tree is 194.3 [+/-] 32.55 kya [kiloannum]". The L0 branch (L0d linheage / L0abfk lineage) branchpoint is 146.45 +/- 25 Ka. The unique L0d lineage is 146.45+/-25 Ka according to Gonder, 150 ka according to Soares, 152ka years according to Behar et al 2008. The L0d lineage is a fusion between the L0-node and L0d node (basal lineage) and the average depth of the L0d subclades The L0d TMRCA branch which has no bearing on the Ingman estimate or the TMRCA has a branch time of 106,000 was simply thrown onto the page without any explanation or consideration of its meaning. In fact much the the mitochondial Eve article was characterized by these types of errors.
  • "The results by Gonder et al. and Ingman et al. confirm the less precise result found originally by Cann et al. (1987) [3]," Well they got Gonder et al wrong, Ingman is obsolete. In terms of precision there are two directions of errors.
  • Cann errors in an old technique, RFLP, and rate variance and Archaeological detection and dating errors.
  • Ingman errors in rate variance (Purifying and adaptive selection) and CHLCA errors (large)
  • Gonder errors in Purifying and adaptive selection and CHLCA errors (moderate)
  • Soares errors in Adaptive selection and CHLCA errors (moderate/low).
  • Since we do not know the CHLCA or when exactly humans left Africa we cannot determine whose method is more precise. There is no currently agree on estimate of rate or level of selection by which we can standardize a measure of precision.
  • As I have asked Muntawandi, he has to start working with the published literature even if he despises that literature, this page is not going to go back to the points where facts are loosely thrown about willy-nilly in a confusing manner disrespectful of the publish literature. I recommended that MW sit down with me on the talk page and discuss individual issues and area that need to be condensed. So far he has refused to do this on either the Haplogroup A or mtEve page.PB666 yap 15:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been busy on the R1a article and more generally in WP:HGH and I definitely share Wapondaponda's concerns. There is no doubt that PB666 has a lot of original, unorthodox and interesting thoughts to share somewhere else, but we can ignore all his long explanations about those ideas here because demanding that these ideas be taken into account on Wikipedia articles is very clearly WP:OR. And trying to disrupt editing in order to make a point about is also. He knows this, and he clearly feels no problem in simply demanding that it is justified. Indeed, it has to be said that he has some sort of enormous emotional hang up about trying to make an impact upon the relatively popular haplogroup articles, which are often being edited by people without his "25 years experience". Some diffs which make his position on this pretty clear:-

  • [84]
  • [85]. (In this example PB666 says that I should not be calling his TALKPAGE critiques of the literature irrelevant to Wikiedpia, and as an explanation, he compares it to a case where someone sent him an article he had not read, and he change Wikipedia on that basis.
  • "Without any other facts, based on 10,000s of edits here on a wide variety of pages, I conclude that I have the better representation of reality. Therefore I am going to be disgruntled and gripe about the issue as I prepare mentally before going through 100 poorly written pages based on awful molecular anthropology to fix an issue of carelessness. If someone out there doesn't want me (self-admitted Y-DNA skeptic) doing resectioning of their precious Y-DNA pages I suggest they take the initiative." [86]
  • [87]
  • [88]

PB666 clearly has developed something like an obsession with reforming the field from a platform from within Wikipedia. His edits on R1a especially the talkpage, where he now regularly posts essays of up to 20,000 bytes, are clearly disruptive by any normal definition.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC) I think as an example of the disruptive talkpage editing this is being used to justify, I should give two examples which show two types of problem, one which shows how this is becoming a classic case of disruptive editing [89], and one to show the peculiar aspect of publishing OR on talkpages and refusing to explain relevance [90].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that a lot of the arguments made above are going right over the heads of the majority of editors who frequent this page (I know they going a mile over mine). For the benefit of those of us who work in the humanities ... Would someone please summarize and explain why these edits are, or are not, Original Research... without using any techinical terminology (or at least explain the terminology to us as you present your views). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that this is precisely what the wall of words of PB666 is trying to do. They are his cloak of invisibility. There are also clearly a lot of different types of issues at once here, but concerning original research I think it is very clear: PB666 thinks that the published authors in this field are sloppy and he has his own ideas (as per the long postings) about what should be in the articles. Put aside all the details about why, because this is irrelevant. He is openly stating that by over-simplistically following Wikipedia neutrality and OR rules we (other editors working on these articles) are genuflecting and helping propagate myths from the notable authors in the published literature. He is not even pretending it is otherwise than this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this retort, referring to a published author who PB666 had been insisting on mis-spelling, cuts to the chase about what PB666 feels about the geneticists in this field (which is not his field), and how much the feelings are driving the edits: [91]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for posting once more, but I am trying to help others see the problem. If you look through ALL the disputes PB666 has been in about these articles there is a very simple fact: he does not argue that other editors are misunderstanding the literature, and also does not argue that one published author is being given undue credence compared to others. He says ALL published authors in this field are wrong, and are ALL being given undue weight. The rest of his long postings are about the details of his personal fringe theories, which he wants to be the basis of what the Wikipedia articles are about. This is how he presents it himself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Your description of the problem is very interesting for me since I think it applies (perhaps to a lesser extent) also to DinDraithou. Both editors are editing in the same field and from similar time zones, but the timing doesn't really look like sockpuppetry. Perhaps DinDraithou has learned the behaviour from Pdeitiker (=PB666)? (Perhaps someone wants to notify DinDraithou that they have been mentioned here. If I do it I will probably be accused of vandalism.) Hans Adler 18:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
DinDraithou is aware. See [92]. However, while they have crossed paths their areas of expertise and their style are not the same, and efforts by PB666 to get DinDraithou to coordinate with him have not met with any notable success [93], even when PB666 tried to say that he agreed with him about Indoeuropeans, in a way which frankly showed that he did not even understand it [94], [95]. I believe the issue was resolved. I can not comment about other articles where DinDraithou works, although I was asked to look at some of them. If I read between the lines there is a feeling he is trying to walk over what the publications say. But honestly, at least from what I have seen, DinDraithou does claim to have sources outside Wikipedia. His arguments seem more "typical" and debatable? PB666's source is much more openly himself and his 25 years of experience of watching the same mistakes getting made over and over [96].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I was not aware. Thank you, Andrew, for apparently using the obvious fact that I am not Pdeitiker to accuse me quite vaguely of "trying to walk over what the publications say", in unspecified articles on unspecified subjects and in unspecified ways. Is this because I got miffed at you for calling me a meatpuppet when you thought I was taking sides against you over the trivial "hated bullet list"? Come on. DinDraithou (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I will try to explain simply. The first study done on mtDNA TMRCA was done in 1980, the most recent estimate was this year, from 1980 to this year there have been at least a dozen predictions. In addition to full studies there have been critiques, one group pointing out an error and based upon a source of error saying the Time to most recent common ancestor is 6000 (for example people who believe in biblical creation) another group may point to an error and say it could be 500,000 years (for example if they believe in the multiregional origin hypothesis). Each study has different assumptions

Anchor

  • Internally calibrated archaeological points (these change with more archaeological evidence) (Cann et al. 1987)(Endicott and Ho)
  • external calibration (these change with genetic and paleontological evidence) (All other studies)

Rate estimates

  • Use HVR regions (Vigilant et al. Horai et al, several others)
Use all site (Vigilant et al.)
Use some sites
  • Use Coding regions
Use all coding region
Use one rate (Ingman et al. 2000)
Use different rates (Gonder et al. 2007)
  • Use both but exclude certain HVR sites (Soares et al 2009, ...)
---Soares has done a reasonable job excluding highest saturation sites, but other problems persist (see selection)

Dealing with selection and saturation

  • No correction (Ingman et al. 2000, Cann et al. 1987, Vigilant et al. 1991, Gonder et al. 2007)
  • Correction for purifying selection (Soares et al.2009)
  • Correction for adaptive selection (Mishmar et al. 2003)
---Both purifying and adaptive selection appear to be acting

Rate classification

  • No Exclusion - (Cann et al. 1987 , RFLP analysis)
  • Exclude fastest evolving sites. (Ingman et al. 2000, Gonder et al. 2007)
  • Separate sites by rate. Gonder et al 2007., Soares et al 2009, Mishar
---The best method for assessing rates is a matter of hot debate in the literature.

For externally calibrated CHLCA estimates

  • 500000 years - Vigilante et al 1991, Ingman et al. 2000
  • 600000 years - (Endicott and Ho 2008)
  • 650000 years (combined CHLCA and sorting time) - Gonder et al. 2007, Mishmar et al. 2003)
  • 700000 years - Soares et al. 2009
>*700000 years was determined in November by White et al that the CHLCA is older then 7 million years.
---CHLCA is currently unknown, current studies indicate previous methods to estimate CHLCA failed.

For internally calibrated exit times from India.

  • 50000 years - Cann et al
  • 55000 years (96%CI - Endicott and Ho 2008)
---When Modern human entered Eurasia is unknown, 3 sites indicate dates much older. Qahfez 93000 years ago, Jwalapurum 74000, and LiuJiang >68000 years ago (Source Endicott, Ho, Metspalu, and Stringer).

---Big problem!.

To simplify, there are many different methods, each author generally changed two or three variables at a time, such as method of rate assessment and CHLCA consequently the methodology is confusing. IOW based on studies just in the last 5 years, the range of dates expressed in the literature range from 82,800 to 259,300 years when boundaries are set all all studies 95%CI. Using only Ingman et al. 2000 171500 TMRCA and +/-50000 [=one standard deviation unit] 2 SD CI = 71500 to 271500 years. Using Cann et al. 1987 140,000 to 280,000 years. Muntawand appears to have a select understanding of the literature and he does not how to deal with 'issues'.

As a consequence, the TMRCA estimates and their confidence ranges vary. I am confident if you read these papers you will not find my range of 70,000 to 270,000 to a bad reflection on all of the literature, and if you do, I would be more than happy to condense this range because a smaller range reflects my POV on this issue.

