Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Nina Totenberg

I was wondering if a primary source can be used to establish that a secondary source is referring to an individual when the secondary source doesn't specifically mention the individual. Here is all of the primary source's discussion of NPR (full primary source available at [1] ):

Some time ago, when a spokesman for NRA called National Public Radio, to complain about a news report in which we believed that NPR had deliberately misrepresented our views. NPR series editor Larry Abramson responded, contemptuously, "your p.r. is your problem." So be it. If NPR's misrepresentations of the views of NRA are indeed "our problem," our members will endeavor to fix it. ...

The NRA has experienced this first hand. In December of 1989 NPR conducted an editorial essay, masked as a "news feature," in support of gun control. In one broadcast NPR reporter Nina Totenberg said "(t)here may be a lively debate about whether the Constitution confers on individuals the right to bear arms, but that debate is not on in America's courts, its law schools, or its scholarly legal journals. Indeed, even the National Rifle Association could not recommend for this broadcast a single constitutional law professor who would defend the Second Amendment as conferring on individuals the right to bear arms.

No debate in America's scholarly legal journals? An informal survey of the literature suggests that no less than 28 law journal articles supporting the thesis that the Second Amendment protects an individual right appeared between 1960 and 1989; this includes the American Bar Association Journal. No Constitutional law professors who support this view? Hardly. In December 1989, the very month in which Miss Totenberg made this broadcast, University of Texas Professor Sanford Levinson, a distinguished constitutional scholar, had published an article in the Yale Law Review entitled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." In the article, Professor Levinson says that the right protected (not "conferred", as she would have it), is an individual right. So on these counts, at least, she was demonstrably, flat out, wrong. Give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe America's premier legal reporter just hadn't visited a reasonably well equipped law library to review the Periodical to Legal Literature, or had not seen the Yale Law Review, when she made the broadcast.

What about the National Rifle Association and the names of the legal scholars? This is a different story. When asked for the names of scholars, NRA spokeswoman Debbie Nauser gave Miss Totenberg the names of three (3) -- count them -- scholars. There is no room for doubt here. In the words of Josiah Royce, the reporter had "willfully misplaced her ontological predicates."

More recently, the CrimeStrike Division of NRA, following the murder of several Korean-American merchants in the District of Columbia, met with a group of these merchants to discuss some legislation which we had proposed for D.C. Following this meeting, during an NPR news magazine and documentary broadcast, an NPR commentator, Bebe Moore Campbell, gave a harangue against the NRA for having attended the meeting. She said that we had gone there to tell Korean merchants that blacks are criminals. She said that our initials should stand for the "Negro Removal Association." She said that we wanted sixteen year old boys to carry Uzis because the gun would probably be used to kill a black person. ...

We have asked every one of the hundreds of NPR member stations for an opportunity to give an adequate response to a scurrilous attack. One, and only one, gave us this right.''

The secondary source is a Cleveland Plain-Dealer news article on January 20, 1995:

James H. Warner of the National Rifle Association complained about a National Public Radio report that "deliberately misrepresented our views."

Yes, that would be OR. I'm sure NPR has done a number of pieces covering various aspects of the NRA, and we cannot know that the Cleveland Plain-Dealer article from 1995 is addressing the complaint that Warner made back in 1989. An additional problem is that your primary source, from http://www.urbin.net/, is not reliable--the web site is a personal one, and the document published there appears to be been taken from Usenet, neither of which are reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't it be said that we can know that the report spoken of in the Plain-Dealer is Totenberg's report, as it is the only NPR report mentioned in the entirety of Warner's Congressional testimony that the Plain-Dealer article references (the only other thing he talks about that was aired on NPR is a commentary, not a report)? BTW, the link to the source is a convenience link only--the source can be found at Lexis-Nexis behind a paywall. I should have made that clear earlier. Drrll (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source 2ndary source that say that, you can, I think. But if you have that, you don't need the primary you listed or the secondary. WP is not about what we know or what we can figure out, but rather what is documented in reliable sources. BTW, I have access to lexis-nexis, and there's no requirement that a source be available online--if you have access to the original source, please provide a reference to that, rather than a reproduction. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian Electoral Commission

Is the Australian Electoral Commission website[2] a primary or secondary source for Liberal Democratic Party (Australia)? It is being used as source for its decision on the allowing the LDP to register under its current name and for votes it received in elections. TFD (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• The AEC presents an administrative decision, with a published date, authorising bureaucrat, and a summary, "The delegate of the Australian Electoral Commission determined that the application by the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) to change its registered name under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 should be accepted and the name (and abbreviation) Liberal Democratic Party (Liberal Democrats [LDP]) be entered in the Register of Political Parties.". The AEC is an Australian government instrumentality renowned for its impartiality, circumspect behaviour, and direct open accountability. As such, the AEC is trustworthy when stating its opinion. For the AEC to state that the LDP was approved to reregister under a certain name on a certain date, they would be a simple secondary source for this matter. While they are an "involved party" as the registering office, their public accountability and clear direct reporting of matters to the public indicates a trustworthyness and impartiality that removes them from a partial position in relation to the LDP. Treat as secondary for the summary of action, date, and authorising bureaucrat. As the AEC isn't a court, do not rely on the contained material which would require legal expertise to interpret. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not an issue of reliablity, but of the type of information. A primary source for example cannot establish notability. Articles should not be based solely on primary sources. TFD (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If the issue is notability than the AEC cannot establish notability. Any registrable organisation which applies to the AEC for registration will be registered. There is nothing which indicates a registered political party is in itself notable. The standards for Australian political party notability would be coverage in academic or significant news media reportage. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

self- supporting thin- shell dome

Hi

I'm a newbie here, and this is my first post.

The article in the subject line doesn't yet exist in Wikipedia. I have it prepared but have questions about submitting it.

The subject stands alone because of its mathematics, however the math is my own, and demonstrates the existence and proof of such a dome.

Is there a way to submit the information to Wikipedia for inclusion in Wikipedia without first finding someone to publish the math and description? In the above case, attributing to someone else's authority seems moot.

I've submitted the information to a math journal, but it wasn't published there, the response being that the journal didn't publish that specific type of math. I have several emails containing the comments of editors in response to submission of the article. Is there a simple way for me to pass the criteria for entry without time- consuming Catch-22 method?

Thanks much

Zigzagzot (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not suitable for Wikipedia as it is original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source that only covers subject matter that has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources. If and when your demonstration and proof has received such coverage, it may meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I have added a welcome message to your talk page with lots of helpful links. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Speed of gravity

For a little while now, User:Antichristos has been inserting a variety of arguments - logically dubious syntheses of other sources - in support of a fringe position. In my opinion, he has also made a number of other edits which have drastically worsened the quality of the article in order to bring it more in line with his peculiar opinions. Rafaelgr (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The one argument that matters is that a reliable source has described something. Antichristos is indulging in original research and is causing disruption. Being right or logical does not matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it has to be published and summarized reasonably faithfully in accordance with its weight in the literature. There is no literature, they should go and get their own paper published if their ideas are so wonderful. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian mortalism

Is this statement original synthesis? "A review of nine standard scholarly Jewish and Christian sources shows that the majority of them describe the Biblical view of the state of the dead in terms identical or very close to the mortalist view." It's backed up with numerous footnotes. See Christian mortalism#Modern scholarship. StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely unless there is a reliable source for this 'review of nine' sources websites, but it seems to have been done by an editor. Among other things, maybe they were chosen to give the desired result. Even if that were not the case, still OR. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly they are not websites, they are standard reference sources (dictionaries and encyclopedias), all of them WP:RS. Secondly direct quotes are provided from each for verifiability. Is it original research to say that source X says Y? Yes or no?--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not OR to say that X says Y, but it is OR to say that A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J, when assessed and combined, support assertion Y. --Nuujinn (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. That is not what is being done here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources being quoted are Harper's Bible Dictionary (1st ed. 1985), New Bible Dictionary (3rd. ed. 1996), Encyclopedia of Judaism (2000), New Dictionary of Theology (2000), Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’ (rev. ed. 2002), The Encyclopedia of Christianity’(2003), The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church’ (3rd rev. ed. 2005), The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (rev. ed. 2009). They are not being used to say that all standard scholarly Jewish and Christian sources have this view. Is it WP:OR to say they have view X and quote them expressing view X? Bear in mind that User:St Anselm has consistently removed large numbers of WP:RS citations from the article, all of which citations just so happen to contradict his theological POV.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of interest Doug, what led you to believe that Harper's Bible Dictionary (1st ed. 1985), New Bible Dictionary (3rd. ed. 1996), Encyclopedia of Judaism (2000), New Dictionary of Theology (2000), Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’ (rev. ed. 2002), The Encyclopedia of Christianity’(2003), The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church’ (3rd rev. ed. 2005), The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (rev. ed. 2009), are websites?--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is clear cut original research. Please read WP:NOR. If an editor has conducted the "review" it is original research, no ifs, ors ands or buts about it. On top of that, where the sentence reads, "... in terms identical or very close to the mortalist view" there is clearly OR there as well. Editors are looking at primary sources and judging their contents to be "very close to" something else. Are there no reliable sources about what the mainstream view here is? You can always use words like "some" or many and then hash out the accuracy of those words on the talk page. While that might be less precise than what you have presented, it doesn't require original research.Griswaldo (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I cited the mainstream majority view, the scholarly consensus, from a WP:RS. I reworded the introduction, since all "A review of nine..." meant was "Nine standard scholarly sources say...". Apparently saying that X number of scholarly sources say Y is also WP:OR, so I took that out as well. The reworded paragraph now says exactly what the original paragraph did in different words. I have also added another half a dozen WP:RS citations, which might look clumsy but which is necessary if WP:OR is to be avoided (apparently).--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. As it stands it is OR. Apologies for writing 'websites', I can't imagine what I was thinking as I'd looked to see what the sources were. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, we all have our moments.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Time travel urban legends

See also:

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 22#The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ???
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#Charlie Chaplin and time travel
• Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Notability of 'time traveler' film in The Circus
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-10/The Circus (film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends

Time travel urban legends has been undergoing a deletion discussion with an active primary contributor attempting a rewrite at Talk:Time travel urban legends/Sandbox. The user in question is an excellent writer, however, there is still some confusion about what constitutes OR and WP:SYN, and continuing problems with WP:RS. I've very briefly touched on some of the problems over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends, but I would appreciate some fresh eyes on the sandbox rewrite. One major part of the problem, is that when one goes to check up on the sources, one discovers they have nothing to do with time travel, and the arguments and conclusions reached appear to belong to the editor, not to the sources. For examples of this problem, see the following in Talk:Time travel urban legends/Sandbox:

1. Introductory, cherry picked quote attributed to Rodney Dale has nothing to do with time travel urban legends. The actual reference is about UFOs.[3]
2. The entire first paragraph has nothing to do with time travel urban legends. Two authors are used, Dégh (2001) and Jones (2006) to advance a theory not found in the sources. Regardless of the reliability of Jones (obviously fringe), p. 78 of the source does not support the content in the article.[4]
3. The second paragraph begins by bringing up the concept of time in ancient cultures. The source has nothing to do with time travel or urban legends.[5] The user then uses the point raised by this source to make an argument and observation about cultures that travel forward in time, particularly Hindu mythology. The sources used to argue this point are primary and unreliable and represent only the opinion of the editor.[6][7]
4. It is argued that Honi HaM'agel is an example of a time travel legend, but no RS is provided supporting this idea.[8]
5. We are told that the first fictional time travel stories about traveling backwards in time appeared in the 19th century. But the source supporting this claim is an anthology containing the story, not a reliable source making the claim.[9]
6. It is claimed that the Moberly–Jourdain incident of 1901 represents the first claim of time travel outside of literature. However, there is no indication that the source in the article supports this statement.
7. We are told that the structure of the time travel urban legend "may vary from case to case, but common motifs re-occur". But, the source cited doesn't say anything about this.[10]

I can go on like this, in paragraph after paragraph, source after source, but you get the idea. It would be helpful if someone could take User:Stuart.Jamieson under their wing and mentor him, as he's a good writer but doesn't fully understand the OR (and RS) policy and guidelines. I've tried to explain the problem to him in several different discussions but he won't listen to me. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this Viriditas, let me cover your points:

1. The Rodney Dale quote is taken from a series of Paragraphs where he essentially says that the different aspects of Fringe Science are interchangeable when talking about explanations versus proof, he then gives a series of examples the first of which indeed uses the term UFO but is set up in the previous sentence to be about all fringe science - It does not change Dale's meaning only remove the specificness of his example. Given your concerns, it was removed at my first opportunity to do so.

2. That Paragraph sets the context of Urban Legends, and is mostly copied/adapted from Urban Legends, the claim of synthesis is accepted but I considered that Dégh (2001) did not affect the meaning of Jones (2006) however again given Viriditas concerns I changed the line at first opportunity.

3,4,5 Not my Work - all merged from Time Travel something I had suggested in the AfD and was testing in talk space. I have not substantially considered editing/adapting it yet - Not my OR.

6 granted I should have started "a claim of Time travel appeared." rather than claiming the first a simple mistake.

7 The text reads that common motifs appear in "Urban Legends" misreading seems to be a common problem here the ref is slightly wrong identifying the following page rather than previous page where author discusses how Urban Legends are categorised into common themes. I did synthesis here by using bad punctuation though I believe I have corrected that now.

Overall I should point out that the cause of my actions was due to Viriditas altering text in the original article to claim that the causes of all items in the list was proven - an OR that was not held by any of the sources in the article. Any attempt to correct led to him arguing RS and WP:Lead essentially setting criteria that no-one could remove his OR attempts to engage him in BRD led to him claiming he was removing OR by me even though more than half the material he removed was by another editor not myself. I am happy that the rest of my work stands up to scrutiny and I am perfectly happy for it to be checked, and I am working on identifying enough sources to recover this piece as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have not covered any of my points, nor do you seem to understand the OR policy. Previous concerns were raised on the talk page of the article, and your response was to deny them entirely, and to post a new draft in the main space that added more OR. This is unacceptable. In reply to the above:

1. The Rodney Dale quote has nothing to do with the subject and you appear to have removed it as a result. However, you have now replaced it with a cherry picked quote from a fringe source that has nothing to do with urban legends, a quote you've chosen out of context to promote your POV.[11] This shows that you either haven't read the OR policy or don't understand it.
2. You appear to have accepted the criticism of the first paragraph, but you've replaced it with more OR, this time adding Nahin (1999).[12] Again, you are not understanding the OR policy. Nothing in that source supports the topic.

I can go on and on as before, but you need to sit down, read the OR policy and show some understanding of it. The pattern here is clear: A problem with OR in your writing is raised, you delete it, and add more OR. This can't continue, and it should not continue in main space. Please move your personal essay to your user space. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, no both reference time travel as a myth - which i've pointed out in the AfD are used as synonyms for Legends within many sources which is why I proposed renaming the article away from Urban Legends - a name that although I suggested was jumped upon by another editor before further discussion took place as to whether it was supported by sources.

1. The chapter of the book discusses the origins of myths and legends and how many are based on concepts about progressing individually or as a society, it then discusses how time travel myths are a reversion of that - wanting to go back to a simpler time.

2. The entire Nahim book is on this subject contrasting folkloric(another common synonym of Legend) stories of time travel with the real physics. Specifically in that paragraph he distances folkloric tales of time travel from folkloric tales of other pseudosciences such as ESP or spoonbending.

Like it or not this is a fringe belief, as such the majority of sources will be fringe, and cover the pseudoscience neutrally - your refusal to accept that, makes sourcing difficult for anyone trying to live up to the FA criteria you keep applying to the article. I am well versed in OR policy despite your regular ad-hominems otherwise, and whilst I have had difficulty wording this particular article - which is why it's being developed in talk space not main space - I don't believe the problems are insurmountable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuart, you've made it clear that you want to replace the current article with a personal essay you created at Talk:Time travel urban legends/Sandbox. Because this is your own work, and you've ignored all discussion about it, it belongs in your user space. Now, to begin where I left off:

1. The easiest way to solve this problem and to move on, is to cite a source you feel best represents the main points of the topic. Unfortunately, this can't be done, because no such source exists. That gives you an indication that you are dealing with OR. In other words, when questions arise about OR, no matter what topic, an editor should immediately be able to cite a single source that best summarizes the main points of the topic. To continue:
2. You raise the concept of time in the second paragraph in an attempt to argue about cultures that travel forward in time. The sources you cite,[13][14][15] do not support the claims you have made. Without supporting sources, these claims represent your own opinion, not the opinion of the sources. You may not understand how we use primary sources, as you appear to be interpreting them rather than citing secondary sources that make these interpretations for us.
3. Nahin (1999) has nothing to do with "time travel urban legends".[16]
4. You claim that "the structure of Urban Legends vary from case to case, but common motifs often re-occur". Your source says nothing about time travel, however you use this source to support your claim that "within those on time travel, there are legends about individuals who either openly or pseudonymously report to have time travelled themselves", and you go on to provide examples, examples not related to the sources about urban legends. This is all OR as you make several claims about motifs that are not found in any sources. This is simply your opinion.
5. As for the rest, you surprisingly claim that because you didn't write it, you haven't removed it, which tells me you still don't recognize OR when you see it.

In short, you are still adding and preserving original research. As a solution to this continuing problem, I recommend that you delete the entire essay and use the talk page to work on a collaborative version with other editors. You may even be interested in the article incubation process, where you would work with other experienced editors. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not made it clear I want to replace it. I made it clear I wanted debate on whether an article in this format would be preferable to one in a list format (and thus more likely to survive the AfD)- or should an article in this format be retained alongside one in a list format. I still believe the List format is a preferable one but you seem to want some coverage of the subject as a whole in order to support any kind of inclusion criteria in the Lead.

1. In my opinion the best source that covers the work as a whole is Jenny Randles', "Time Travel: Fact, Fiction and Possibility", which covers the subject in the way you wish. However it has been several years since I've had a copy of that work in my possession and local book-stores and libraries are not stocking it. I believe Lionel Fanthorpe's "Mysteries and Secrets of Time: Time Warps, Time Travel, Reincarnation and Deja Vu" would also be a suitable source but again accessing Lionel's analysis of the sources is difficult since Google books covers mostly his case reposts and not overall analysis of the cases, again local suppliers do not stock this where I am. Though I do own some sources relevant to this subject, they are in storage an inaccessible to me - I am trying to use other sources as best I can.

2,5. The entire second paragraph has been merged from Time Travel and I have not as yet checked the accuracy of the sources. Ths does not mean that I "don't recognize OR when [I] see it" it means that in this draft of a rewrite I have merged some text without checking it yet. Please stop with the condescending statements such as 5. Please stop inferring that this is somehow my OR as if I have written this text, when you can check who the authors are for yourself.

3.Nahin refers to them as "Speculations", others use "Legend", others use "Myth", other still use "Folklore" and a ton of different terms to describe these styles of story. I originally suggested Urban Legends as a possible title but left the actual title open for discussion and consensus it was Slater Steven who locked the article down to use "Urban Legends" and the AfD has shown that there is still disagreement about the use of that term which is too specific. Nahin's entire work is based on a comparison of these "Speculations" against actual physics and though he concentrates on published speculations such as those found in science fiction (rather than those told orally) his work covers similar ground to Randles and Fanthorpe and would be my #3 source. However "The encyclopaedia of American Folklore" also makes the connection discussing published folklore on time travel such as "A Connecticut Yankee..." alongside more orally transmitted tales such as "Sleeping Beauty" so Nahin should not be dismissed on his preference of published tales.

4. The source says that within legends, common motifs and categorisations appear - like Dale the examples given are not exhausted and the source clearly claims that. Dégh also states the same but is not referenced here. I will accept that my current sourcing on the examples does not prove these motifs are widely accepted but this is a draft rewrite and there is room for further sourcing to confirm that they are before it finally makes it into main space.

Do you understand the purpose of the article incubation process? It is for articles which have been considered for deletion and consensus is that they require improvement before entering the main space. The original version of this article is not in that position and at the moment that is all that is important (which is good because the sandbox version is simply an attempt to meet your complaints vis-a-vis WP:Lead.) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuart, I don't see you acknowledging any of the problems, but rather brushing them off with an excuse each time I bring them up. My "complaint" is that you are deliberately invoking IAR when it comes to adhering to NOR, and you are aware of it. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I also add the fact you've added an {{about}} hatnote with three debates I am not connected with, seem to suggest your intentions are far more WP:IDONTLIKEIT about the content than any real review of my editing ability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuart, don't personalize this more than it already is. You're a good editor, but you still need to learn about OR. We all have our strengths and weaknesses;you are a strong writer (and could probably help others improve their composition skills) but weak on keeping your personal theories out of the article. While you may not be directly connected with other issues related to this topic, it is important to leave a note showing that this topic is undergoing discussion on various issues, with multiple editors. I apologize if you are taking this personally. Perhaps we should proceed by not referring to editors and just to ideas and concepts. That would certainly alleviate any hurt feelings. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, you personalised this. You continually make claims about my apparent OR problem yet only ever cite this article - I've been editing for almost 4 years, though a chunk (2007-early 2010) as an I.P. I have numerous articles I have written or re-written - I have worked with experienced editors to improve articles none of whom considered I had an OR problem in my writing. I've had several article reviews again no OR issue has been raised with my work, in fact I even had a Copyvio investigation worried that I was citing sources too closely but was quickly cleared on the basis that aside from my first ever new article, I was striking the right balance. Even in asking me not to personalize you again make a condescending claim about how I "still need to learn about OR" - it's not as neutral a statement as you may have thought when writing it. Your comments on points #2, and #5 above only go to show how despite more important articles in the rest of the encyclopaedia suffering worse problems - you would rather use that fact to pin further complaints against me. Please desist from interacting with me in this manner. If you wish to proceed by not referring to editors and just to ideas and concepts then go ahead but this OR/N is against me personally and it would be difficult to continue it without assessing me further. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but every time I bring up the problem, you raise some kind of distraction and excuse. I don't know what to say at this point, other than to tell you that the sandbox version cannot remain there for long, and it most certainly cannot replace the current article. You say you understand NOR, but I see no evidence that is true. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Strike that; I see you've removed it and it has been deleted. I guess you do understand after all. My apologies. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, my deletion has has nothing to do with any of the points you have raised here - it is to do with the fact that the intention was to raise further debate on the deletion arguments for a list at AfD and to compare those arguments to the delete arguments for non-notable subject as an article. As the AfD has closed in favour of a keep, the rewrite can be archived unless it becomes pertinent in a future nomination. As to your other points, I have never "Brushed off" any of your suggestions - I took much of your advise, blanking out sections, replacing quotes and sections that appeared synthesised, however you have made POV statements on sources reliability and meaning which I have dismissed because your POV is not the be all and end all - get further input if you think it's needed. I only ever quoted IAR once and that was about the application of WP:Lead at a FA level - I do not IAR unless it would improve the article to do so, creating a summary of the subject at the top of a list does improve the article and is actually required as the first paragraph of the lead per WP:Lead - summing up the individual cases as per other parts of WP:Lead would not have significantly improved the article at this point in it's lifecycle and again WP:Lead suggests that for lists the Lead covering the subject generally (and unsourced) is fine - for instance it points to List of environmental issues as an example to be followed which has no citations at all but sums up the subject. Your OR claims against me are most concerning - especially since you chose to retain the majority of the material that you have marked as OR and instead of dealing with the (claimed) OR nature you simply retained it and reworded it to push your Non-NPOV against the fringe theory - never mind the fact that this article is a fringe theory article and to remain neutral needs to sum up the content in a way that represents both sides of the concern - in fact on many of the cases listed, the comments of experts refuse to debunk the time travel claim, for instance on mobile phone woman Philip Skroska says "it would be hasty to dismiss [The rational explanation]" rather than commuting to a a claim that the rational explanation is right. The article explaining the opening of the south fork bridge presents it as the least likely of several explanations. Reliable sources such as Randles and Fanthorpe do the same yet you think it is more appropriate to make the OR claim that "All of these reports have turned out to either be hoaxes or to be based on incorrect assumptions, incomplete information or interpretation of fiction as fact." which is not representative of the sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Discipline

See this series of edits: someone thinks the Gospel of Matthew has something to say on the topic of discipline. I've reverted three times already; the IP does not respond to talk page remarks, does not give edit summaries, does not seem to know that encyclopedic information should a. be encyclopedic and b. have reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That whole section is unsourced. How about finding some source about military discipline and why it is applied? At the moment it is just people sticking in their own thoughts which is not how Wikipedia is supposed to be developed. Personally I think both versions are just OR. Dmcq (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right

Radical Right

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should this article be tagged for neutrality, original research and synthesis? (Posted to both neutrality and OR noticeboards.)