If there are no other issues here I am happy to allow Andrew and Muntawandi battle out shadows in an opinion war. I should note that part of this is carry over from the ANI board so .......PB666 yap 20:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that some of the Original mtDNA Eve page contained WP:OR, it stated that there was no population bottleneck, however up until 2 or 3 years ago that concept was never thoroughly tested. In addition, the misstatements concerning Gonder linking L0d with Ingmans TMRCA also constituted original research.
I have never tried to create a meat puppet of any editor, however Andrew_Lancaster has accussed me of this on two occasions, the above being the second occasion. I do not have sockpuppetes or meatpuppets. In addition, if you go over to the R1a page and look at the latest edits, as the folks in the ANI page implied Andrew_Lancaster has WP:OWN issues.

Anytime someone comes across that disagrees with him he is making these false accusations.WP:GAME.PB666 yap 20:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please give the diffs to back up your accusations about me personally. I deny that they are true in any meaningful sense of the term. Let everyone see what you are referring to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

So much smoke! But a quick read by any native English speakers shows the following:

  • This is just a list to show that in the literature, there are apparently lots of variations of opinion.
  • Some of the articles cited are very old, which is very odd for this type of subject.
  • There is never any attempt by you to talk in terms of what is mainstream and what most experts in the field currently believe. (Even though in this particular subject, unlike for Y haplogroups, there is some secondary literature that can be used.)

The whole point is to say, as you have said many times: the literature contains different opinions, and so there is nothing wrong with us using our judgment select something within that range, especially given my 25 years etc. etc. etc. On the R1a page I have explained many times that being able to show that the primary literature still shows a lot of disagreement, should only be a reason for using wording which makes it clear that there is uncertainty. It is never a reason for going into cherry picking mode and using your personal judgment to pick some winning theories.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think there may be an OR problem here. All we can do is represent fairly and proportionately the main views on a subject. We can't comment on any problems that we see as to how they derived these views (although we can use such comments from reliable sources), and we can't try to create a range other than to say 'Smith says n, Rogers says X, Zondinski says Y." Anything beyond that is OR, and using a variety of sources to come up with a resolution is almost certainly synthesis. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Therefore I think the Ingman et al range should stay either as 70,000 to 270,000 years or 171,500 +/- 50,000 years not because I like it but because it covers all authors POVs on the range. I have no strong problem with either. There are tons of comments from reliable sources, enough to fill a book. There is a literature battle going on right now concerning the issue of selection all by itself.PB666 yap 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The range was changed to exactly Ingman's date range, and confidence interval was noted in the foot note. PB666 yap 21:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Just taking these words at face value, you are saying that you select the article with the biggest range and indicating the most uncertainty, as if it were the most mainstream, simply because it covers the most options. This is not the right approach at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
A very quick response to Andrew, don't make assumptions about mtDNA based on your experience with Y chromosome.
Your actions on R1a which is an article about Y chromsomal DNA are also supposed to be under discussion. The fact that you have chosen to cite some very long random comments about articles which exist and give no real explanation about how this has anything to do with the OR accusation is absolutely typical. In the diffs I have given you have many times told me that in Wikipedia you can use your judgment to decide what to put in Wikipedia from the literature, based on what is best. The problem is that this is wrong. We are only entrusted to use our expert judgment in order to make sure our presentation is a balanced reflection of what is mainstream. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The first mtDNA TMRCA was 180 ka (brown 1980; ka = 1000 years) and the second was 150 ka to 280 ka (Cann et al 1987) the third was 166 ka to 252 ka (Vigilante et al 1991). Here are the 6 current estimates in 1000 years, 108 (82 to 134) ka, 162 (122 to 213) ka, 192 ka, 194.3 +/- 32.5 ka, 198 +/- 19 ka. All estimates overlap except Endicott and Ho's archaeologically calibrated estimate. All of these agree that there is still a considerable amount of uncertainty and I believe this is best reflected in the lead of the article. Y-chromosomal TMRCA started at 20,000 years and has creeped up from there to 40,000 and now to ~ 75,000 years, new papers suggest that it will creep even farther upward.PB666 yap 21:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there is uncertainty in this field. No one has ever argued about this with you and if that is all you want the articles to say there would be no problem. But there is a mainstream range of best guesses, and this should be reflected accurately in Wikipedia articles. It should not be up to you to decide what should be mainstream.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

External view: On the basis of a skim of discussions, I think the chief issue here is not so much original research, but a case of Wikipedia:You spat in my soup!: a style of disruptive WP:GAME that gets a poster's way by making everyone else feel disinclined to engage with the subject per "Too long; didn't read". I think that needs tackling before OR can be reasonably discussed. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Similar to WP:SOUP, WP:DISRUPT states "Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity."
Mitochondrial Eve is the subject of numerous books, such as The Real Eve and The Journey of Man, both have documentaries that appeared on the Discovery Channel and National Geographic respectively. Based on this, it is clear that the subject of Mitochondrial Eve can be dealt with in a manner that is accessible to the general public. In these publications, one does not see the level of uncertainty and doubt that is presently in the article and I therefore see no need for an excessively complex article. This isn't to say that doubt and uncertainty don't exist, but it is WP:UNDUE possibly even WP:ADVOCACY, for the article about Mitochondrial Eve to be almost entirely about doubt and uncertainty. It is a really simple concept, Mitochondrial Eve is the common ancestor of all humans via matrilineal descent. The article has a lot of genomic jargon such as TCHLCA, PMRCA, HVR, RFLP, PDHA1, MX1, CRS:16181-16182, N = \frac{TMRCA}{2Tg} which I believe isn't necessary to explain the concept. Some of the Pdeitiker's complexity may have useful to wikipedia, but in appropriate articles. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Concerning "I think that needs tackling before OR can be reasonably discussed" please think about how this is going to work in practice. Isn't this a chicken and egg situation? There are indeed lots of different problems here: WP:TALK violations, WP:POINT making, extreme WP:OWN etc. But the length of the postings and the number of violations being done should not be allowed to become a shield against critical discussion. I am sure everyone wants this to be someone else's problem! The OR is real. It is hard to say whether it is a cause or effect (personally, looking now through old posts, I think increasingly that it was there all along driving some of the WP:SPIDERMAN behavior) and the question of whether it is cause or effect is academic now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
please think about how this is going to work in practice
I am. I'm saying that the mode of discourse is disruptive to the point of making meaningful critical discussion of the actual topic impossible because it's shrouded in a fog of obfuscation. Time to call out the mode of discourse: user conduct RFC. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Specific issue

I would like to find out from Pdeitiker, how he came up with the data from this section Mitochondrial_Eve#Estimation_of_generation_time. From the supplementary material of Soares et al. 2009, which is the source you cited, the only information about mitochondrial eve is on page 82 of the PDF. The point estimate for when she lived is 192,400 years ago with a 95% CI of 151,600-233,600 years ago. I couldn't find where Pdeitiker got the data from the table in the section. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As you know, that is exactly the kind of question he will never give a simple answer to. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29#Sources_of_Variation . In my mind, you do not need to know anything about this field in order to see when someone is this blatant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This response was directed at Andrew_Lancasters Original Research, he presented the opinion that since they have many, many, STR that probability of a missed relationship was 'trivial'. That statement as far as I could tell was original research. I asked him to defend it with literature and he refused. As a consequence I presented the literature that supported my position that the statement was original research and that in-fact the STR based relationship indicators were not according to measures of relationships. In fact I generally agree with Andrew that some of the STR estimates in some of the trees are very good, however in some of the estimates the errors could be non-trivial. The evidence as of last year clearly indicates that certain STRs are poorly characterized, the confidence windows are clearly stated. In addition to this many Y DNA studies are poor, with samples sizes of 20 or 40, counts of 1 or 2 with huge margins of error for less frequently encounter types. I am arguing that they need to be very careful in what and how they present evidence, with past errors of greatness in Y_DNA studies. (TMRCA estimates off by 550% based on current understanding, papers dealing with multiple deletions and recursions in STRs, Poor SNP samplings all across the Y-DNA trees (as evidenced by the 300% increase in markers for R1a between 2007 and 2009). PB666 yap 19:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is more or less to the point of dealing with the E&H estimate and the 4 points of nearly equal age. The problem is that the uncertainty in estimates are often based on assumptions. All sides may be using missed assumptions according to other published sources. Ergo choosing one side over another side is a POV edit. There are many POV edits remaining on the R1a page, some are minor, and some are not so minor. But if we look at all the Y_DNA pages there are a tremendous number of POV edits, and this is the basis of edit wars that have plaqued the project. In fact it is quite clear there as been little broader WP oversight other than dealing with people who commit offenses and get blocked. Muntawandi is one of the editors who has been blocked several times. PB666 yap 19:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I warned Andrew clearly and repeatedly that throwing out these single points as facts would attract people into edit wars, as it already has done on the R1a page. Some of these numeric results are so poor in quality that meaning is very difficult to interpret. He will not deny this either, he has even mentioned that one author comes up with 0 instances and the next author covering the same group of people comes up with half a dozen instances. It is my opionion that unless one presents a fairly broad estimate of percentage range and geographic spread there will be future problems. One editor, probably of Asian descent, found fault in both the wording and the probable origin of R1a (M420). I precisely warned Andrew that failure to present a broad 'soft' percent and geographic range would attract attention and critique, and so it has. PB666 yap 19:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't judge the situation now, wait one year and see how many edit conflicts and wars result as a consequence of editing. The point is that I will not work on any more of these Eurasian Y-DNA pages, the point was to show that the way they are editing was extremely biased. That it was a gross contradiction to have a page with 4 theories section, that speculative author comments from 10 years ago that are roughly unsupported at present have as much 'airing' as the better written more comprehensive studies of last year. It is overwhelmingly obvious that there has been an acute lack of critical editing throughout the WP:HGH project, and there is a particular problem with editing the Y-DNA pages. I have been particularly harsh, but by the same token I have been trying to back out of the R1a page for the last week, you may notice that my edits on the talk page within the last 24 hours have been low, many things andrew has said I did not respond to. The harshness it trying to get Andrew to realize that he cannot throw every fact and statement into every Y-DNA article, if he does try to do this he will not only confuse readers (as previous R1a article - he was not major editor) does and be the impetus for edit wars by confused readers. What is worse, arguing on the talk page about land-mines or having Main pages polluted with insubstantial opinion.? You guys need to make that decision, because as it stands right now, that is the status within the HGH project. PB666 yap 19:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
People like the R1a page improvements, it explains the technojargon better, but my little WP:CRYSTAL is this, unless that main cleans out the remaining 'confusingly presented' data, it will attract editor after editor into edit-warring, probably with Andrew, and in the end analysis he will have to give up defense of the page(s) which will then throw the page right back to where it is. Pages need to be constructed in a timeless and defendable manner, if not the problems will not be me-here it will be all of them-here all the time. In my opinion I am trying to help these editors establish a set of baseline criteria for these articles such that there is a general feel for what represents Major, Minor POVs and the latest popularity-driven speculation.PB666 yap 19:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I am tired of intervening in these disputes, I have been trying every way possible to get broader wiki-pedia editors to come in and start talking out these problems, encouraging people to IMPROVE PAGES ALONG THE WIKIGUIDLINES. I have begged the Admins here at Wikipedia to spend more time surveying these pages, its not just the editors that have been banned that are the problem. It is the common editor who reads an article in the "Seattle Post" based on a 10 year old interpretation that nickles and dimes their way into dozens of articles as facts. Generally no-one editing these pages gives a hoot about MOS issues either. So this is how we got here. I don't want to be harsh, but at some point these editors need to place the encyclopedia first over doing everthing that every mans sees fit (Which BTW perfectly described the mitochrodrial Eve page in August). The problem with the WALL-OF-WORDS is that the literature, which is not being thoroughly reviewed is in fact a WALL-OF-WORDS to the majority of edits made on pages, therefore they ignore this and go for popular science versions, frequently wrong, opinionated. User:Pdeitiker|PB666]] yap 19:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Again with regard to the MtEve page, there is a raging debate in the literature about selection and its effect on calculating genetic distances in the mtDNA tree. That is the cause of uncertainty, not me. I altered the wording of the Lede to comply with Dweller, however, I think this exactly the wrong way to deal with the lede, ledes do not need to be specific, they should represent a referencable overview of articles.