The concept was developed in the book Radical Right, with contributors Daniel Bell, Richard Hofstadter, Seymour Martin Lipset, Peter Viereck, Daniel Bell, Talcott Parsons and others.[17] Lipset wrote a history of the Radical Right.[18] More recently books have been written about the Radical Right by Sara Diamond,[19], Chip Berlet,[20] and others.

User:Collect says that "The references used are not checkable on line - zero...."

TFD (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I do have partial access to this source and indeed this article does draw conclusions that are not presented in this source. In fact some sections grossly misrepresent this source, the article claims Republicanism is radical right, where as the source clearly shows that Republicanism is significantly to the left of the Radical Right. --Martin (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not in fact claim that Republicanism is Radical Right. TFD (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It lists Federalists, Republicands, the KKK, French political parties, Italian political parties, and a 'few other groups as "American Radical Right" - and uses a "definition" not found in the source claimed to be the source for the definition. Seems that OR and SYNTH are both clearly violated, as a minimum. Not to mention a boatload of coatrack. A mishmash of the first water. Collect (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

While it lists the Second KKK as Radical Right, but does not call any of those other groups Radical Right. TFD (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick search of the article in question shows that The Four Deuces is correct and Martin is incorrect, unless he is refering to an earlier version of the article. The article as it stands clearly states that the Radical Right is to the right of Republicanism. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what article you are referring to Rick, but Republicanism is clearly listed as a section: Radical Right#Republicanism. If this article "does not in fact claim that Republicanism is Radical Right", why do we have a section on Republicanism? --Martin (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It refers to "republicanism" not "Republicanism". There is a difference between a political party formed in the 19th century and an ideology formed in the 18th? It does not say that "republicanism" was "radical right". TFD (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just accessed Gordon Wood's paper that is used as a cite to include republicanism in the article and read through it. No where is the "radical right" mentioned in it at all. Sure it mentions conspiracy, but so what? Just because another unrelated source states "conspiracy" is a feature of the Radical Right, you can't extrapolate to other entities. This synthesis is also a logical fallacy: conspiracy is a feature of the Radical Right (source A), republicanism had elements of conspiracy (source B), therefore republicanism is radical right (synthesised conclusion). --Martin (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(out) Martingtg, please pay attention to the replies you have already received:

• "The article does not in fact claim that Republicanism is Radical Right."
• "...does not call any of those other groups Radical Right."
• "It does not say that "republicanism" was "radical right". "
• "The article does not in fact say that Republicanism is Radical Right."
• "The article does not list Republicanism... as Radical Right."
• "the article does not say republicanism is radical right."
• "The article does not say that republicanism is Radical Right."

What Rjensen and I are telling you is that the article does not say that republicanism is radical right. Do you have any difficulty understanding these replies.

TFD (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If none of them are "Radical Right" then they simply should not be in the "article." The idea of an article is that material in the article relates directly to the name of the article. Collect (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Pre-revolutionary republicanism is mentioned as an influence on the Radical Right. While the article does not mention any political movement outside the U.S., it does mention that some scholars believe that there are Radical Right groups in other countries. If you believe that articles about ideologies should not mention earlier ideologies that influenced them, or that some scholars have compared them to ideologies in foreign countries, could you please provide a policy that explains your reasoning. Also, could you please explain why you believe that the article does not accurately reflect the literature used as sources. TFD (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment: (I was alerted to this discussion as I follow NOR/N; and as, I follow the editorial careers of a number of editors in this thread, because they discover interesting editorial problems in my primary areas of interest: sourcing and nor).
  1. Transaction is used. Remove it. Transaction is a poison press. Bell's work was produced in a number of other editions from reliable publishers: for example this catalogue, Ayer Co Pub published an edition, so did Doubleday
  2. Bell himself is susceptible to analysis, I found two bios while looking for other editions just above
  3. AHR to the rescue: locate and use the reviewed work: AHR 105.1
  4. Theodore J. Lowi, The end of the republican era University of Oklahoma Press, 2006: 125-6 demonstrates that at least in the US case, the term is a contested analytical category, worth mentioning that the category's limits are discussed and critiqued in scholarly literature.
  5. Alan Sykes The Radical Right in Britain (British History in Perspective) EAN: 978-0333599242
  6. Herbert Kitschelt radical right in Western Europe
  7. Rafal Pankowski The Populist Radical Right in Poland: The Patriots (Extremism and Democracy) 2010 EAN: 978-0415473538
  8. For a page on a sociological thesis, 8 paras on sociology, and 26 paras of historical examples of the sociological construct is completely arse backwards. The weight should more be 25:10 in favour of the sociology.
• Looks like the article needs more reading, more sourcing, and more explanation of the actual scholarly debate. It is completely lacking in i18n and full coverage (I'm particularly disturbed by the lack of accounting for Central and Eastern European fascist studies works in the article). The solution is read, weight, explain scholarly debate, and source. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Radical Right has been published in three editions: as The new American Right by Criterion (1955) and as The Radical Right by Doubleday (1963) and Transaction (2002, reprinted 2008). The article cites the Third Edition, which includes a new introduction by David Plotke and an afterword by Daniel Bell.

The article only covers the United States, because as explained in the article, scholars have studied right-wing movements in the U.S. and elsewhere separately, and there is no agreement that they are the same thing. The phenomenon in the rest of the world is more often called Right-wing populism, which is the subject of a separate article. (The article explains the use of terminology.) (For example, your source The radical right in Western Europe says, "In that sense the European NRR [New Radical Right] is more in the tradition of American nativist and xenophobic movements of the ninteenth and twentieth centuries that have been descrivbed so well by Lipset and Raab (1978) [the main source used for history in the article] than of the European fascist movements of the interwar period" (p. 287).[21])

The history section is lengthy because the Radical Right has been studied historically and has a lengthy history. Also, there seems to be little freely available academic literature about the contemporary Radical Right.

I read Lowi's comments which are linked here (p. 125-126). When the First Edition of The Radical Right was published in 1955, the authors saw it as an abberation. However by the early sixties they had changed their minds, now seeing it as part of the American tradition, and presented their revised views in the Second Edition in 1963. Hence the change of title from The New American Right to The Radical Right. In 1970 Lipset wrote a complete history tracing the Radical Right to the 18th century. In any case most of the discussion of these early essays is taken from later writing.

TFD (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lipset isn't a historian, he is a sociologist, and his historical writing has been criticised according to one review I have read. I agree with Fifelfoo, 8 paras on sociology, and 26 paras of historical examples of the sociological construct is completely arse backwards. --Martin (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

None of that has anything to do with your complaint that the article is synthesis, and you never brought up either of those issues when tagging the article. If you want more sociology in the article, then please add more. Seymour Martin Lipset was considered one of the leading experts on the radical right and his book is widely cited, receiving 372 hits on Google scholar.[22] BTW comments such as "his historical writing has been criticised according to one review I have read" are extremely unhelpful. Is that how you expect other editors to form their opinions of sources? Would you find that an acceptable reply from another editor? TFD (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, you are the one who started this thread on this notice board, I merely provided my opinion. The inclusion of historical Republicansism and Federalism into this article is one of many issues I have with this article as discussed here. If you would spend less time discussing editors and edit warring over SYNTH tags and more time acknowledging and discussing the very real issues, perhaps more progress could be made. I'm not sure why you believe noting that that Lipset is not historian and published reviews of his work have made light of that point is "extremely unhelpful", you yourself have been critical of authors who have written in fields outside their domain of expertise. --Martin (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I opened this discussion thread becaujse you tagged the article for "synthesis".[23] Synthesis means "...combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources...." It has nothing to do with the quality of sources or the balance between history and sociology. If you cannot explain why you believe the article is sythesis then you should remove the tags. TFD (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you ignored my tag and reverted it, twice. You only created this section on 02:21, 24 January 2011[24] in response to Collect adding a multitude of tags on 23:23, 23 January 2011:[25]. This article has multiple issues, as noted by several editors, obviously. --Martin (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

3 tags - POV, SYNTH and OR tags only. Hardly a "multitude." Collect (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I created this discussion thread because you tagged the article as "original research". This is the original research noticeboard, which is a noticeboard set up to discuss allegations of original research. Hoswever, you are either unable or unwilling to explain why you consider it to be original research. TFD (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you get your story straight? First you say "I opened this discussion thread becaujse you tagged the article for "synthesis"", now you say "I created this discussion thread because you tagged the article as "original research"". I placed a "synth" tag, Collect placed a "OR" tag, so I'm not sure you know who you are referring too. --Martin (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is one aspect of original research. Indeed it links to a section of the no original research policy page. Is anyone actually confused about that? In other words either tag would indicate, original research and could lead to this noticeboard for help resolving the issue. My suggestion to all the involved parties is to lay off of this a while. When you clutter the thread with the same bickering from the entry you're unlikely to get any positive input from uninvolved parties. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sumanadasa Abeygunawardena

I removed some fancruft from this article which are based only on subject's website. Two editors have been reverting me. I have repeatedly asked them to produce some independent sources but there is no discussion; no justification in edit summary.14.139.128.14 (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a better place for this might be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The article is almost entirely unsourced. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, take it there. In the interim, I've reverted the claims and protected the article for a week. I don't mind any other Admin removing the protection once this is sorted. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011

A week long discussion has failed to bring a real compromise over the content of the article. Here are the cliffnotes:

• User user:Lihaas and User:Passionless believe the article is a legitimate successor to the List of terrorist incidents family.

• IMO, user Passionless seems uninterested in considering other people's views, and dismissed my complaints immediately with this rationale: Community has a new way. This new way includes not labelling, instead we just present facts. If I was apart of these "heavy discussion" I would claim they were freedom fighters each time.

• your only point is that 'this is the way we used to do it so we must always do it this way forever!', I've tried to discuss this matter with you, but no more, besides you know that if we were to change the title to what you wanted you would then be banned from editing this page..

Both passion and Lihaas claim a consensus was reached before my complaints. However, when I asked them to link me to that consensus they don't respond.

I could give more examples, but my primary concern is about the article itself. I suggested numerous times we bring in an uninvolved admin to mediate the dispute. Or an editor familiar with terrorism-related articles perhaps from Wikiproject terrorism. Both suggestions rebuffed, instead my complaints are forwarded to administrators noticeboard which is dismissed by two uninvolved admins.

I know I could have sent these behavioral issues to admin noticeboard, but like I said before I'm not interested editors being banned or removed from the article. I just want my complaints to be at least recognized by the community.

Now, synthesis issues:

I've asked numerous times for editors to provide reliable sources to support edits that compare CIA performance in Afghanistan to Al Qaeda terrorism. Example.

Most of the conflicts listed here have nothing to do with 2011 or terrorist incidents. In addition, the sections are summarized by editors without sources.

Original discussion

So, is the article tainted with synthesis and original research? Is the article a legitimate successor to List of terrorist incidents, 2011? I'm willing to drop this dispute if editors can find a single reliable source that claims the CIA is a terrorist organization in the same way Al Qaeda is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The premise of the list seems fine. However, given that we are currently in January of 2011 and the list is already lengthy it is eminently sensible to split the list into less lengthy and more focused ones per our usual approach. This particular article would be better in prose summary form I think --Errant ^(chat!) 15:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't comment on the "legitimacy" issue... what I will say is that the article is riddled with unsourced statements and OR issues. It needs some major work. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me rephrase. Is the article similar to List of terrorist incidents, 2010, List of terrorist incidents, 2009, List of terrorist incidents, 2008. My biggest concern that the article was a radical change from what the community has accepted. The article was created unilateral and the content was never debated until after it was edited in. Perhaps the article by itself is okay, but 90% is about conflicts that have nothing to do with terrorism or 2011. I said in the discussion most of the content is already listed in on-going military conflicts. I would like to see List of terrorist incidents, 2011 be a unique, independent article. The current article has gone beyond the generally recognized perimeters of terrorism. Passion and Lihaas clearly a POV interest which would be perfectly okay if their edits met basic policy guidelines. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Passion does not want to defend his edits here as he deleted the OR notice. He/she is responsible for much of the article's content. I would really like to see an uninvolved admin - familiar with original research policy - take a peak at the article and talk discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Billy Butlin

Quick question about how close is too close to OR. In Butlin's biography, he states that his mother remarried and emigrated to Canada "around 1910" In reality we have a primary source (marriage record) for their wedding occurring in 1913 [26] and searching the UK register of ship passenger lists [27] for Bertha Butlin reveals a record of her travelling to Canada in 1912 (the year before she remarried) The equivalent Canadian register of ship passenger lists shows only two ships sailed that year and only one had a significant number of passengers, The list for that ship has not been transcribed - but Bertha appears to be on line 8 of this page [28]

Is it OR to state "in 1912, his mother emigrated again, this time to Canada." and "In December 1913 his mother returned and married Charles Robotham in Swindon,"

I suspect that mileage may vary on this, but I would see that as a de minimis use of primary sources to help verify the truth of the article. Not all usage of primary sources makes for original research. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ciarán Broadbery and Michael Cox (clergyman)

Ciaranbroadbery (talk · contribs) has edited the article Ciarán Broadbery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) replacing the article with what appears to be some sort of denouncement (in first person) that "Therefore I was never a priest nor a bishop. Any orders supposedly passed on from me to anyone are null and void and have always been", etc. The user also edited Michael Cox (clergyman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in the third person, saying "This is untrue- Ciaran Broadbery's orders were never valid-There is no lineage-Canon Law 2370 see www.ciaranbroadbery.com".

The edits give http://www.ciaranbroadbery.com/ as the source, the main content of which (other than e-mail to allegedly contact this person) is a copy of Canon 2370, "Ordinations Conferred by Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc", which is a decree by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published in the Canon Law Digest. Now, this is of course pretty well WP:COI. It's also WP:SYNTH — the Canon Law Digest reading of Canon 2370 is actually:

...whatever is to be said of the validity of the Orders, the Church neither now recognizes nor will recognize their ordination and, as regards all effects of law, holds them to be in that state which each one of them previously had.

(If you're into that sort of thing, the actual Latin document is Decreto con il quale si dichiarano le pene canoniche incorse dall’Arcivescovo Pierre-Martin Ngô-dińh-Thuc e complici per le ordinazioni illecite di presbiteri e vescovi in località “El Palmar de Troya” (Decretum circa quasdam illegitimas ordinationes presbyterales et episcopales), September 17, 1976; Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) 68 (1976) page 623; DOCUMENTA 29; OR 20-21.9. 1976, 1; CivCat 127 (1976) 4, 375-378; DocCath 73 (1976) 857.859 [Gall.]; EV 5, 1388-1391; LE 4467.) It does not say that the orders themselves are invalid, null and void, or whatever — indeed, it seems to explicitly avoid the subject with "whatever is to be said"; it only that the Church will act as if they are not recognized.

So it's not so much a question of whether it's WP:OR as much as: Knowing that it's WP:OR, what should be done about it in this case? In case one wonders why this matters: Ciarán Broadbery is alleged to have been made some kind of bishop in the middle of the episcopal lineage (apostolic succession chain) from Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục (undoubtedly validly consecrated, but went and consecrated other bishops without consent of the Pope) down to Michael Cox (clergyman), who in turn ordained Sinéad O'Connor. The people below Thục were in various breakaway churches like the Palmarian Catholic Church, Order Mater Dei, etc., which became a bit notorious from Rome's view of things.

A substantial amount of Ciarán Broadbery (old or new version) and Michael Cox (clergyman) might be removable, but I'm reluctant to let a user, claiming to be the subject of a Wikipedia article and wanting his(?) indiscretions to retroactively not have happened, get his wish on Wikipedia if there's something actually there that can be rescued with proper references. --Closeapple (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There are BLP concerns here, and I have made a posting at BLPN. I will also be prodding Ciarán Broadbery, because I can't find any significant coverage about him in reliable secondary sources. Slp1 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Differences between book adaptation and films.

There is a discussion about whether just listing differences between a book and a film (just using the film and book it is based on as primary sources) would constitute original research/synthesis by listing the differences between them. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Differences between novel and film. Again. While no-one disputes that the book or film can be used as sources for their respective content, would writing about them in a comparative context (i.e. one that solely lists differences) be advancing a new idea, or would it be a form of synthesis since you are advancing a position that is dependent on two separate sources? Would greatly appreciate some impartial input at the discussion from people who know about these things. Can I ask that comments are made at the main discussion so we don't end up with two parallel debates please? Thanks to anyone who pops by. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would be OR, although a mild form. We're allowed to use the book or the movie to summarize plot, but comparing the two would be research. I hope some others chime in though, as I cannot say I have strong feelings about it one way or another (but I am likely jaded by book/movie articles, which often seem to me to having less rigorous sourcing than I would like). --Nuujinn (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If we had two (reliable) sources saying different things about a BLP then we would cover both neutrally "Source A says person X did ... whilst Source B disagrees saying person X did ...." it doesn't seem more OR to do the same between two sources "in world" as it were "in source A character X does... whilst in source B character X does instead..." than it is to do it for NPOV in a "real word" article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Is

The ad was paid for by "Jewish Funds for Justice" which had previously called for Beck's firing and which says ''In 25 years, Jews and Jewish institutions will be aligned and in partnership with other communities, together creating a robust, powerful social change movement.'' <ref>[http://www.jewishjustice.org/who-we-are/vision Jewish Funds for Justice Vision statement]</ref> The JFFJ also says Beck seems ''to draw his material straight from the anti-Semitic forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.''<ref>[http://www.jewishjustice.org/story/2010-11-16/rupert-murdochs-protocols Jewish Funds for Justice The Puppet Master]</ref>

"original research" as using the web site mission statement of the group which placed the advertisement? The precise objection is Regardless of what you consider 'fairly clear', you have still included a quote you selected from the JFJs website, and seem to have done this in order to make a point about their motivations for producing the open letter. That is WP:OR. Find other sources that discuss JFJs motivations for the letter, and we'll have better grounds to include this. As the claim makes no such conclusions about "motivations" I do not quite see how it is "original research" to give a full and complete quote without making any inferences thereon. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the first sentence crosses the line into WP:SYNTH. The mission statement at the www.jewishjustice.org website is accurately represented, but apparently has nothing to do with the ad or their call for Beck's firing (that call would have to be sourced as well). To make that connection is, I think, OR. The second sentence seems better, but it should include the information that that statement is made in regard to Beck's piece on Soros, and should only be used in a segment treating that particular piece. I have not looked at the context, but I agree with the notion that these individual items should not be linked so as to imply motivation on the part of the Jewish Funds for Justice (I'm not saying that is being done, but if it is, it shouldn't). --Nuujinn (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

IOW, a sentence which separately states that the JFFJ " says In 25 years, Jews and Jewish institutions will be aligned and in partnership with other communities, together creating a robust, powerful social change movement. <ref>[http://www.jewishjustice.org/who-we-are/vision Jewish Funds for Justice Vision statement]</ref>" since it combines nothing at all could not be SYNTH. I had thought SYNTH specifically referred to combining sources, not to using material entirely from a single reliable source. (And I trust a group's mission statement is essentially a "reliable source" in any event) Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. is the precise wording in the policy. Collect (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're interpreting the word source too broadly. Strictly speaking, a web site is not a source for a given assertion--for example, the New York Times may be used as a source for many many assertions, but it is, I think, correct to say that each assertion has its own source on that site. The key to WP:SYNTH is that we are not allowed to draw or imply conclusions based on a combination of sourced assertions--we require that a source make the connection. Now, apparently, there's an ad that's relevant in some way to Glenn Beck, I'm assuming it's a negative ad, but I haven't read the article. The first part of the first sentence says that that ad was paid for by the JFFJ. That statement requires a source and is assertion A. That the JFFJ called for Beck being fired is a second assertion, B, and also requires a source. If the sources for A mention that the JFFJ paid for the ad, great. If not, combining them into a sentence crosses, IMO, into SYNTH. The mission statement is a third assertion, C, and has a source, but that mission statement and the page it is sourced to do not mention Beck, an ad about Beck, or the funding for an ad about Beck. To use it in an article about Beck, we'd need some reliable source to make that connection, and without that, it is, IMO, SYNTH. Other may see things differently. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources that should be listed in the first sentence. There should be a source for the fact that the ad was paid for by this group. There should also be a source for the statement alleging that the group called for Beck's firing. And then there is the source that is already included for the mission statement. Linking the information from those three sources together is synthesis, even if such linking is done by implication. If there is a link between these sources (and the link you're trying to establish is one of motivation, right?) then we have to see if others have made the link. If it's as obvious as it appears then surely someone else has already done so and we need to cite him or her. ElKevbo (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The ad payment source is the Guardian (already cited in the article), The source for the mission statement is given. The source for the calling for the firing of beck is also the JFFJ site http://www.jewishjustice.org/foxaction Thursday morning in sub-freezing temperatures, JFSJ President and CEO Simon Greer attempted to deliver a pink slip for Mr. Beck, and a petition with 10,000 signatures calling on Rupert Murdoch to remove Glenn Beck from Fox News Channel’s daily lineup. Simon also unveiled Glenn Beck's Ten Worst Quotes of 2010. Where the material is all on one site, it is hard to claim it is "multiple sources". Rabbis may still sign the letter. Read about the campaign in the news and get campaign updates on our Fox News campaign page. View the open letter in the Wall Street Journal and the Forward newspapers. is also on the JFFJ site, as is http://www.jewishjustice.org/sites/jfsj.aegir.purpose.com/files/Wall%20Street%20Journal%20ad.pdf describing the ad as an ad. As the ad itself states Jewish Funds for Justice clearly at its head, I doubt it is SYNTH to say that the ad was from them. As the Wendy's ad goes - "Where's the SYNTH?" Collect (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In the paragraph you asked us to evaluate. The statements may come from the same broad source, but the combination of them is something not found at the site. Someone, I assume you, is synthesizing a set of statements to imply a conclusion, and that's not allowed. You need a reliable source to present the combination. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the broad material is found specifically on one page (the home page of the site), I fail to see where the SYNTH is. WP:SYNTH refers to using multiple sources to reach a conclusion. No conclusion is made. If you think that using multiple quotes in separate sentences from the same site is SYNTH, I fear you will have to rewrite the policy :). Collect (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the contention that WP:SYNTH only applies to material from completely separate sources... The intent (if not the narrow wording) of the section defines synthetic OR as taking two or more bits of material that are distinct (whether at two sources or at the same source), and joining them a way that forms a conclusion that was not made in a source (and the conclusion does not need to be overtly made... WP:SYNTH also covers an implied conclusion, whether intentional or unintentional). Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Blueboar's interpretation and explanation. You can't use the organization's mission statement and other documents to imply a motive for their actions. Others can do so and you can cite them. ElKevbo (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer

Can someone have a look at a recent issue in this article--itching? An IP editor keeps reinserting what seems like OR to me. I don't know enough about this to go and start looking for reliable (medical) references. Also, I've reverted them three times already and should stay away. The editor is working in good faith, no doubt, but is also stubborn and apparently unreceptive to messages on their talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had a go, but I'm not sure they are listening. Right now they are in violation of 3RR, but I'm not filing a report myself since I think they are simply inexperienced. Hopefully they will slow down a bit. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Tahash

Tahash has largely been written by one user who is opposing removal of material from the article that appears to me to be original research. Some of the material is interesting and relevant, but I really think it would be more suited to a book or research paper rather than encyclopedia as there is too much opinion and synthesis. Not wanting to get into an edit war, it would be great if the whole article could be read and edited as necessary by other editors. I really think it needs to be severely cut down and rebuilt. The Etymology section especially contains a lot of inappropriate material --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with Pontificalibus. The contributing user writing this book-length tome is sarcastic, unresponsive, unwilling to compromise or work out solutions. There are hundreds of external links within the article. Needs administrator attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Out of control article, book-length, one or two contributors,Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary: Tahash article: I have serious concerns about notability, original research, WP:Undue. Here's why:

I did a fairly extensive search of religion-oriented newspapers and magazines in January 2011 (including Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Mormon, others) as well as searching the Internet for just the stand-alone term. As best I can determine, the word "tahash" is a boy's name from the Bible, from Genesis. It is basically mentioned there but with no further coverage -- I did not find any particular Biblical stories relating to this person Tahash (although it's possible that stories exist, somewhere). According to Genesis, Tahash was the nephew of Abraham. One writer in the Jerusalem Post named Shlomo Riskin thought the significance was a contrast between Abraham and his brother Nahor -- while Abraham had trouble conceiving children, his brother didn't, and had twelve -- eight by a wife, and four by a concubine named Reumah (of which Tahash was one of the children). But the focus of this article was on Abraham -- Tahash only got a brief mention, if that. Still, Tahash is a Biblical name. So, what's surprising to me, right off the bat, reading the Wikipedia treatment of Tahash, is that the Tahash-as-Biblical-name information doesn't appear in the Wikipedia article in the lede paragraphs. At the very least, there should be an indication that the name "Tahash" was a brief cameo-mention in the Bible. - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But other than that, I searched numerous publications, religious and secular, for mention of the word "tahash". There was basically nothing. What I can't fathom was that if the term has any cultural or historical importance, why isn't it at least mentioned in any of the countless magazines and newspapers devoted to religious or secular topics? Here are the sources I looked in hunting for the word "tahash": - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious news sources: bbc.co.uk/religion, breakpoint.org, christianbusinessdaily.com, christianitytoday.com, freshoutlookmag.com, theturning.org, commentarymagazine.com, forward.com, jhom.com, jewishworldreview.com, reformjudaismmag.org, eretz.com, khilafah.com, dailymuslims.com, islamic-voice.com, lds.org - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish religion newspapers: beismoshiach.org, chabad.org, commentarymagazine.com, eretz.com, forward.com, innernet.org.il, jpost.com, jewishfamily.com, jhom.com, jewishmag.co.il, jewishpost.com, jewishrenaissance.org.uk, thejewishweek.com, jewishworldreview.com, kabtoday.com, kashrusmagazine.com, freeman.org/MOL, momentmag.com, nkusa.org, reformjudaismmag.org, shma.com, tikkun.org, worldjewishdigest.com - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

US and worldwide secular sources: wsj.com, nytimes.com, boston.com, miamiherald.com, post-gazette.com, chicagotribune.com, suntimes.com, latimes.com, sfexaminer.com, oregonian.com, usatoday.com, time.com, washingtonpost.com, nysun.com, cbsnews.com, npr.org, guardian.co.uk, nj.com, nhpr.com, huffingtonpost.com, thestar.com, usnews.com, slate.com, newsweek.com, baltimoresun.com, herald-mail.com, staradvertiser.com, hawaiitribune-herald.com, westhawaiitoday.com, mauinews.com, gazette.net, fredericknewspost.com, somdnews.com, wsj.com, nytimes.com, guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, france24.com/en, chinadaily.com.cn, english.aljazeera.net, indiatoday.in, economist.com, news.bbc.co.uk, journalperu.com, brazzil.com, rnw.nl/english, canada.com, cbc.ca, japantimes.co.jp, dailytelegraph.com.au, sunherald.com.au, hongkongherald.com - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked tertiary sources such as Bible encyclopedias and again found a pattern of very little interest. They picked up the mention in Genesis. A few sources mentioned something to the effect of animal skins. It's possible that these other "Bible encyclopedias" picked up an earlier version of Wikipedia's tahash article and there's a mirroring thing going on, so that they picked up the "animal skins" idea from Wikipedia, and are reporting it back. But basically the term tahash didn't get much more attention than that. What possible confuses matters more is it's possible that there are spelling variants for the word "tahash", such as "ta' hash" (two words) or "tachash". It isn't clear which words derive from which. Regardless, there need to be sources indicating that the two terms are interchangeable, or derived from each other, that is, tahash and tachash.- Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What I have difficulty understanding is how this appears to be a book-length tome about something that gets very little attention or coverage in so-called Bible encyclopedias or in mainstream media or in religious publications including newspapers or magazines as well as online sources. This suggests that there's original research going on as well as undue influence- .Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• This article is baffling. I'm not sure we have enough alphabetsoup to describe what is going on. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You could start with WP:NOT. Not a dictionary. Jayjg will know if there is anything at all notable to Judaism that can be salvaged. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Gotham City and OR by reference

I was hoping to get some input on Gotham City although all the references appear to be properly source there seems to be a huge OR issue with Gotham being New York (or Chicago depending on your view). There is a very tenuous conclusion put forth in the article using only one linking quote by a writer and the rest being irrelevant to the main point but leading to an unsupported conclusion. Any input either here or on the talk page under the heading I created here is appreciated. cross linked to the previously mentioned thread. Cat-five - talk 01:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing this, see Talk:Gotham City for details. Cat-five - talk 01:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson and Hemings Possibe OR

Thomas Jefferson on controversy with Hemings: On Jan 25th Gwillhickers claimed in the talk page "there is only a 1 out of 25 chance that it was TJ who was the father" (his link did not support this claim) [29]. On Jan 28 [30] he was told such was in error, but made these same claims again on Jan 29th [31] to justify 3 edits in the main space: "The allegations have not 'survived', they have only been made. Again, DNA results say that the father could also have been any one of 25 people related to Jefferson." & here [32] & here [33].

A different editor removed such edits, pointing to the error [34] and another discussed it in the talk page on Jan 29 [35]. I reviewed the DNA & Gordon-Reed's work on Jan 29: [36]. Neither of those sources discussed "25" others as a possibility [37] DNA study & Gordon-Reed [38]. DNA said "the simplest and most probable explanations for our molecular findings are that Thomas Jefferson, rather than one of the Carr brothers, was the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson." It said one of Field Jefferson's male offspring, might have been the parent, but in "the "absence of historical evidence" made this or other "possibilities...unlikely". No mention of any "25 possibilities" or "20", and the editor cannot explain where these numbers come from.

This was quiet for a week. On Feb 6th Gwillhickers wrote in the article main space: "In the final analysis, no one can say if it was Thomas Jefferson or one of more than 20 other male members of the family who was the father of Hemings' children" [39] and "though for one reason or another they prefer to ignore the other possibilities for Hemings' children, prefering rather to believe it was Thomas Jefferson." [40] He added no sources. Those already there did not make these claims. An editor removed his edits [41] The talk page shows this was discussed before both his Jan 29th and Feb 6 claims in the main space [42]. I warned him today [43] and on his talk page [44]; editor defends his edits, and still provides no evidence [45]. Looks like WP:OR and fringe theories to me, but I defer that to the noticeboard to decide.

I should say, since accusations of bias have been made, that I should mention the article does not claim that Jefferson was the father of the Hemings children; it reports the controversy, and what historians/scientists say.Ebanony (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mutya

Several editors keep adding unsourced (and redlinked and even blacklinked) actors' names to the cast list at Mutya. I'm no being castigated by one of them for reverting the insertions. How should I proceed? Corvus cornix_talk 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not castigated for deleting per se. I am complaining for you are not giving me some warning. I know that there unscrupulous editors who just add unscrupulous data. and you think i am one of those? o come on. if there are unscrupulous data, i correct it as soon as i can. I gave you some references from the broadcasting network's youtube channel and from its news website and you didnt accept that. Dinispachadoro_talk

Mohamedou Ould Slahi

User:Iqinn has placed an Original Research tag on the article Mohamedou Ould Slahi, without stating what sentences or sections are original research.Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that a similar case of non-specific argumentation from Iqinn on the discussion immediately above, although on the side of claiming his edits are not Original Research, rather than claiming a whole article is Original Research. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What would be similar between the case above and this one here? IQinn (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IQinn, from reading a fair amount of your writing, I have seen that your reading comprehension is not very good. The similarity is "non-specific argumentation". Above you keep saying the same thing over and over, without once providing a reliable source to the disputed sentence. In regard to the Slahi article, you cannot provide a single example of any OR in the article. You non-specifically repeat your claim over and over. That's quite similar. Another similarity is your ignorance of what ad hominem (note the spelling) means. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Be assured that i know what ad hominem means. Looks like you are teaming up with other editors. Your claims here are obviously wrong. Just have a look a look at the articles talk page where these things are explained. Talk:Mohamedou Ould Slahi. You keep removing the tag without consensus. Want me to rewrite the article and taking out all the instances where information is not properly sourced? Writing large chunks of BLP's based on primary sources is a no no as you know and as it has been discussed. Writing large chunks of BLP based on redacted government papers like this one are also a no no. And i am going to replace these instances with a tag. If you claim not to understand things that have been explained to you. IQinn (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't just state "your claims are wrong" and expect people to say, oh well then, you carry on. You have to provide evidence in the form of reliable sources to back your assertion. Otherwise you are just left with the fallback tactic of repeating yourself over and over until whomever you are subjecting this to gets fed up. V7-sport (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like you are teaming up in an ad hominem attack against me. What content issue are you discussion here? Have you ever worked on Mohamedou Ould Slahi. I seems absolute unclear to me what specific content issue your are addressing? IQinn (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well a quick review of the talk page there shows that you have followed your pattern of just not listening or understanding whomever you happen to be engaged in your editing dispute. Repeating the same thing over and over without regard to whatever counterargument is presented to you. V7-sport (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That is false and the article has been improved. Nothing in your reply concerns any of the content issues of this article. Your reply consist solely of ad hominem arguments in an attempt to team up with Mnnlaxer against me. Please be aware that this is strictly prohibited under the rules of our community and you might could get blocked for this undesirable behavior. There is absolute nothing in your post here concerning any of the content issues. IQinn (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's some content issues with that article, andyworthington,co is not a reliable source and the heritage foundation has details on him swearing allegiance to al Qaeda. Funny how your days are spent purging information on jihadists. V7-sport (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think Andy Worthington would not be a reliable source?

Yes he swore allegiance to al Qaeda. I think we verified that. The interesting point is that he ended his relationship with al-Qaeda almost 20 years ago and that he did nothing for them after 1992. He won his habeas corpus but Obama appealed. So it is going to be interesting to see how the case will continues.

And could you possibly comment on this source here? The source has been redacted. Can it still be used to verify large chunks of BLP informations?

IQinn (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

1. "You keep removing the tag without consensus." So whoever acts first, in adding or deleting, is automatically assumed to be right, and a consensus is needed to revert? Is that what you're saying? 2. "Want me to rewrite the article and taking [sic] out all the instances where information is not properly sourced?" Yes, taking out specific instances where information is not properly sourced is exactly what I want you to do. 3. "Writing large chunks of BLP's based on primary sources is a no no as you know and as it has been discussed." Yes, we discussed primary sources, which may be used in BLP. You have currently removed the large chunks based on primary sources (CSRT and ARB only - not Federal Court issued opinions). I will add information back using these sources very carefully. 4. "Writing large chunks of BLP based on redacted government papers like this one are also a no no." This is dead wrong, and you've never backed this statement up with any Wiki policy. See the article's talk page for the redacted issue. I can quote the two other editors if you like. 5. "That is false and the article has been improved." I disagree. Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I will disagree with V7-sport on one thing. Andy Worthington is a reliable source. FYI, many of his posts on his personal website are posted at The Public Record or Common Dreams. I could go back and find the posts cited on another website if that makes a difference to you. And "Funny how your days are spent purging information on jihadists" is a perfect example of what ad hominem actually is.

IQinn, "he ended his relationship with al-Qaeda almost 20 years ago and that he did nothing for them after 1992." That is the position of Slahi's defense (obviously a POV), but the habeas court has to (re-)determine that in its findings of fact. It is an interesting case, I agree. It's why I first got involved in editing this article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on Andy Worthington as his book is surely RS and many of his other writings can be used as they have been republished as you said.

I thought it comes from the Judge? Anyway i will check on that later when i get more time. Yes the Obama administration appealed so lets wait and see. IQinn (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IQinn, another thing you've demonstrated is your lack of knowledge of the habeas and Circuit Court opinions - which again, are secondary sources and can be used even if they have redactions as long as any statement taken from them could not have a distorted meaning due to nearby redactions. If you wanted to end the use of these court documents, it would help if you understood them first. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, please stop using ad hominem arguments. There is almost nobody here who has more understanding about the Guantanamo detainees and there habeas corpus procedures procedures than i have.