PB666 yap 19:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Pure unadulterated garbage. Not one diff. You are talking about things that never happened. (I warned the admins, I told Andrew.) Nonsense. You change your story every day now. By the way, the word choice "reduces to a level considered trivial" compared to your choice of words which was "reduces but does not eliminate" is just a word choice, not "research". It was your way of backing out of a very silly argument:- [97], [98]. You could have chosen to replace the word trivial at any time but instead your spent several days effectively arguing that this was the example of original research you had been saying I would post all along.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
You have reverted so many of my edits according to you clear WP:OWN attitude, including grammar and syntax repairs that I specifically noted the problem which you, after 48 hours failed to repair, so yes, I finally did change it.PB666 yap 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Are you saying I argued against the word change? Which syntax errors did I re-introduce? You give no diffs but I assume you are repeating the claims I mentioned here: [99], [100]. Given the proof I posted there that these edits were done by others, this seems amazingly dishonest and yet so amazingly obvious, and this happens so often to you. I have to say with all honesty that you obviously have a big problem reading anything written to you which in any way disagrees with you. You seem to grab a few key words and then develop your own idea of what the words say. You are constantly writing answers which seem to show that you did not read what you are responding to. How should people collaborate with you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It was not until I disclosed exactly the basis of the 60STR (17 most widely used) that Andrews appears to have become aware of the potential pitfall of his statements on the Main and on the talk page. I personally debated whether I should have added this before adding, but given the wide nature of problems in the Y-DNA pages it seemed prudent to make sure Andrew was clear on the nature of variable STR rate estimates.PB666 yap 20:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
To make this clear to all we are not discussing content, we are discussing a particular instance of how reliable the literature is as to how it is drafted into the main page. My opinion that I have repeatedly stated and backed up with appropriate references is that the literature is often cloudy about its reliability, this should be factored into the Main pages by carefully not overstating cases, as AL and MW appear to desire, and I have been very consistent about this. Instead, I prefer that we back away from cloudy overstatements of fact. To be quite concise with regard to R1a, there were not 4 theories, the molecular clocking is open to wide debate (on this me an Andrew agree, at least in part), that the ability to link migrations to languages, cultures etc is highly dependent on good clocking, which is not apparent. That we should not draft speculation based on old clocking or bad statistics as the backbone of articles, that such things deserve mention as alternatives and nothing else. Andrew has generally been good about this, MW on the otherhand has a reputation for dropping fringe science and opinion into his edits, as a consequence has been invovled in many edit wars that have gotten him banned.PB666 yap 20:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but you made 2 very specific accusations. You implied that there was some sort of discussion or disagreement between us about the word trivial, and you said that I made reverts which re-introduced syntax and grammar errors. I take it from your answer that this was more charlatanry.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Population sizes estimates as original research

Now, back to the question of Wapondaponda. He went to the article cited, and did not find the information you put in the article. Where did you get it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Population sizes relative to Generation times and TMRCAs (see above)
Generation
time		 mtDNA TMRCA
110,000 137,000 178,000 219,000 274,000 357,000
20 years 2750 inds. 3425 4450 5475 6850 8925
25 years 2200 2740 3560 4380 5480 7140
TMRCA based on mutation rate estimates by Soares et al. (2009) and on TCHLCA of 4, 5, 6.5, 8, 10 and 13 Ma

Yes I would like to find out where the data for the table Pdeitiker created came from. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

He will not give a clear answer.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The data is calculation is based on The Coalescent, TMRCA = Population size * 2 * generations time. Otherwise known as the 2N rule, it is a guide, it is not stated as fact in the text what population size is without reference. I have taken no position on these only to state that if CHLCA is X, Generation time is Y then median estimate is Z. IOW this is how they calculated population sizes. It is similar to state if Volume = Width x Height x length. While the values in the table are intermediate relative to the range stated in the text below, one has to remember that Atkinson marks the increase in African population size with L3 that has not been exhaustively reported in the literature because of poor African sampling. Please read Atkinson, Gray and Drummond 2009. You will understand page 309 has been distilled from a WALL-OF-WORDS to something more comprehensible.

Here is the statement of research in the article: Atkinson, Grey and Drummond, 2009. Figure 2.BSps of effective population size through time for (a) subsaharan Africa. Note the grey lines delimit the 96%CI (Grey lines cross at 10,000 and 1,000). These are the estimates that are used on the page, and currently the only valid estimates. I will relook at the page to see if anything on the page differs and are incosistent with these. .....After checking the page i found: "Atkinson, Gray & Drummond (2009) show that prior to 150,000 years ago the population could have been as low as 1000 effective females (~1500 total, 4500 census) with a lower population size between 150,000 to 200,000 years ago." This appears to reflect the reference exactly, that stated size of the population can be inferred by the midpoint 3160 individuals places two estimates right on this estimate or slightly above. The statement in the article is missing the upper boundary which I have inserted to be clear. Disclaimer, this sentence in the text is based upon their TMRCA estimate of "150-201 kyr ago (95%HPD)". However they base their data on Soares corrections, and therefore may need some future adjustment. The Formula and the traces in figures are drafted from the Book the Coalescent [101] the first 3 chapters of which are online.PB666 yap 20:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to deal with critiques in the article pages, this is the first time I have heard any of this type of critique so my opinion is that this is the wrong place.

Hmm, so we are using a rate from Soares et al. 2009 and a formula from Atkinson et al. 2008 to arrive at the table. Neither Soares et al. nor Atkinson et al. have generated the table. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The formula is from the book by the author 2001-2008 Kent E. Holsinger and the simple 2N rule was defined in the mid-1930s by Fisher, it is widely accepted formula in molecular phylogenetics, and why are you not aware of it?PB666 yap 02:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Synth. Self admitted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
"No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three." "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived."
"It's not too hard to show, once we know the probability distribution in equation (1), that the average time to coalescence for two randomly chosen alleles is 2Ne" The equation by the way was first demonstrated by Fisher 70 years ago.
This is a simple conversion Population size = TMRCA / 2 * generation time. I should point out that this estimate is so widely agreed upon in molecular phylogenetics it is called the "2N rule" or occasionally the "1/2N rule"[102] I am rather surprised Andrew has never heard of it.PB666 yap 01:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The table has no POV, it does not highlight or draw a conclusion. WP:OR is directed at edits that draw readers to a certain POV, there is no POV in the table. Its part of an intro/explanation describing a simple calculation process, how various Population sizes are determined, the table would be the same if I pulled Soares TMRCAs out and replaced it with random values. The calculation. In fact the section that best represents my POV basically debunks this form of 'flat population structure' for Africans, it does not mean the technique is invalid, but since the African population size is now 1 billion and since the estimated size is 5000 the flat population method of popsize estimate is challenged by magnitudinal scale differences in observed population size and predicted population size through most of human prehistory. But people need to know where the base argument is coming from, because of all the changing MRCA values in the literature, they need to know how the MRCA values change population size. The only difference is that Soares TMRCA versus CHLCA gives it more immediate meaning. It is with an introduction to commonly used population size method, that's all. If you read the sections on population bottlenecks you will find that I present both POVs the POV that argues that populations sizes did not dip, and the POV that there was a bottleneck. In neither of those cases was a value drawn from the table. However since this draws critique I will convert this to a graph that goes from 0 to whatever for 20 and 25 year generation times, would you like it log or linear scale. I have no problem with that, since you confused this with original research. These are particularly the types of critiques I have been looking for, what needs to be altered, made user friendly as to shorten the page. My opinioin is that some explanation is necessary prior to dumping people into the conflict area , which is the population structure, places and ends to the period.

I should also point out here that the X-chromosomal and Autosomal studies of Takahata and Schaffner are based on 5 my TMRCAs, whereas the new research is based on 7, even though I did not conduct original research and convert either to the commonly used standards, if I had it would have immediately excluded the no bottleneck example. Either Endicott and Ho's or any one of the recent studies of GOnder, Soares would have been excluded. If one looks at the 96%CI in Atkinson et al. 2009 and compares it with the estimated size based on Takahata 11,000/5 * 6.5 or 7 or 12000/6 * 6.5 or 7 you will note that these exceed his 95% confidence limits for population size. That would be original research but instead I treated it as the dominant theory 'flat population structure' and left Atkinson, Gray and Drummond as a minor theory. This is the exactly same kind of issue as the Zhivotovsky et el. 2004 STR dating issue. You know it has big problems but one is hand bound not to disclose the issue. Note I supported you on this even though I knew it was WP:OR, I am not overstepping bounds on mtEve, not as far as you have overstepped on R1a, don't let appearances deceive this issue, population size estimates from TMRCAs are easy to calculate, determining rates of saturation is complex mathematics that should be left to professionals. That is why I did not convert Underhills TMRCAs even though I know these are incorrect.PB666 yap 02:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is what original research is, I have studies all the African mtDNA trees (which I have) and I have found an inflection point at 75000 years (which I did) that represented clear example of a bottleneck (do you see a figure or table in the Main describing this?). Since Atkinson, Gray and Drummand clearly have a paper on the issue, i simply refer to their conclusions. I have disclosed my COI on the matter, this is the single paper that 'gets it right' all the other papers are waffling around using assumptions and few hard facts.PB666 yap 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To recap, WP:NOR states
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.
and
The data from the table does not appear in publication and is based on your own calculations. You may have applied the formula correctly but WP:NOR also states:
If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a discovery. Once your discovery has been presented in a reliable source, it may be referenced.
I believe this table is an unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, and it should be withdrawn. Currently non of the publications have used this specific analysis when discussing mitochondrial Eve and it remains unique to Wikipedia. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep it short. PB666's points are actually simple I think:
  • The field is actually quite complicated. Even specialists make mistakes. That's why the article now looks like an essay about problems in the field rather than a summary of what mainstream discussion says. PB666 feels there is virtually no mainstream.
  • The maths and assumptions in this field are so simple, that combining methods and numbers from different papers is just like adding 2 and 2. It therefore does not come under synth rules.
Am I making any errors in my summary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

This is really looking like it may take an WP:RfC to sort out. We need more editors who are familiar with the subject matter to weigh in. Though the wall-of-text method of debate really needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
How do we stop that though? 2 ANI cases [103], [104] have been successfully de-railed by exactly this wall of words strategy, and PB666 now hubristically cites them as evidence that he is right and everyone else is violating WP policies by disagreeing with him [105] ("did anyone on ANI correct my interpretation? So aren't you then trying to promote your point of view regarding guidelines, running a little R1a mutiny of Wikipedia").
I think Wapondaponda has a point in making this an OR case. The self righteousness which is inspiring PB666 to disrespect all norms of civil behavior is clearly coming from a drive to grind his WP:AXE, i.e. his fringe criticisms of a field in genetics which is much more widely read than his field. Please consider...
  • Without any other facts, based on 10,000s of edits here on a wide variety of pages, I conclude that I have the better representation of reality. Therefore I am going to be disgruntled and gripe about the issue as I prepare mentally before going through 100 poorly written pages based on awful molecular anthropology to fix an issue of carelessness. If someone out there doesn't want me (self-admitted Y-DNA skeptic) doing resectioning of their precious Y-DNA pages I suggest they take the initiative. [106]
  • You wanna know why the Y-DNA pages are in such bad shape, one simple reason, all the worshipers at the alter of the Y-chromosome (Male divinity) that edit these pages are so blinded by the latest saying of their favorite pundit that they never sit down to check the facts and the history.[107]
  • You have to learn to be far more critical of these results. Frankly I am glad that wikipedia disallows the demonstration of Cline maps. Sharma Figure 1 and Figure 4 are so troubled by ascertainment bias I am surprised it got published. As I stated you guys really don't want someone who is so critical of Y chromosomal studies (a 20 year disaster in the making that has only recently improved), from a global molecular anthrology story[108]
  • I have 25 years experience in a pattern of mis-assumptions about statistics that never seem to stop repeating itself. [109]
  • I have seen my fair share of highly imaginative 'extrapolations' of origins based on the Y-chromosome. Its a shame people don't have the same interest in HLA [Pdeitiker's field] as they have in Y-chromosome. [...] As a consequence the spread from Africa of Y-chromosome is problematic and inconsistent with two independent sets of facts.
1. Either the molecular clock of Y is incorrect or subject to change of unknown cause.
2. Or there is a global pattern social/sexual selection that has been acting for long periods of time.[110]
  • I repeat, there is nothing magical about Y-DNA that makes it immune to the same sources of variance that any other loci have. Again, I have focused on the whole of molecular anthropology, not just one little cravat niche, where cliche norms have evolved as a cover for really relaxed standards.[111]
Just how it seems to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like a possible case for invoking WP:COMPETENCE#Some types of incompetence we commonly see here, first item. Blocks based on this essay are relatively rare, but I think it's not completely unprecedented. Hans Adler 14:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of "Walls of Text" see diff. I think for the purpose of this noticeboard, since we are requesting for input from the community, we should focus less on the technical detail, and more on the underlying issues:
  • Personal opinions outweighing reliable sources. Pdeitiker claims to have inside information about genetics that others don't have. But WP:VERIFY requires that any editor should be able to verify soures. So this "inside information" is inconsistent with wikipedia's policy on verifiability. This inside information leads Pdeitiker to make claims that have not been published.
  • Verbosity-clearly a problem
  • Too technical where he doesn't need to be.
Maybe an RFC is the way to go, but my experience is that RFCs have low response rates from the community, especially for editors or articles that are not highly visible. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I can not see anything to doubt about the OR, whatever other problems there are. PB666 states it in his own words. I fear that if this aspect of the complaint, which is so amazingly clear, can not be discussed by the community, then it is just going to keep bouncing around while PB666 starts his promised project of rewriting 100 articles to correct the myths being published by the worshipers of male divinity who pass themselves off as geneticists and get way too much publicity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What original research is on the R1a page except yours Andrew?PB666 yap 19:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is how blatant you are. After dozens of remarks (yes, I have diffs ready) you are you are yet to even name ANY original research I have ever posted anywhere on Wikipedia. Not one time have you named an example, in perhaps >500 talk page postings, at more than 1000 bytes a posting. You seem to have developed a habit of just saying whatever you think would sound good without caring one bit whether you can back it up or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
OK who stated that you referenced concerning the statement The resulting pattern gives a kind of "DNA signature" referred to as an STR haplotype. With enough STR markers to compare, the chances of falsely identifying relative relatedness because of coincidentally similar haplotypes becomes trivial.? Wanna see more like this?[112]PB666 yap 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC) BTW, I agree with this statement, however it is currently not at this moment true, its WP:CRYSTAL and opinion.
Good example of the nonsense you produce, and I suppose I should be thankful that you deigned to give an example to back up an accusation. The sentence you mention was just a question of word choice. You do not disagree with it. You know it is true. In the end we found out that you did not like the word "trivial" and so you changed from "reduces to a level which in many cases is considered by experts in this field to be trivial" to the Martian English dialect "reduces but does not eliminate uncertainty about closeness of genetic relationship"[113]. I never had a problem with that because it means effectively the same thing. If you had ever presented this as a simple word preference question, like as if you were just an editor on Wikipedia and not a prophet, we would have had about 10,000 words less wasted. The amount of time spent on this trivial word has to be seen to be believed. You talked all over the place about "the collapse = k / (#STR)^0.5" and how I must not understand the literature. You cited all kinds of irrelevant things, for example especially articles about mitochondrial DNA which have nothing to do with STR haplotypes. [114] Patent nonsense. An absolutely wanton waste of time. If this is not disruptive behavior, what is?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I love those closing words which you added for emphasis. They make your point very succinctly: I agree with this statement, however it is currently not at this moment true, its WP:CRYSTAL and opinion. So you agree with something not true. I want to point out that not only do you think the sentence correct, you also never presented this as a matter where my wording differed from the published literature. I told you I can go get a source when I have a moment and IIRC you also said you could. Your disagreement is with the morons who get published, even though in this particular case you actually agree with them. See [115]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just in case it is not clear, when Wikipedians complain about "original research" they are not saying that the original research of published authors should be avoided.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that with large numbers of well characterized STRs just as I agree that if pigs had big enough wings they might fly. The problem is that you could not support your statment, either on the Main or the Talk. If you had supported your statement and given a fair disclosures of strengths and weaknesses of the argument, consequently you begged a response, just as you have 10 or so threads on the page right now where you are begging a response and not getting any.

I can not do anything more to correct the failings of the Y-DNA subgroup of projects than I have already done.

  • I have created graphs and tables that fixed the copyvio problems
  • I have showed you how to clean up text and make it vastly more readable
  • I have pointed out the large contradictions using WP:BOLD
  • I have advised you how not to edit as to draw in conflict.
This is done and no more. In addition I have dealt with your underhanded tricks like blanking the comments page. PB666 yap 21:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is he-said she-said stuff. I would have been happy to review your new evidence for STR confidence intervals for haplotypes up to 60STR if you would have at any point provided a reference. You provided opinion instead. Thats the problem, I asked at least once for the references to counter what I had collected and you just grand-standed. OK, thats why talk pages inflated. You also tried to pick a fight over Indo-Aryan which after 10 years on the UseNet had seen many times abused in its use, you said this was not the case. You have the example above of patent nonsense, but the reality is that most sources of variance can be conditioned based upon binomial probability, with relative variance shrinking not precisely but close to the rate described above. I repeat I thought that the material did not belong on the page, but you put me to a point whereby I did need to deal with your intransigence on the issue.PB666 yap 21:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This page clearly has become WP:TLDR, I will be working on mtEve and Haplogroup A page, any issues of original research or complaints should be place their, to that degree I will eliminate any proven instances, no problem. As for the Y-DNA pages, good luck on your adventure, wish you well, but don't call me again to intervene in any edit wars you find yourself in Andrew, because from my perspective you reach a point of objectivity but cannot go any further.PB666 yap 21:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry WP folken, I am going to leave you here to deal with these two.PB666 yap 21:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am missing something. Mitochondrial Eve is one of the articles raised in this Noticeboard notice as a place where you are asserting OR. How do you get to just declare that you'll be keeping a hold of this turf while the "WP folken" may have some others?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: While I have answered the questions involving original research, when asked to provide a reference for his POV he chose to switch the subject. Where is the reference for the 'trivial' statement and other statements that followed on the talk page, Andrew? Hypocrite!PB666 yap 02:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered questions. You never answer questions. You write long postings which when analyzed contain nothing but hot air and completely false accounts of discussions that never happened or things which are not relevant. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
And, what reference are you asking for? There are diffs for everything I mentioned above?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry if this is flogging a tangential horse, but I am worried about all misunderstandings with PB666 (look at how they have spun out of control) so I just comment, after reading over this several times and trying to understand what this OR accusation could refer to:-
  • I have said above that we had no real talk page discussion about the word trivial. You tried to discuss it as some sort of OR question at great length, but when you finally just made your edit that is when I realized it was just a wording question. In this respect it seems very odd to ask me to show a talk page discussion about my use of the word trivial. There was none. I defended the logic of the sentence, which was, as I said at the time tautological, and therefore not really one people would normally raise big issues about.
  • If what you mean is "show me the sourcing you did for that sentence I tagged" then this is also very odd. The accusation you are supposedly justifying here is that I inserted original research, not that I was too slow putting in a source. (You and I both know that the current article has sourcing from 2 articles, one I added and one you added. I am sure you and I could find a dozen more.) You have stated yourself that you never actually disagreed with the sentence (except the word choice trivial).
Hope this helps clarify. Thinking this and other examples through I notice how your talk page remarks often worsen communication. I remember working with you on articles where we had almost no relevant talkpage discussion and managing some fairly to improve things together. But the big posts about the Y DNA morons and male divinity have built up and made everything difficult. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Final question