I fully agree with you and that is the whole point here. There would not be a problem if we could ensure that statements taken from these documents do not have a distorted meaning due to the redactions. How could that be possible ensured? Redacted information in the same document could well contradict any other information we take from it. IQinn (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My comment is that the tags you are putting on the page are inappropriate. V7-sport (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems POV. Why is that inappropriate? And could you please answer my questions. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Seems POV." This is a discussion board. It is supposed to be POV. You added the tag without specifically identifying the original research, which is without justification, which is inappropriate. Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on we had extensive discussion on the talk page about that and the problems are listed there. To simply claim i would have placed it without explanation is wrong.

As i said i am ok for the moment without the tag and i will mark individual problems instead as i agreed on the talk page page and i am fine with any mediation. I had never a problem with that and it is not my fault that the 3th opinion did not get started the last time. I have written about that on the talk page and i will write more there once i get some time. Actually i have no doubt we can sort out things and improve the article as we have done in the past. Anything else to discuss on this board here? Otherwise i suggest we close this discussion here and go back to the talk page. Thank you IQinn (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say without explanation, but without justification. You constantly try to explain your edits, but these explanations are weak, often consisting of references back to earlier weak explanations (and sometimes repeating the exact same explanations). For instance, on Slahi, the most recent time you placed an OR tag on the article (and I'm glad you are agreeing not to re-post it), it was without mentioning any particular instance of OR. I never blamed you for a lack of a 3rd opinion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, please stop using ad hominem arguments. What i have agreed on is that i mark particular instances instead of the tag on the top of the page. I might re-add the tag later depending on the outcome of the outstanding issue concerning the problematic use of redacted material please see my reply above. IQinn (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IQinn, I have made no ad hominem arguments against you. If you think I have, please quote the offending passage. You have linked to that article many times, but have you read it? Do you understand it? "An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man") [argument] ... is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." What personal characteristic or belief of yours have I used against your premises or arguments? Being wrong and offering weak explanations are not personal characteristics or beliefs of yours. A good test would be to ask if it was possible to change the item criticized. You could have been right about the Judge or the defense being the source of your statement and you could have provided a strong explanation (or even a justification) of your edits. Thus, they are not ad hominem. If I criticized your premises or arguments because you were Hindu, then that would be ad hominem. As far as redaction goes, you say "Redacted information in the same document could well contradict any other information we take from it." That's true. Now show me which redactions could plausibly contradict specific information in the article. In this case, remember that the District Court opinions are written by one judge, and Circuit Court opinions are in the singular institutional voice of the Court. If there is contradictory information, it is likely between the claims of the two sides, which the court is supposed to adjudicate and decide what is fact and what is not. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's stay focused. You have not answered my question that i ask you above. I said: There would not be a problem if we could ensure that statements taken from these documents do not have a distorted meaning due to the redactions. How could that be possible ensured? Redacted information in these documents could well contradict any information we take from it. IQinn (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

IQinn, I'm done "debating" with you. See you in the edits. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty good answer not to answer my question. Actually i appreciate your work. See you in the edits. :)) IQinn (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, you are here to get views from uninvolved editors. The question was about a tag, which has been removed now. However, looking at the article, I see it contains a timeline in the form of a table, which I consider to be poor article layout. Is the whole timeline from one source, in which case it should be made crystal clear in an inline reference which source? Or has it been put together from several sources? Articles can contain timelines, but they should be in a section headed Timeline. And I would put it towards the end of the article, not in the middle. And I wouldn't lay it out in the form of a table. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the tag issue has been resolved. The "timeline" is from a report about Slahi's treatment in detention. The Schmidt-Furlow Report. I agree that it is not a great presentation and the article's structure is probably flawed. I appreciate your commenting. I'm going to take that discussion to the article's talk page and stop commenting here. There is another editor who has expressed reservations about the structure. I hope you look in and contribute. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce

There's currently an edit war on Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce of which I, admittedly, am a part of. The article is about a Macedonian-language song. Over the article's history, one user found a source in which the writer and composer of the song states that he adapted the text from an obscure folk song. Some other users then found an archive of folk songs of which two are similar to subject of the article. Be warned, this dispute is within the realm of Balkan POVs: it's my view that the users TodorBozhinov and Jingiby are attempting to present this song as one with a Bulgarian origin (actually, quite blatantly), however, the source (a link to said archive) is not directly related to the topic of the article, nor does it directly support their claim. Please also see this discussion. --124.150.40.224 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My attempts to remove obvious original research and unreferenced material of a controversial nature have not been successful. It would seem the only users who watch this article are those who use original research to further their POV. Apart from the already mentioned claim of 'Bulgarian origin', there is also the claim that an almost identical song is present in a neighboring country (unsourced and based on an anecdotal account on the talk page). --124.150.40.224 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with removing the direct comparison to two of Karavelov's songs in the table if that is deemed to be original research. However, I do believe the table provides a very interesting comparison, which is useful as to understanding the origin of Sarievski's song.

My problem with the IP is that they have been consistently removing the fact that the song's text (and, in the opinion of Nikolay Kaufman, also its melody) is based on a Bulgarian folk song recorded in that same compilation. The author of the Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce admits that he borrowed the text of the Bulgarian folk song Černej goro, černej sestro from Karavelov's collection, and this has been referenced in the article.

Note that the reference supporting this fact is not the collection of songs itself, but a publication in the Politika newspaper in which folklorists elaborate on the origin of Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce. No original research with this issue, contrary to what the anon claims. — Toдor Boжinov — 15:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. Demonstrating similarities between three songs isn't original research (it's a clear illustration of that fact). It's original research when you use that comparison to claim x was derived from y because they are similar and y is older. For that claim, you will never find a source.

I never removed the sentence which gives the opinion of scholars.

The author of the song in question never mentions Karavelov's collection. He does mention a song called Černej goro, černej sestro — but are you going to say it's the same as one from Karavelov's collection on the basis of similarity? That's the very definition of original research. --124.150.40.224 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

primary sources as secondary sources in medieval Irish Sea articles

It is claimed here [46][47][48][49][50][51] that medieval Irish annals are secondary sources and can be used in line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I've tried to tag there articles (unfortunately the user in question has dozens more), but am being reverted by the user. I asked for assistance at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Medieval_annals_are_to_be_treated_as_secondary_sources (didn't realise there was a noticeboard). I have blocked the user in question in the past and have gained his enmity. It would not be ideal for me to block him again, but I'm getting no assistance and don't see how else I can address this if no-one else intervenes. I appreciate that the topics may seem obscure, but the problem is clear. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This editor, Deacon, has been following me for months and is now officially hounding me, by targeting articles I have created and leaving them full of OR tags. He has been around Wikipedia for some years, even being an administrator, and has been exposed to countless similar articles full of the identical practice of citing the Irish annals and has done nothing. Examples of articles full of this practice: Sigtrygg Silkbeard (good article), Battle of Glenmama (good article). Wait for many, many more. They're coming. DinDraithou (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(any chronicles and so on): Eric Bloodaxe, Eadred (Deacon is a fairly recent contributor), Edmund I of England (here too). More to come. DinDraithou (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(more using the Irish annals): Amlaíb Conung (written by User:Angusmclellan, a respected admin), Sihtric Cáech (Deacon has been a contributor), Gofraid ua Ímair (again largely written by Angus, plus Deacon has been a contributor). More to come. DinDraithou (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

From [52] Deacon has also been the author of the monstrous Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick. Here he makes good use of primary sources! See where he cites Anderson. DinDraithou (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Domhnall mac Raghnaill (Deacon is the creator and author), Oslac of York (yes), Ruaidhri mac Raghnaill (yes), Donnchadh of Argyll (Annals of Loch Cé yet again). More to come. DinDraithou (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

ok. see note #4: John of Argyll (guess the author). DinDraithou (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in all those cases primary sources used are also used by the secondary sources cited and themselves are cited only for convenience or because the editor summarises the source as it is quoted, though in some cases that could be more obvious. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• All examples given above are Original research. The editors involved have acted as amateur historians and not as encyclopedists. Tag and delete offending content. Cite from scholarly secondary sources. As a hint: non-nationalist historians post-Ranke. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And you are a professional historian? In defense of both myself and Deacon, and all of us, get lost. You don't belong in this discussion. DinDraithou (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest you immediately retract the personal attacks in the above. Care to demonstrate post-Ranke historiographers who treat Irish annals as fully equivalent to modern scholarly peer reviewed practice? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Setting aside any personal comments, I agree that we should be using modern scholarly sources and not building articles based on these primary sources. We can judiciously attribute material to the annals of course so long as we are not relying on them for most of the content of an article. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • What Dougweller said. I also just commented along those lines at the other discussion (would be good to keep discussion in one place...) Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Fifelfoo, indeed Irish annals are full of problems not obvious to the amateur, frequently consisting of interpolations and copyist confusions. It is not only our policy but good practice to discourage editors citing them directly. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: The discussion at the main NOR talk page has identified the underlying problem here. It isn't the use of the Annals... it's the overuse (or misuse) of the Annals. The problem is that the articles in question use the annals as their basic source, instead of relying on secondary sources that, in turn, examine and discuss the Annals and other historical evidence). Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. As an example look at my article Ivar of Waterford. Those with knowledge of the subject know that I wrote this article primarily following Clare Downham, who in her book gives a mostly complete prosopography containing those annal entries mentioning the Norse of the period by name. Likewise James Henthorn Todd and many others frequently refer to these in footnotes. None of these scholars would expect a Wikipedia author to cite them for the annal entries in 95% or greater of cases because these have been used by generations in their fields for two centuries. Only when the meaning of an entry is uncertain or it has somehow gone unnoticed until recently are more explanation and citations required.

Some recognition of the fact that I have obviously been hounded by Deacon, who has been dishonest with the community, would be nice. Surely there must be some way I can get an injunction against him, but I'm not familiar with the system. Help here would be nice. DinDraithou (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Annals are always primary sources. Ivar of Waterford references Clare Downham's book and some other recent historical texts. Those are the secondary sources that the article has been written up from, and inline references need to be added in some places. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies. References to the annals can go in alongside the references to secondary sources. If you believe a Wikipedia editor has treated you badly, you can take out a wikiquette alert or even a notification on the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Annals are not always primary sources, especially in the Irish case. That's the application of another definition of a primary source: one that is just old or medieval. And it very much depends on what they record. What have come down to us are either abbreviated or interpolated redactions and translations, or in the case of the Annals of the Four Masters a very late compilation, but all for the most part reporting events they were not usually close to. Many are simply short death notices and the like. As far as Ivar of Waterford Downham just lists the entries, but if you want to force me to do what most editors don't then I'm happy to cite her list where appropriate.