Not to drop a bomb and leave, Andrew mentions Sharma et al. 2009, this has a bearing on an edit war that Andrew and another editor engaged in. The question, given Sharma et al. provides a respectable presentation and given that R-M420 split previously between R1a and R1*, how is it that the respectable Sharma et al. and there R1*'s are not mentioned at all in the section on R-M420? Is it because the R-M420 work isn't that good or is it because you don't trust their designation of R1*. You just had an editor come and say R1a* open and shut case " The evidence to support the origin of R1a1 is overwhelming...." but with Sharma et al.'s R1* it is clear the case is not overwhelming, so why is that data excluded, did you not invite the critique?PB666 yap 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For form's sakes:
  • I did not mention Sharma anywhere above, or in any recent posts anywhere. Maybe not for weeks?
  • I am not involved in any edit war about Sharma, and have not been discussing him at all recently. There is no critique of me excluding anything.
  • There was a single purpose visitor who wanted more Indian data posted in the article. We surely know what that was about? I think it may be a friend of the person who once thanked me for making an enormous table of data including all the Sharma data. Problem is that there was a near unanimous decision to move it to a separate data article. You would stun me if you would say you objected to that split.
  • M420 was discovered after the publication of Sharma et al. 2009. They could not test for it. You know this. Nothing wrong with that.
  • No-one simply sequences whole chromosomes in order to work out phylogenies, because the costs make this impossible. There is no point criticizing people for this.
The point is absurd, but that you would make it here and think it a bomb is indeed astounding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Answer 1 : you quoted a statement by me that is listed above concerning Sharma et al. (2009) after which I stated that despite the weaknesses in the paper it should be mentioned in the section on R1a* otherwise we would have conflict.
No, you did not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Answer 2 You were involved in an edit war where the exclusiong of Sharma et al.(2009) was a factor in the conflict.
No. Did not happen.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Answer 3 - You have repeatedly inferred that some critic or another critice is my WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT and assuming bad faith about their intentions by linking them to me, when they are only drawing the same conclusion I drew reading the text. Repeatedly you have engaged in WP:OWN the current denial of the problem is just another example.
I never made any such inferences, and I am even on record telling others this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Answer 4 - *M420 was discovered after Sharma et al. 2009 and I do know that, no conflict, however how many instances of R1* have been found where tested that were not R-M420 positive? This is something not discussed on the page. Ergo, that is worthy of placing a 'there is possibly R1a* (R-M420) within India since R1* that was not R1b or not R-SRY1532.2 has been tested elsewhere and found to be R-M420 or these could be explained by a new R1 type.' A statement I recommended to avoid the appearance of favoring one region over another. In areas of India R1* is more common than in West Asia, therefore avoidance of this issue might be inferred as information suppression.
R1* (checked for M420 and found negative) is discussed in the article, but I do not think we have data for it. M420 has only just been announced. This is just silly. There has never been any suppression of information about this!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Answer 5 - That was not part of the question, but since you ask it, the critical weakness of the Y-studies is that within the hetero-chromatin region of Y they have only sequenced complete a handful of humans, as a consequence the molecular clocking of SNPs is greatly crippled, as you-yourself stated, we still don't know how many SNPs lie between R1 and R1a1a at the moment. Even though one author who added 2 unique mutations (Page07 and Page68) claims to have a reference sequence of a R1 that is apparently R1a1a8.
Yes, science does not know everything. Why do you keep calling the things science does not know "failings"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Conclusion, you did invite the critique, I saw the issue, reported the issue to you, and another editor got confused and drew the same conclusion and then made a statement. I likewise saw the problem with Andronovo culture and language linkages, many of the issues I have brought up are reported by other editors either as critiques. These types of issues on talk-pages are necessary to improve articles, just as the R1a article has improved. I encourage everyone who has critiques to critique it, I even invited critiques, but I also invite you to back off WP:OWN issue and start working with editors, if two or more editors independently find a problem, even if they do not word the problem the same way, it indicates a problem that needs to be worked on. You should never assume, imply or otherwise denigrate them as WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK as you have done, niether make fun of their background. One editor complained about More appropriate, West Asia or Middle East, I pointed out to you that some Asians are not comfortable or familiar with middle East or Near East, what you did was revert my edit including two grammatical changes, 2wice, when I went to add this critique to the comments page I found you had deleted the comments page. Clearly there are problems here that go beyond my edits on MtEve page.PB666 yap 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No editor complained. You never pointed anything out to me. You are still talking about discussions which never happened. No diffs and lots of words. Do you figure you can say anything you like if you make yourself as incomprehensible as possible?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, Are my statements original research or are they statements designed to steer editors away from adding information that would invite future critiques and edit wars. Some of the harshness of my words actually stems from the issue of low-quality research, even Andrew identifies this and has stated this in the Talk pages (The STR clocking 'fudge factor' for instance) Andrew has also promoted on the talk page unpublished sources of corrections (original research). However, I did not come to this page crying Andrew has done original research. Instead what I did was found a reference that supported his POV. To find one reference I read a 69 pages, 2 articles, of Klysovo found an appropriate reference and quoted the material so that he could use it in the article. The low quality research particularly from 2006 and previous, which invited the comment on the WP:HGH page.
You are saying again that I promoted unpublished research? But then what you are talking about is a case where I just had not reference and you knew there were plenty around? Do you think that this is what the Wikipedia original research policy is about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"In closing, I would like to remind everyone that the hierarchical haplogroup nomenclature, like the field itself, has been changing very rapidly; to illustrate this, take a look at Y haplogroup trees from 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, early 2008, and mid 2008. – Swid (talk · edits) 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)"

The issue with Muntawand is different, he has been accussed of being an Afrocentrist and makes a number of POV edits, I bend over backwards to present all POVs within a Major theory, Minor theory context, I have eliminated alot of popular literature inspired POV edits from the mtDNA eve page while retaining the critiques that the populalr literature is based upon and I have presented all points of veiw as possible, while eliminating extreme points of view. There can be no doubt that MW is up to WP:GAME as this is consistent with past manipulative behaviors (i.e. sock puppetry).PB666 yap 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What a very cheap argument.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Walls of text

Fellow editors, the issue was brought to this noticeboard to get opinions from uninvolved editors. Unfortunately they may not be able help if we keep bombarding this noticeboard with technical language that editors in the general community may not be familiar with. We should keep the discussion about STRs, SNPS, Andronovo, 420 on the respective articles. The discussion here should be mainly about policy issues. The issue at hand, whether Pdeitiker's edits to articles and talk pages are his own analysis that his own analysis has never been published. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am addressing your critique on the mitochondrial Eve page.PB666 yap 05:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
What this means is that the Mitochondrial Eve talk page is now being loaded up with more walls of words. This is not what article talk pages are for. Wikipedia is a community, with its own norms.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this is beyond insane. PB, this is not the place to re-argue your points of view, and adding these huge spans of text does nothing to help your case. It's bordering on tendentious. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
My edits on mtEve talk page were brief in my comments and consisted from recent quoted material from the literature. I stated the case concisely, clearly and as brief as possible.PB666 yap 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The diff I posted above was at least 5kb. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are some remarkable similarities to this ANI report, which led to these editing restrictions. Hans Adler 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If the tendency towards obfuscation and verbosity persists, then ANI will the next step since a similar case was brought there before. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Pdeitiker, Thank you for a short answer, for once (you probably should have stated it this concicely from the start)... If I understand your argument, you are saying that your edits do not constitute Original Research, but are a summary of current published materials. Before we can examine whether this is or is not the case... Is this a correct statement of your view of the issue? Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Quick interjection here, Blueboar. The data Pdeitiker is using does not appear to be his own original research (at least in most cases), but his analysis and synthesis of it is, and while this clears him as far as WP:OR proper is concerned it unfortunately runs us up against WP:SYNTH - not to mention the various tendentious behaviours on display (the "walls of text" strategy). I am thinking about how we can best deal with this. Moreschi (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This was going to be my next question. :>) I am trying to get Pdeitiker to discuss his view of the conflict in terms of this policy, and not in terms of the topic itself. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Blueboar To give instances.
  • As currently edited by Micheal C. Price (note not accusing him) Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 228,000 - 82,000 years ago. He is using the TMRCA from Gonder and also the lower probability value from Endicott and Ho. The value from Endicott and Ho is a low end of the 95%CI (95% is a standard for confidence ranges). The value 228 Ka, I don't know where it comes) But I think the author was trying to use 194.3 +/- 32.5 ka (Which is the end of the 68.4% confidence range) (226.8 Ka to be exact). The 95% CI comparable that is comparable to the stated CI of Endicott and Ho (82 to 133 Ka) for Gonder et al.'s estimate is 129 ka to 259 Ka. The value that was on the page previously was based on Ingman et al. 2000 at 95%CI or 70 ka to 270 ka (I placed it an it was considered WP:SYNTH but 171.5 +/- 50 ka would generally be considered as a 95% Confidence range of 71,500 to 271,500 years also WP:SYNTH.
The problem is that to remain any form of consistency we are drawn into WP:SYNTH. I personally don't think we should mix confidence intervals type when comparing values (e.g. using in the same sentence a 1SD confidence endpoint and a 2SD confidence endpoint. PB666 yap 17:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
To spell this out fully:
  1. Use the mean date (e.g. 171,500 years) of several papers. This method lacks the full range of values possible and makes dates look more certain than they actually are. Some authors have stopped using Means and only use confidence intervals (rare but notable).
  2. Use the one SD range 171,500 and WP:SYNTH by adding SD 50,000 to arrive at 221,500, only dates which present range in this manner can be used together. (~68% confidence range)
  3. Use the two SD (95% confidence range) of either stated in papers or using WP:SYNTH to convert these to ranges (e.g. 171,500 +/- 50000 become 71500 to 271500).
To state for the record TMRCA estimates are skewed toward higher times, and so +/- ranges are invariably bias ranges more recent relative to the actual confidence range that authors of these papers may actually calculate. TMRCA estimates are calculated based on probability which involves natural logs (See The Coalescent) and error is derived from natural log also. From the page Coalescent theory The standard exponential distribution has both the expected value and the standard deviation equal to 2N; therefore, although the expected time to coalescence is 2N, actual coalescence times have a wide range of variation.
  • Another issue, for Y-DNA there are two diametric methods of dating, one method is geneology based and works for real time and close genetic relationships. However when relationships are 64,000 years old (or older) this method is in error by a 66% reduction in estiamte time to common ancestor in most recent common ancestor estimate. This method has a correction but as used in the literature that correction is not useful for common ancestor estimates below 30,000 years. And, yet it is applied indiscriminantly (see: [Klysovo 2009a] reference on the R1a page). Andrew used a critique concerning this in the R1a page, and although he did not have a reference I allowed this to be added (Despite the SYNTH) because it was a widely recognized problem. Fortunately, I found in a very recent (1 month old reference) to support his case. The other major method works either based on archaeological assumption single nucleotide polymorpisms or CHLCA. For Y-DNA the last method has serious problems.PB666 yap 17:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • For the specific problem we are currently discussing? Problems like these methods are scattered all over the published literature. As Soares states Genetic range estimates for the CHLCA are 4 to 8 Ma and Paleonotological estimates range from 6 to 13 Ma. I have a preference of 7.6 Ma (POV) but that accompanies a confidence interval of -1 to +3 million years. For example, Soares used an estimate of 6.5 Ma, however in November all TMRCA estimates below 7 Ma became obsolete, and even Soares pointed in his own materials and methods that some genetic methods previously ignored may need reconsideration.White TD, Asfaw B, Beyene Y, et al. (October 2009). "Ardipithecus ramidus and the paleobiology of early hominids". Science. 326 (5949): 75–86. PMID 19810190.PB666 yap
  • The other issue we have throughout many projects is the use of data points. An example is 1 R1a in 30 people sampled. Sometimes percents (either original material or converted by editors). But the problem is, if you take a look at the best papers, confidence ranges are given. Confidence ranges represent the 95% CI and is the most honest representation. Instead we get into edit-wars because one authors data point is 0/30 (no presence) and the next authors is 10/60 (16% presence) , both are possible according to the binomial probability distribution for the same rate. The fact of the matter is that there is alot of WP:SYNTH going on within the project on a point by point basis because there is simly very little choice to make the material understandable.PB666 yap 17:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem stated in the previous section, there was a name change in R1a, not a small name change, all names were shifted outward to include a new branch point. In doing this one author converted the R1* (Paragroup) from most places tested to R1a* (R-M420). But they did not survey certain areas of India, which are also R1* and maybe R1a*, this left the impression that R1a originated in the Fertile crescent (general region). We need the liberty of saying that not all R1* was converted and some R1* (which has a higher percent than the middle east) may be R1a*.
  • Mapping is also a problem, we are forbidden by WP:COPYVIO from introducing certain maps, the current map foron R1a page may be WP:COPYVIO, I am keeping my mouth shut on the issue. The reason: map creation based on base maps for wikipedia should be strait forward, but when you start reading literature you find the authors do not disclose appropriate names for peoples (That was my critique for Sharma et al. Their figure legends were atrocious), and boundary definitions for peoples (e.g. Northern Russian) is not a defined people-geography and coordinates are almost never given. In addition maps like the R1a1a* without WP:SYNTH will tend to reflect one authors study over another, because of this they are removed from pages because they are POV. For example the data from Sharma et al. appears to be left out of this map.PB666 yap 17:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There is alot of WP:SYNTH in the HGH project, I am keeping my mouth shut on most of these issues because of the necessity conversion bring forths, but it has created some atrocious pages. The mtEve will be fixed, I have committed to bring this article back, but some of these pages have problems for years, data keeps being added and no attempt to organize articles according to WP:MOS in fear of making WP:MOS edit that violates WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.PB666 yap 17:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Stop stop stop... I just thanked you for posting a short and concise comment... and here you go presenting me with a wall of jargon and text. I am not interested in the "for instance" (at least not at this point). And I definitely don't care about the specifics of the topic (I would not understand the difference between R1* and R2D2 in any case. What I do know and care about is this policy and how to interpret it.
I am trying to play devil's advocate here and keep an open mind, but the more you try to explain why you are not adding OR, the more convinced I am that you are adding OR. Finally, the fact that there may be a lot of other people adding synthesis is not an excuse to add your own. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
OK I will try distilling these problems down to short issues is difficult. Interpretation of WP:SYNTH is problematic, I removed my WP:SYNTH from the lead and it was replaced with another version of WP:SYNTH by another editor. What I describe above is working from the text of literature into a fair representation is frequently and innocently going to cross WP:SYNTH. Science articles are intended for people like myself, in terms of making the data accessible to the public or this encyclopedia requires some conversion. In terms of the CHLCA every author is currently aware of the problem, but they simply grab one CHLCA and go with it, Caveot Emptor. For almost every genetic or geneology page we face similar issues. Some people make big issues of WP:SYNTH and some do not, it is frequently friend or foe based.PB666 yap 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I was confused, I thought you were asking an open ended question about conflicts in policy, and I am trying to describe to you that these policy conflicts commonly exist, I am stating to you that these violations depend on where and how the wall between casual conversion and something else. With concern to WP:SYNTH If someone can point to a better way of presenting something that is WP:SYNTH or catches the WP:SYNTH, I go by the WP:SOFIXIT, which is probably what is going to happen with mtDNA eve, simply find a way to fix it.PB666 yap 18:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

PB666 yap 18:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Pdeitiker, the thread is not about one specific controversy, it is about your overall style of editing. One of the first complaints about your verbosity came as a result of your edits to aviation related articles, and not genetics [116]. This pattern is repeated in almost every article you edit regardless of the subject matter. This is beginning to affect your ability to collaborate with other editors. Your refusal to acknowledge this problem is troubling and it is you who stands to lose out. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Wap... if this is about PB's over all editing patterns, and not about the genetics articles in specific... then you do need to take this to ANI. This noticeboard is really for discussion of OR issues at specific articles, and not about specific editors. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That there are multiple problems is obvious. There is an attempt here to treat it as an OR problem, and that implies that OR is a cause amongst the effects. I believe any reading of the material shows this is reasonable. There is a grudge or grudges concerning this field, i.e. against the published authors and the editors who want to just repeat what is mainstream, which is clearly driving various editing and talkpage patterns which are in turn highly disruptive. Simply saying it is someone else's problem might sound reasonable if the aim were to work like a lawyer, but not if your aim is to resolve an editing issue on the encyclopedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The confusion PB666 mentions about the question, as well as the crazy examples he chooses, are interesting in themselves. The discussions further above show him implying that he believes OR can mean:
  • Citing peer reviewed authors who he feels are too speculative, or whose work seems questionable when you compare them to other literature which says that, etc etc.
  • Posting something which is obviously, but without putting in a source, even temporarily (and saying you'll get it soon). And in that case (the one where he was worried about the word "trivial") his talkpage arguments never show him accusing anyone of posting something which was different from what is in published sources. Again it shows him saying stuff like yes, of course there are morons in this field who say things like this. (diffs all above)
Do I have problems believing that he really misunderstands this? Yes. But it might be true. One way or the other, what do you do?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:AGF I am trying to get a fair ventilation of the problem, I am not bearing a grudge here, I am trying to represent the from a Neutral Point of View. Literally, if I were to turn and play the devil's advocate, and had one free afternoon this page would be top-loaded with incidences and you would have a section all to yourself. Andrew in 90% plus of the time I agree with the intent of what you been added. We need for them to define the line, I would think ASAP, so that we do-not cross over it for whatever reason. What constitutes a conversion and what constitutes more complex math or statistics, that was the question. In addition when there are policy conflicts, such has having a readable lead versus having some WP:SYNTH free assemblage of assorted factoids, where does policy fall?PB666 yap 20:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The Policy falls on having a WP:SYNTH free readable lead. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Certain problems on wikipedia don't fit neatly into any one category. This issue certainly has aspects of original research, but it also has other issues as well, and a case could be made for any one of the noticeboards. Should the problem persist, then ANI is definitely an option, however some form of dispute resolution should be attempted first, and this noticeboard is a good place to start. The folks at ANI prefer not to deal with messy content disputes. There was a specific issue regarding population size estimates in one of the above threads that may have been WP:SYNTH, and the table in question is no longer in the article. So some issues can be dealt with here. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK... lets take the issues one at a time