I don't really know what to say at the noticeboard. Despite my angry words here and there, I don't seek out other editors or initiate interaction or leave warnings on their pages or any of that. I consider it below me. Nor do I so-called war with any frequency, and am very nice to whoever is nice to me. Deacon has been initiating our interaction wherever it may be. A few months ago he even reported me here using a falsehood, namely that I was following him around, when our histories proved the opposite was the case. I have told him again and again to stay away from my talk page and yet he can't. Now he's targeting my articles when I haven't targeted his, and forced me to do what I didn't want to do and start going through his contributions to find examples of what he's accusing me of doing: a little hypocrisy. But this all assumes that any of the articles mentioned or listed in this discussion have major problems, which they really don't. The problem here is Deacon selecting three of my articles for his new definition of original research, not intended to apply to his own work or that of other respected contributors. DinDraithou (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dougweller, Blueboar, and Itsmejudith have it right. The annals may not be primary sources in the way they were compiled, but they are being used as primary sources here, in that they're old documents that require evaluation and interpretation by modern scholars. However, it's worth pointing out that in many of the cited cases it looks like an issue of citation rather than real original research. For example the tagged sections of Ottir Iarla do include cites to the secondary sources along with the cites to the annals; fixing this is just a matter of rearranging the citations, rather than removing OR.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the point being made, but it must also be remembered that the entries I and others are using have already been edited and translated by modern scholars from various manuscripts, so there is another process the information has been through. Next, they have been put up by University College Cork in sometimes further edited or even completely new versions at the CELT Project. So for example we have the fragmentary and lacunose Annals of Tigernach edited and partially translated by Whitley Stokes over a century ago and now a new complete translation at CELT by Gearóid Mac Niocaill. DinDraithou (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Leading by example, in Ivar of Waterford I have added the following note (currently #6): Those entries in the Irish annals in which Ivar is mentioned by name can be found collected by Clare Downham in her prosopography of the Norse of the period in her 2007 Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland: The Dynasty of Ívarr to A.D. 1014, in the back following the main text, where she presents them in an abbreviated and condensed format for convenience. The full entries themselves, edited and translated by different scholars, can be further compared and examined by following the links provided in the references section of this article. Originally I cited Downham for each, but as I got more interested in this period of Irish history and became more familiar with the annals, I thought I would share that and strongly encourage readers to look at what Downham is looking at. She very nicely condenses them but that is mainly for the readers of her book and other popular modern academic secondary sources. Scholars in the "English tradition" even have difficultly with the annals and the characters in them, still to this day getting personalities and events mentioned in them confused. In Ivar's particular case he is surprising well documented for a regional sea-king who died in the year 1000 living on the edge of the Western World, a classic menace undoubtedly disliked by many contemporaries but a pleasure for me to write about. DinDraithou (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that in the case of the Bissett family (Ireland) I have a number of modern secondary sources listed in the references, and altogether these make reference to most of the annal entries and plenty of what the English sources report. More will be used as the article grows, which you will see in the currently empty and near-empty sections. It should eventually be a very nice article but the family are elusive, having been forgotten by the Irish, the result of false MacDonnell claims which eventually became truths. The source which Deacon tagged as possibly unreliable is in fact the website of the castle of the lordship descended from the one founded by the Bissetts in the 13th century,[53] owned by their descendants in the female line, the modern Earl of Antrim and his family. They possess fairly vast archives so I think we can consider their website a reliable source.[54] DinDraithou (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm worried about Bissett family (Ireland). You really do seem to be using Wikipedia to present your own research findings, which isn't allowed. Source research is allowed - that means going to recent secondary sources, not back to original texts. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not really the case. They are discussed in the modern secondary sources for every section of the article, but I expand articles in my own strange fashion. In the case of this family there is just no single coherent account of them ever written, so the research involves producing something coherent. This is what we do at Wikipedia, among other things. Their move to Ireland, involvement with the Bruces, relation to the MacDonnells, and so on, are all very well covered by scholars, but only the individual episodes. Anyone can search an index. My task is providing a little context for a narrative. But I won't be put on the defensive because I am not the problem here, and although it might be tempting the bored and unseen to make spurious judgments the majority would seem to be more or less on my side at the moment. I ask you to be more specific, and show me the rule saying I'm not allowed to offer a little context. Or are we still in the spirit of inventing new rules meant only to apply to the contributions of certain editors and not others? Why do you think I have all those modern secondary sources listed, and have already used some? What's really the case is you're either unfamiliar with articles on families and dynasties, or are somehow being unfair without realizing it. I don't like it, but I can certainly understand the feeling that if there is a report there must be case. In fact Deacon did this after reading me mention on my talk page that I was going to report him for hounding. See User_talk:DinDraithou/Archive_IV. He posted here four minutes later, and a few minutes after that showed up at my talk page, where he knows he is not supposed to be, to threaten me with a block.[55] This would in fact be his third, since he was responsible for my second block ever as well as my first, if you check. Two other times he has tried and failed. In no case but this latest has there been any mention of original research. This is completely invented. DinDraithou (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I share Itsmejudith's concerns with that article. It appears to be a synthetic coatrack comprising original research by compilation of primary sources. Have you considered publishing in professional Irish seas medieval venues instead of Wikipedia? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a rather destructive mindset, as your first comment in this discussion proves, and probably aren't familiar with the thousands of articles on families, clans, and dynasties all across Wikipedia. Your use of the term coatrack is also inappropriate. But if it makes you feel like an authority, go right ahead and call it whatever you want, and me and my "colleagues" here whatever you want. Answering your question, you don't usually find straightforward articles like this in the journals when the general history of a family is already well known to scholars. What people do is either create a main article in Wikipedia, often with a number of connecting ones for biographies and distinct branches (I plan three linked biographies for this one and the Scottish branch already have an article), or they create a website. This second option is becoming less common as members or relations or minions of distinguished families around the world go crazy at Wikipedia. The funny thing here is that I'm not even a proper relation of the Bissetts, and how I got into them is properly ridiculous. In fact I happen to be a (not gay) fan of Lady Gaga, whose mother is a Bissett, and in a discussion last year on her talk page made an ignorant statement about the Bissett family in general, giving the impression they were a minor family because my knowledge of much of Scottish and Ulster history was lacking. Several months later Gaga's ancestry came up again on the talk page, and this time I did a little more googling and felt both unkind and embarrassed for having dismissed the family. So I presented what I found on her talk page and announced I would be creating an article. Then I found that secondary sources of the last two centuries offer extended accounts of the family's career in Britain but not Ireland, where they are discussed by scholars only in relation to other dynasties. It isn't coatracking or original research to collect these episodes into a single article because of the Irish branch's unique history. I haven't added this to the article yet, but one scholar in the references has actually described the family as "highly assimilative" and probably responsible for helping the Gaels to destroy what they could of the remnants of the Earldom of Ulster. You will see the secondary sources appear more over the next three months. I'm leaving Wikipedia in May and Bissett family (Ireland) belongs to my top ten I want to leave as well written and sourced as possible. DinDraithou (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "secondary sources of the last two centuries [do not offer accounts of] Ireland, where they are discussed by scholars only in relation to other dynasties. It isn't coatracking or original research to collect these episodes." Actually, that's precisely what coatracking and original research is; and a great many articles are currently produced entirely in this synthetic mode of assembling a group of throw away lines around a topic, without any secondary sources identifying the object of study as a common object (ie: without your main island accounts of the Bissetts to hold the subject together). If you'd left it only to the secondary sources, this would be a permissible coatrack since the unity of subject (the purported family line) is homogenous across both terms. However, if you read the article at the moment it is a string of quotations from primary sources being used to produce a new reading, an impermissible coatrack. Can you point us to an exemplar article which you believe is adequately secondarily sourced, and where because the Bissett article isn't currently. Please contact me when Bissett is, to your belief, adequately secondarily sourced. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You might find the description at Wikipedia:Party and person to be helpful. "Ancient manuscripts" are given as an example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That is useful. Thank you. The question is whether Late Medieval and Early Modern sources qualify as ancient. The answer is it depends on the source, and here "foreignness" comes into play. To an Irish scholar the annals are not foreign but to an English one they could conceivably seem so and thus somehow "older" than contemporary English documents. Even to a modern Irish person the age of the annals might feel enhanced because of the destruction of most of Gaelic culture just a few centuries ago. DinDraithou (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• The core issue isn't ethno-linguistic provenance, but the fact that the works do not meet the disciplinary standards of modern history. The easiest way for you to get around the problem is to publish your core assertions off wikipedia in a reliable, reviewed form. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's your uninformed opinion. You've made just over 7000 edits since you established an account in 2003, and only 37% of those to article space. You've created 49 articles, many very poorly sourced or totally unsourced and some of them quite creepy, but I don't see any related even remotely to what this discussion is about, and you aren't even autopatrolled. I created an account in July 2009 and am, which means some people out there trust me. What you need to do is get out of my face. We're done talking.

As far as Itsmejudith I'm finding a greater history of contribution to the project but also a history of not doing much with the articles she's created: little stubs and limited to no sourcing, expansions mainly done by other contributors. Not a hint of background related to anything in this discussion anywhere.

This is a weird place you've brought me to, Deacon. I wonder who else would like to say something about how I write medieval Irish history in Wikipedia? Come on, everyone! This is just making me look good. DinDraithou (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Editors may have an interest in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:DinDraithou and Personal Attacks. Thankyou. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(I'm unwatching this discussion, everyone.) DinDraithou (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Top Gear series articles

As far as I can tell, pretty much the entire contents of Top Gear (series 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 10) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 11) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 12) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 13) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 14) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 15) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Top Gear (series 16) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is original research and personal opinion based on people's own viewing of the programme. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Generally as far as I can tell within WP; most TV episodes, and movies act as sources for their own content. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Could the articles be improved by citing secondary sources? No doubt. Is the current content of the articles OR? Nope. The articles are essentially descriptive plot summaries of what occurred in each episode, and citing a TV program itself (the primary source) for purely descriptive accounts of what happened in each eppisode is not OR. Blueboar (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike

I have been invited to take a content dispute on the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike to the No original research Noticeboard by User:Iqinn [56] so I submit this for your attention. IQinn states that the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike was "3 separate incidents". I have repeatedly asked him for a source that declares this to be "3 separate incidents" or mentions that it was "3 separate incidents" in any way and he has not provided one. The delineation of this into 3 separate incidents is arbitrary and un-sourced, it is original research. Thanks for your time and consideration. V7-sport (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no original research at all here. There are 3 incidents:

• Attack on personnel
• Attack on a van
• Attack on a building

We do not need a source that tells us how many contet we can cover in one article.

This is an long standing article and the devision makes sense.

All 3 incidents are verified through multiple sources.

It is a undisputed fact that all these 3 attacks happed on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad.

We cover all 3 attacks in one article and this is not OR and it is not OR that the article that covers 3 attacks says that there were 3 attacks. This is not OR at all. IQinn (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that it was 3 separate incidents. It wasn't investigated as such, it wasn't covered by the press as such. The videos don't refer to "separate incidents" Even the title of the article refers to the July 12, 2007 Baghdad "airstrike", not strikes. It all happened around the same place, on the same day, indeed within a couple of hours. Calling it 3 separate incidents is completely arbitrary and, more importantly, not supported by any references. If you want to call it 3 separate incidents please come up with a citation that calls them 3 separate incidents. V7-sport (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"I dispute that it was 3 separate incidents."

1) Attack on personnel

2) Attack on a van

3) Attack on a building

These are 3 incidents and we have tons of sources for each of them and for all of them. They are seen as separated incidents what is reflected in the sources. It is an undisputed fact that all this 3 incidents happed July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. Just follow the basic rules of logic. Incident 1) and 2) and 3) happed on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad follows 3 incidents happed. I guess we need some input from other editors. IQinn (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