OK, then let's try to deal with at least some of the issues here.... but let's do so in an organized way... issue by issue... one by one. Would someone please choose an instance of potential OR that is in the article?... right now, don't explain why you think it is (or is not) OR ... right now just point us to what it is (and if you can link to a dif that would help). Those of us who are not regularly involved in the articles can then examine it... and ask more questions. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Chuckling looking down the page, Blueboar there are WP:SYNTH issues in the mtDNA article some are mine and some are others, the article is finally getting some edits it needs in terms of alternate POVs. In terms of the R1a article, most of the SYNTH _that I know_ has been hashed out, if there is synth on the page I am not aware of it, and most of the page has been rewritten. In terms of the haplogroup A I am going through the citations right now, some things were given poor references so eventually we can cut these out. Just to clear up this issue on a fairly easy page.PB666 yap 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Specific question is this sentence WP:SYNTH "Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 228,000 - 82,000 years ago."Given that the sentence that supports the first date in the literature is: "Our TMRCA estimate for the global mtDNA genome tree is 194.3 +/- 32.55 kya" is this acceptable equating 194.3 + 32.55?PB666 yap 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
R1b is an example of the types of pages I am talking about.PB666 yap 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(note... I will be away from my computer for a few hours... so I may not get back to you for a while) Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Some examples. Of course OR, SYNTH and sometimes NEUTRAL can overlap a bit:
  • [117], see the organized questions peter out and eventually:
Here is the major point, Wikipedia genetics articles should not be a platform for the spread of speculation in other feilds of research, our task here is to explain R1a, not what the National Enquirer says. Unless the foundations for the assertions are firm it does not belong here. If the authors who made these assertions are not clear on the cultural science or they are producing handwaving arguments, we are not obligated to place these style of arguments here. We only have to produce Major theories and major minor theories. That is the extent of the obligation. The major theory on hand right now is that R1a spread from south Asia, the minor theory is that it spread from Western Asia or Central Asia (bending over backwards and allowing a minor/minor theory). That is the extent of the obligation. We are not obligated to propogate hypothesis of origins with very little genetic support and a very confused and confusing cultural association. If you want to discuss this modern age myth, it is best placed in the 'in popular culture' section. Cut the crap out of the article or I will. but then try to work out what the theory is which he is here effectively accusing of being fringe and "published in the National Enquirer". He is actually talking about genetics articles published in the mainstream. He uses the argument that "Geneticist are not authorities on cultural evolution or language-type evolution" but the bit about languages etc being cited is standard and orthodox, the idea that many Indian languages come from the direction of Europe. If you have the strength to read through you will find that he actually argues that Indian languages might descend from Hittite, which is pure fringe.
  • The continuation is here: [118]. "That is the problem. If an author makes an error in speculation, and we simply carry forward that speculation with no critique, then WP becomes the source of speculation. The original author may have changed his mind or corrected the error years ago" This was in defense of a tag he put in the article claiming I had inserted OR!
  • Here again similar accusation of me doing OR by citing a published author: [119]
  • [120], in the context of [121]. See bolded repetition: "You have even recapitulated the R1a* aspect of Underhills table. To perpetuate this myth any longer is a major distraction to the page." "No more mythologys."
  • [122] in the context of [123]. What he is saying here is that his long postings on the talk page should be taken into account for what should be in Wikipedia, because it is just like if someone would sent you an article you did not know about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But please do not ignore the example discussed right here, just above: Wapondaponda's question to PD about his source, and his subsequent explanation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrew: I've said this before. Last time I'll say it. The way this discussion has blown up into a mess of obfuscation is clear evidence of some flavour of disruptive editing. I strongly advise: quit trying to discuss the topic against overwhelming odds. You are dealing with an appallingly tendentious editor. Cut to the chase and open a user conduct RFC about PB666. If you don't, despite being uninvolved, I will. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

PDeitiker's edits are tantamount to OR, seem to be directed personally against Andrew, and are flooding the R1a talk page (given they are excessive and tangential). Reasoning with him does not appear to have worked Hxseek (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Gordon, I did not open the OR case, but I am trying to take it seriously because as hxseek also sees, this is a core aspect of the thing. I am not sure, but might it not be considered forum sopping to start another kind of case at the same time?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, When I asked for an example of OR, what I wanted was someone to point to an example of actual article text they thought was OR. I was not looking for links to talk page discussions. Sorry if I was not clear.
Sigh... To be honest, I think I will have to give up on attempting to help here. It is clear that the issues go far deeper than OR violations. I have noticed that on both this notice board and at the talk page discussions being linked, everyone involved seems to be talking past each other. I get the feeling that all sides in this dispute are a bit guilty of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT... so... I am going to suggest that we end the discussion here at this noticeboard. I really think you need to move to the next step in dispute resolution. I think you need an official mediator to work with you at the article talk page. Best of luck. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This specific debate can be brought to a close. There were at least two clear areas of WP:SYNTH, and at least one is mentioned in one of the above threads. Both have been withdrawn by the editor who added the material. So yes there was synth occuring. However much of the problem concerns spamming talk pages and obfuscation of facts which resulted in subtle POVs throughout the articles in question. There is general agreement on this noticeboard that obfuscation occurred and is problematic. Since PB666 is aware of the problem, no further action may be necessary at this point. If issues continue, then ANI or an RFC will be the next step, and we can cite these threads in the event that this issue is escalted further. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. I am keeping notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/PB666 . If others concerned about this issue want to help keep that page up-to-date and complete, please do. Since this discussion started to get third parties who were willing to make very clear comments I must say there seems to have been a temporary lull in events. But for the time being I am learning from the past and not assuming this is finished.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, before you go can you address this issue.

The current lede states:
"Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 228,000 - 82,000 years ago."
Given that the sentence that supports the first date in the literature is:
"Our TMRCA estimate for the global mtDNA genome tree is 194.3 +/- 32.55 kya"

is this acceptable equating 194.3 + 32.55 to 228,000?

I did not write this, I prefer this but if it is unacceptable I can replace it with a range-end quoted in the literature that is slightly lower.

And BTW, I am listening and I did hear you.PB666 yap 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, assuming that these numbers come from the same source, the arithmatic is flawed ... 194.3 + 32.55 = 226.85, which would round to up 227... not 228, and 194.3 - 32.55 = 161.75 which would round to 162 (or 161 if you wanted to round down for a broader range), but the idea of adding and subtracting the more specific numbers and then rounding is fine (simple arithmatic is not considered OR). Perhaps the estimation range is based on something else? What do the sources say? Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Presumbably based on the style its a 1 standard deviation range. It appears to be an arithmatic error. OK so this is fine, gotcha.PB666 yap 23:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If the source was providing an age estimate with a 1 standard error range, years ago, it would not be correct to paraphrase this as "X is estimated to have occurred between and years ago", but at least you could wrap a probability statement around this to make it right. It is much less sensible to combine endpoints for two such ranges, and , and interpret this as "X is estimated to have occurred between and years ago". Am I right to think this is what is being done here? If so, this would be a clear case of original research, in my view. Combining statements of uncertainty is not straightforward (see e.g. meta-analysis), and goes well beyond simple arithmetic. -- Avenue (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
One comment... The sentence in question comes from the lede. We do give a bit more leway in the lede, assuming that what is briefly mentioned and summarized there is more fully explained in the main text. If the numbers in the estimate represent the highest and lowest estimates given by different sources, it would not be OR for the lede to say something along the lines of: "There are various estimates given for when Mitochondrial Eve lived, ranging between 228,000 years ago and 82,000 years ago."... assuming you discuss these estimates (and who derived them) further in the main body of the text. In fact, doing so would help make it clear to the reader that there are differences of opinion in the scientific community. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Good point. The larger estimate that should go in the lead would then be the 194 kya figure, though, since that is the estimate from the study cited. Our derived range endpoint of 228 (or 227) has little meaning on its own, or attached to an estimate from a different study. -- Avenue (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave that up to those who know the math and the various studies and sources... my point was simply that, in an article or section lede, it is OK to combine estimates from different sources in one sentence, as long as: a) it is clear to the reader that this is what is being done and b) you discuss the different studies and estimates seperately later in the text. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Having now looked further into the cited source, I see that the range is in fact a 95% confidence interval. Taking one end of this range is probably not as bad. My general point still stands; calculations as simple as addition can give misleading or meaningless results, and can then constitute original research. -- Avenue (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
BB and Avenue - Avenue you are correct, in applying TMRCAs and Population size estimates both are considered to be skewed to higher values.("The standard exponential distribution has both the expected value and the standard deviation equal to 2N", Coalescent_theory) This is why I don't like using SD values. The end-ranges now used are both based on 95% CI, I have changed the sentence to reflect Soares 95% CI and Endicott and Ho's CI (234 to 82) and have entered the ", with the majority of estimates clustered around 200,000 years ago". Avenue you are also correct on the other issue, even two 95% CI do not mesh together, one or the others assumptions was wrong, it was for this reason that I set up the CHLCA versus TMRCA, because the next study next year will use a higher CHLCA and the Error ranges are not based on CHLCA (extrinsic errors) but intrinsic errors. If I was allowed to SYNTH the table the table would be timeless with regard to the changes in extrinsic errors, at least that side of the problem would be dealt with. The problem with archaeological anchoring is more complicated. I think the current situation is probably the best with regard to not taking a POV, to make it fair I would have to SYNTH both CHLCA based studies (which has precedence in the literature) and arch based studies with does not (OR), and that would spell trouble.PB666 yap
The general complaint has been that PB666 is exaggerating the controversy about the date when Mitochondrial Eve (mtEve) lived. The time when mtEve lived is determined statistically. The dates depend on input variables, such as sample size or types of samples used. Dates also depend on the method used. IOW independent studies will always produce different results and there is no single "correct date". Despite this, many of the recent studies have published dates that are quite similar, around 200kya. It is interesting that very first study from 1980 suggested that mtEve may have lived as recently as 180kya, and the second more comprehensive study from 1987 suggested a date between 140-280kya, mean 210kya. There are a few studies that have published recent dates such as 108kya, but these are, at present, outliers. This particular study was not primarily dedicated to dating mtEve, but rather to illustrate differences in dating techniques. After 30 years of dating, there has not been a radical departure from the very first study.
Muntawandi does not understand the fundamental nature of the critiques, all sites in mtDNA are plagued with issues, rapidly evolving sites undergo saturation, slowly evolving sites can undergo adaptive selection or purifying selection. This is all heavily referenced stuff. Which I can provide here if needed.PB666 yap 00:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
In short I believe PB666 is exaggerating problems with dating because there is a high degree of consistency in the dates published by independent studies. The outliers should not be given equal weight, per WP:UNDUE. It is for this reason that using the full range of some published dates (234,000-82,000) in the lead creates the missimpression that all dates in this range are equally likely, when in fact most dates cluster around 200kya. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
And is there something wrong with saying "There are various estimates given for when Mitochondrial Eve lived, ranging between 228,000 years ago and 82,000 years ago, with the majority of estimates clustered around 200,000 years ago". Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be barely acceptable. But the problem is the date of 82,000 is very much an outlier, as it creates serious problems for the out of Africa hypothesis which is the mainstream theory on human origins. According to this theory, mtEve must have lived long before the Out of Africa migration which may have taken place as early as 80,000 years ago. If she didn't live before the out of Africa migration, she wouldn't be mtEve. I have listed a few pages of google book searches

A variety of dates and ranges are used, but the most frequently cited date is 200,000 years ago. My proposal is to mention 200,000 years ago in the lead, and give a more detailed discussion in the body of the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That is original research, MW. The article that quotes the 82 ka endpoint reflects on a problem that all papers have identified and discussed. It is mentioned in Soares et al., in Endicott and Ho, and in several papers that have identified rates of mutation in the peripheral branches 4 to 5 times (for non-wobble coding) than in the deepest branches. They are quoted on the talk-page. Muntawandi is essentially arguing that all these recent papers based on a larger collection of genomic mtDNA are wrong, that only his interpretation is correct. As a matter of fact I think the TMRCA is over 200,000 BP; however I also have to take NPOV, which means that all relevant points of view should be included. Soares presents a TMRCA of 192,000 years but he assumes all selection is purifying. However is some selection is adaptive the TMRCA will be lower than his estimate, but that is balanced by a CHCLA that is undetermined. Ergo, I think the article should reflect the range of uncertainty.23:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Folks this issue was never about OR, its about what MW wants to present, he fails to see that E&H present exit times from Africa as low as 50 ka and within that range 82 ka is tolerant of both growth in Africa and later exit. Second, there is a possibility that mtDNA could have spread as a consequence of a selective sweep, later. On the main page a near complete list of TMRCAs are given, now both showing SD range or confidence ranges, I think the trends are apparent, and folks can draw their own conclusion without editors biasing those conclusions with POVs, which is what I wanted to begin with.PB666 yap 23:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with the sentence "There are various estimates given for when Mitochondrial Eve lived, ranging between [234,000] years ago and 82,000 years ago, with the majority of estimates clustered around 200,000 years ago" I replaced 228,000 with 234,000 since this is the 95CI range from Soares [Supplimentary material] which matches the range type from Endicott and Ho.PB666 yap 23:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
A lot of problems, I cannot find anywhere in Endicott et al. 2009 where the figure of 82,000 is coming from, their point estimate is 108,000 years ago. It seems like original research by tinkering with CIs to come up with 82,000. The figure of 108,000 itself is only mentioned in the images on page 4 and 5, and is never discussed at all in the body, which demonstrates that this date was not the emphasis of the article. Are there any other reliable studies, that have published similar dates, not as far as I know. It is for this reason, I would safely consider the 108,000 years and especially the 82,000 year date as outliers.
On the upper bound, there are also problems as well, why is only Soares et al. 2009 cited for the upper bound of 234,000. Cann et al. 1987 published an upper limit of 280,000 years ago. Brown et al. 1980 published 360,000 years ago. But if we were to include these older studies, then the range would be 360-108, very wide indeed.
What I have mentioned above is not "original research", it is simply WP:search engine test for notability. According to the search engine test, 200,000 years ago, or dates close to 200,000 years ago, are the most frequently cited dates for mitochondrial Eve. While other dates have been published, they are not as frequently cited, and some dates are cited only in one publication. Our goal should be to give greater weight to mainstream views. Minority views can be mentioned, but not given WP:UNDUE weight. Fringe views can be ignored altogether. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I just want to know Muntuwandi, after playing the sockpuppet game, after playing the edit warring game, how long are you going to play this game? The paper is Endicott and Ho 2008. Not Endicott et al. 2009, the sentenced is clearly referenced Endicott, P; Ho, SY (April 2008), "A Bayesian evaluation of human mitochondrial substitution rates", Am. J. Hum. Genet. 82 (4): 895–902, doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.01.019, PMID 18371929. The paper and page has been quoted before, do I need to place a page, a paragraph number of the page, a sentence and a word within the sentence in the reference to stop you from playing these games (I doubt it would since you don't appear to be reading the references)? Page 897,Paragraph 3 under Results, First sentence, line 4. Words 4 and 5. Page 898, Table 3, first section, top line under age of Human mtDNA Ancestor(kyr) Mean , "108"; under "(95% HPD)", (82-134).PB666 yap 14:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
From google search: "Mitochondrial Eve 100,000" = 6010, "Mitochondrial Eve 150,000" = 4910, "Mitochondrial Eve 200,000" = 6190, "Mitochondrial Eve 250,000" = 1,750. Results for Dates other than 200,000 exceed 200,000 by a 2:1 Margin.PB666 yap 14:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
On the issue of exaggerating the range. From 1980 to present the range is 6000 years to 760,000 years. Nei, M (November 1992), "Age of the common ancestor of human mitochondrial DNA", Mol. Biol. Evol. 9 (6): 1176–8, PMID 1435241. The date of 6000 years that was on the page was removed as this was not a TMRCA study, the date 760,000 is in the paper as this was a correction of Vigilante et al 1991. However the 760,000 year date is not stated in the lede because the methodology used is obsolete (as with the methodology used to guess at 6000 years). The low end estimate is 76,000 years higher than the lowest statement from the literature and the highest estimate, 234,000 is 526,000 years lower than the highest estimate. If anything this warrants the expansion of the top side of the range. In terms of the total range 6000 to 760000, the range given in the lede is 1/5th of the total range given in the literature.PB666 yap 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The word of the day is bias as in "Afrocentrism". This is the original research noticeboard not the WP:search engine test board.PB666 yap 14:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Whether mtEve lived until yesterday or 1 million years ago has nothing to do with "Afrocentrism". I see no reason to benefit from older or younger dates. Having read through much of the literature on mtEve, I haven't seen as much uncertainty in many of the publications as has been proposed by PB666. This is my only concern. Even though mtEve is a popular science phenomenon, mentioned in hundreds of books, and is the subject of several publications, only Endicott and Ho 2008 have published dates as recent as 82kya. The vast majority publish dates close to 200kya, and this includes several independent studies, books and news items. I am not opposed to a discussion of Endicott and Ho's theories somewhere in Wikipedia, however placing them in the range gives the false impression that the 82kya figure is cited frequently. If it is, provide evidence because at present it doesn't seem to be the case. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Then I will summarize.
A. The CHLCA which most studies you want to rely on has problems. These TMRCAs as they stand are off by 14 to 54% lower than actual, not counting sorting times.
B. The recognition of the selection problem has increased since Gonder et al. 2007. It is function of the rapid appearance of mitogenomic sequences. Within the last year about 1000 new sequences have been added (some of them have errors).
C. The degree of variance from both of these sources of error really became clear within the last 2 years (since Gonder et al. 2007), and, in particular, the last year.
D. Keeping it as simple as possible, it is not that certainty has decreased, it is that popular realization of certainty has decreased. In fact a retrospective analysis of Ingman and other papers showes confidences ranges are decreasing in size, however the variance in which confidence is based is less based on artificial precise techniques. One can expect with time and study errors that make E&H more correct in the peripheral branches to be properly corrected for in the CHLCA based studies, and errors that make E&H less correct in estimating TMRCA will be corrected for in archaeological based techniques, as it stands neither technique appears to be perfect across the entire range of time dependent mutation rate estimates.PB666 yap 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
OK... let me try again... Does anyone have an objection to "There are various estimates given for when Mitochondrial Eve lived, ranging between <earliest estimate> years ago and <most recent estimate> years ago, with the vast majority of estimates clustered around 200,000 years ago"? This seems both neutral and accurate to me as an outsider... and makes it clear that the extreme ends of the range are not generally accepted. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This is what is on the page "There are various estimates given for when Mitochondrial Eve lived, ranging between 234,000 years ago and 82,000 years before present(BP), with the majority of estimates clustered between 160,000 and 200,000 BP." As the majority (9/13) pinpoint TMRCA are between 160,000 and 200,000 BP. Alternatively we can use 180,000 years.PB666 yap 23:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ocha_background_dead was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ ضحايا مجزرة غزة يقارب الـ3 آلاف في اليوم التاسع للعدوان Archived from the original on 2009-01-06
  3. ^ Euro-Muslims Editorial Desk. "Euro Muslims' Stance on Gaza Massacre". Retrieved 2009-08-23.
  4. ^ John Docker; Ned Curthoys (January 9, 2009). "Unleashed: The Gaza Massacre". ABC (Australia). {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "Unmentioned Casualties of the Gaza Massacre". Palestine Monitor. 30 December 2008. Retrieved 2009-08-23.
  6. ^ Myrick, Sue (10-15-2009). "Myrick, Shadegg, Broun, Franks call for CAIR Investigations". U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved 2009-11-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Kyl, Jon (2-24-2009). "SCHUMER, KYL INQUIRE ABOUT RECENT FBI DECISION TO SEVER TIES WITH ISLAMIC GROUP". U.S. Senate. Retrieved 2009-11-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ Mowbray, Joel (1-10-2007). "Boxer's stand". Washington Times. Retrieved 2009-11-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ “Levitt, Mathew, Hamas : Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, Yale University Press : May 1, 2006. p. 149 ISBN 0300110537
  10. ^ Trehan, Jason (10-07-2008). "FBI: CAIR is a front group, and Holy Land Foundation tapped Hamas clerics for fundraisers". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 2009-11-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ Himelfarb, Joel (2-09-2009). "FBI Severs CAIR Ties – Group's Credibility Takes a Hit from Holy Land Terror Trial". Accuracy In Media. Retrieved 2009-11-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ "Documents detail Hamas support within U.S." Associated Press. 7-26-2007. Retrieved 2009-11-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ “Levitt, Mathew, Hamas : Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, Yale University Press : May 1, 2006. p. 148 ISBN 0300110537
  14. ^ TRAHAN, Jason (10-14-2008). "Judge due to rule on Holy Land defense evidence challenge". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 2009-11-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judges/hlf2/09-29-08/Philly%20Meeting%205E.pdf
  16. ^ Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Links to Holy Land Foundation http://www.adl.org/Israel/cair/Links2.asp
  17. ^ Government Exhibit 016-0078 3:04-CR-240-G U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation et. al http://www1.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/PalCommJuly94MeetingMin_trial2.pdf
  18. ^ Wolf, Frank (6-12-2009). "Rep. Wolf Introduces Sensitive But Unlcassified Information Into Congressional Record". Congressional Record: June 12, 2009. U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved 2009-11-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  19. ^ Epstein, Mathew (9-10-2003). ""Saudi Support for Islamic Extremism in the United States"" (PDF). Testimony of Matthew Epstein Before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security. Retrieved 2009-11-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_10&oldid=1257845711"