irrelevant bickering II

Which one of those tons of sources calls them "3 separate incidents". That's the one I've been asking to see. The ones I've seen don't make the same breakdown. It isn't disputed that this happened on 12 July 07, what is disputed is whether or not they were "3 separate incidents" rather then a progression of events that happened within an of hour. V7-sport (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry i think that needs an clarifications the article says "The July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrikes were a series of three air-to-ground attacks" That what i am always referring to is "three air-to-ground attacks". You really dispute that there were 3 "air-to-ground attacks"? We have verified 3 "air-to-ground attacks" through multiple sources. Do you have any source that dispute that there were 3 attacks on that day? IQinn (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, the article says "three air-to-ground attacks" but that and the other references to 3 separate events are un-sourced which is the reason why we are here. Calling it 3 separate events is not backed by a reliable source. Indeed, what you call the "Attack on personnel" and the "Attack on a van" happened at the same place, during the same time, involved the same people, etc. Calling it a separate event is not backed by any source and the delineation's are completely arbitrary. So please, where is the source that calls this "3 separate events" that you state exists. V7-sport (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC) It is NOT "completely arbitrary" and it is surely not OR. This separation is reflected in the sources. There were "three air-to-ground attacks" in one day. That is verified in the sources. The article explains these three events as reflected in the secondary sources. No OR involved. IQinn (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC) You wrote: " Do you have any source that dispute that there were 3 attacks on that day?", The sources in the article refer to the event as a singular: "The video from Iraq shows a US helicopter strike in July 2007 in which about 12 people died." "Army released the findings of its official inquiry into Operation ILAAJ (CURE)—a military action in Baghdad documented by a video camera in an Apache helicopter" "Classified U.S. military video showing a 2007 attack" " investigation of [[ http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 |the incident]] "" the incident ", " five days after the incident," I could go on..they refer to it in the singular. So which source refers to the incident as "3 separate attacks"? Please... V7-sport (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Your partial quotes or out of context quotes do not prove anything. None of these sources dispute that there were 3 attacks on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. Most of them do not refer to all the events and all the 3 attacks that our article covers and as they to not refer to all the content we cover in the article. They often not even mention the 3th attack. "The July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrikes were a series of three air-to-ground attacks" All these 3 attacks are verified in the article. The information is presented in a NPOV and no OR is involved. IQinn (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Well yes, it disputes the "fact" that there were "3 separate attacks", they refer to the events of that day in the singular. A US helicopter strike or A military action, etc. And yes, those were the first 5 sources in the article. Simply repeating that it's a "fact" over and over isn't a reference to "3 separate attacks", even if you put it in bold type. V7-sport (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC) As explained to you all 3 attacks are verified by tons of sources. The article has been written by many. You are welcome to challenge established content but there is no OR involved here and your arguments are not compelling concerning this and the way sources divide up the incidences. Even your own sources presented here often cover only one or two of the attacks and we have other sources that verify the others. All these attacks took place on 12 July 2007 in Baghdad. No OR involved. 06:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Post these "tons of sources" that refer to the events as "3 separate attacks". It should be quite easy for you if there are "tons of sources". If not then it's original research. And please, don't just write the same thing again in the next post. that's not posting a reliable source. V7-sport (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Want me to copy and paste a hundred refs from the article to this page here? You can find them in the article and specially in these sections of the article where they verify these attacks: Attack on personnel Attack on a van Attack on a building IQinn (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Repeating the same thing that brought this dispute to this notice board over and over is not a response. Post a link to a reliable source that states that it was "3 separate attacks" as you claim or it's original research. V7-sport (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC) I have just posted you the links tho these sources and i have explained to you that this is not OR at all. This claim is false and the discussion has show that your claim false. The article is well sourced presented in NOPV and no OR is involved. IQinn (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Well I guess you don't understand what a reliable source is. Look at this WP:RS and you will see that what you have posted, over and over is not a reliable source. I am looking for a reliable source that backs your, and at this point it is solely your claim that the this was "3 separate events". Wikipedia articles, especially the very same one that is in dispute are not reliable sources. So please, stop wasting everyones time and post a reliable source that backs your claim or stop adding original research WP:NOR to Wikipedia.V7-sport (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC) What you are posting is, without a doubt, original research. Read this passage; "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged." OK? So since you have tons of sources lets see one. V7-sport (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Repeating and shouting the same staff over and over again does not help and you are wasting our time with that. I know the policies as most of the people around here. No need to put them again here in bold. You mean the sources that i have pointed you to are not WP:RS? They surely are. "stop adding original research WP:NOR to Wikipedia." I have never done so. Please be careful with such statements. I fully understand the policies i have never added any OR to the article. Also all the sources that verify these 3 attacks are indeed WP:RS: Attack on personnel Attack on a van Attack on a building\ Your claim of OR is false and by now i do get the impression that you do not fully understand this policy. Please stop wasting our time their is no OR and the sources are indeed reliable. IQinn (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Stating that it was 3 separate attacks without any reference for that assertion is original research. Full stop. Cutting and pasting the Wiki article itself as a reference indicates that you have no understanding of what reliable sources are or even n understanding of the argument at hand, despite the fact that I have copied and pasted the relevant sections from WP:NOR and WP:RS. Not much more I can do here if you can't understand what has been laid out for you. V7-sport (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC) All 3 attacks are verified and no OR is involved. Full stop. It seems to me that you are not even reading my replies carefully. The references in these sections verify that there were 3 attacks: Attack on personnel Attack on a van Attack on a building All these references included in these 3 sections are indeed WP:RS and no OR is involved. Not much more I can do here if you can't understand what has been laid out for you. IQinn (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC) You wrote: "The references in these sections verify that there were 3 attacks", Which one, because you are mischaracterizing what they say and mischaracterizing what references say can get you banned from Wikipedia. Which reference says that they were "3 separate attacks"? I have asked a dozen times now. Which reference. V7-sport (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC) No, i am not mischaracterizing what the references say and i have never done so and i am surely not getting banned for something i am not doing. :) I have provided you a dozen times now with the references that verify all these attacks that happen July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. Not much i can do more. There is no OR. IQinn (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Stating that you have provided me with references that call this 3 separate attacks is false. It is flat out untrue and that is obvious to anyone who cares to look at what you have posted above. You have simply posted links back to the Wikpedia page that you wrote that calls them 3 separate attacks That isn't a reliable source. There is no clearer way of saying that. You must get it by now because any sentient thing would get it at this point. What other conclusion can I come to other then you are being Wikipedia:Disruptive in order to preserve your POV? What you are posting, over and over rather then providing a reference is an example of Tendentious editing. "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation.... repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors continue to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia". I have come to this noticeboard as a measure of good faith but anyone looking at this in an ANI could plainly see what is going on. So post the link that calls this "3 separate incidents", here's a hint, posting the Wiki page is not going to do it. V7-sport (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Did you read my last replies carefully? It seems to me you did not. I have put you the important words in bold. The references in these 3 sections verify that there were 3 attacks. Your continues misrepresentation of this fact and your continues refusal to get the point is disruptive. There is no OR. IQinn (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC) "Did you read my last replies carefully? It seems to me you did not." Where is the link, where is the reference. Where is the reliable source. Where is the thing that I can click on that says that these were "3 separate attacks"? Post that. All that you have posted are links back to the same wiki page that is in dispute which is disruptive at this point. ""I have put you the important words in bold. The references in these 3 sections verify that there were 3 attacks." No they do not. That is untrue. All you have to do to verify that it is true is post a reference from a reliable source, something that you have repeatedly failed to do. "Your continues misrepresentation of this fact and your continues refusal to get the point is disruptive" Why not just say "I'm rubber, you're glue over and over." That would be about as effective a counterargument. "There is no OR. " Yes, your posting information that isn't backed by a reference is original research. You simply stating that there "is no OR" over and over again IS NOT A REFERENCE TO A RELIABLE SOURCE.V7-sport (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC) As said before shouting is uncivil and does not change anything. You may consider taking a break. I have posted you the links to the reliable sources. Your continues misrepresentation of this fact and your continues refusal to get the point has become increasingly disruptive. There is no OR. IQinn (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Disruptive editing is uncivil and wont change anything. You have not posted links to a reliable source, stating so is either a demonstration that you don't know what a reliable source is (Hint hint, a wiki article that you wrote isn't a reliable source.) or you are deliberately being disruptive to keep your article from being edited. Either way, I'm not even going to ask you to post a link to a reliable source anymore; clearly you can't because clearly you are wrong. Repeating that there is no "OR" is not a reference and is just an insult to peoples intelligence at this point.V7-sport (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC) I have replied in a civil manner and my editing is not disruptive. Your claim is false. I did not write the article. Your claim is false. I have posted you the links to the reliable sources. Your claim is false. Your continues misrepresentation of these facts is disruptive. There is no OR. IQinn (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Your lack of civility has been outlined on the articles talk page. You have contributed to the article so my claim is verifiable. You have absolutely NOT posted the links to a reliable source, that is simply untrue. Either you don't understand or you are lying. I have not misrepresented any facts, it is all there for anyone to see and is patently obvious to anyone that you haven't posted a link to a reliable source that backs your claim. Therefore it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. V7-sport (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC) My contribution to the article are negligible. Your claim that i wrote the article is false. I have been civil all the time. Please do not waste our time with ad hominum attacks. I have posted you the links to the reliable sources. Your claim is false. It is not OR at all. And your refusal to get the point is disruptive. As said shouting and personal attack do not help. Please stop this uncivil behavior. You might consider taking a break. Thank you IQinn (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Should we take your laughable claim that this; Attack on personnel Attack on a van Attack on a building Is a reliable source for anything much less the statement that there were "3 separate attacks" to the reliable sources noticeboard as well? V7-sport (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC) The references in these sections verify that there were 3 attacks. As it was clearly stated multiple times. :) This reply is the ultimate proof of your continues disruptive behavior on refusal to get the point. All 3 attacks are veryfied by multiple reliable sources. No OR involved. IQinn (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Which reference in those sections. Again, you haven't posted a specific reference. Which one. V7-sport (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC) We have this already discussed. All these references are WP:RS and they verify the given information. What makes 1+1+1 = 3 attacks. We could for example decide to cover one of these attacks in a separate article but as it all happens on July 12, 2007 it makes a lot of sense to cover them in one article. IQinn (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC) So where do they verify that the action that occurred in one day, within one hour and a within a city block "3 separate attacks". That is what you are claiming the sources say and it is untrue to claim that. You HAVE NOT been able to post a SPECIFIC SOURCE that says that they were "3 separate attacks". Yes, it should be covered in one article, but your breaking it up into 3 separate instances is artificial and ORIGINAL RESEARCH as you can't provide a source that says they were 3 different events. So where is the reliable source? 3100 words on this page dedicated to trying to get you to post a source to back your claim... V7-sport (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Not i am breaking it up as i have not written the article and i have not written the sources. It was written by a large number of editors and is based on tons of WP:RS. It is a undisputed fact that all these 3 attacks happed on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. Verified by the given sources and without any OR. You are shouting again but that does not help and is disruptive. Ever considered that people are getting frustrated with your behavior? 01:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC) You write "It is a undisputed fact that all these[sic] 3 attacks happed[sic] on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad." and you are wrong. I DISPUTE that there were "3 separate attacks" You wrote that was "Verified by the given sources" WHICH SOURCES CLAIM THAT IT WAS 3 SEPARATE ATTACKS? If you can't cite one of them it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. "If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research". To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."V7-sport (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC) No matter how loud you shout it is not OR. We have this already discussed. All these references are WP:RS and they verify the given information. What makes 1+1+1 = 3 attacks represented in a NPOV in the article without any OR. I am telling you the last time to be civil and not to shout at me. Go for a walk or drink what ever might calm you down. IQinn (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC) When you write "all these references are WP:RS", which reference are you referring to that states that they were 3 separate attacks? If it exists why can't you post it? If you can't post it you are mis-characterizing what the sources say. Once again, should I take this to the reliable sources notice board as well? Or should we just go to the ANI about your disruptive editing. Provide a source or drop this. V7-sport (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC) As said 1+1+1 = 3 attacks. The references in these sections verify that there were 3 attacks. Attack on personnel Attack on a van Attack on a building Reliable sources noticeboard? You doubt that any of these sources in these 3 sections is unreliable? My editing is not disruptive. That is rediculous and just one of the multiple ad hominum attacks that piles up with your extensive shouting and refusal to get the point. Regards IQinn (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Just because the page was structured that way doesn't mean that quote is reliably sourced. What I doubt is that any of those "reliable sources" state that this was "3 separate attacks". And that's what you needed to prove here and that's what you haven't. V7-sport (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC) The structuring follows the WP:RS. 1+1+1 = three verified attacks. The sources are in the article and the sources divided the incidents on that day into 3 attacks. The article follows exactly the sources and presents the information in NPOV without any OR. IQinn (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC) I can't be called an impartial source (see below), but I completely agree with V7-sport. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Teaming up in an ad hominem attack with another user? Be assured that can only leads that you get blocked from Wikipedia. Nothing else. You are still welcome to continue the discussion about the content issue. Shall we? IQinn (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks Mnnlaxer, and there was nothing even remotely ad hominem about that, obviously. V7-sport (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC) It is obviously concerning the post below. He is obviously not neutral and he calls himself an impartial source. He agrees on what concerning the content issue of this post? IQinn (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC) You write: "He is obviously not neutral and he calls himself an impartial source" yet he didn't call himself an impartial source. Indeed he declared at the at the onset that "I can't be called an impartial source"... Another example of you willfully mischaracterizing what someone else wrote. He doesn't need to be "neutral" here, all he needs to do is understand a very simple premise; If you can't find a source for what you have posted in Wikipedia you probably shouldn't post it. And we are "still welcome to continue the discussion about the content issue"? OK; Find a reliable source for your assertion or it is original research. That's the cliffs notes of the above abomination. V7-sport (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC) No there is no single source needed to that is a false interpretation of the OR policy. All 3 attacks are verified by multiple reliable sources and we do not need a secondary source to tell us the obvious. The article follows exactly the sources that verify 3 attacks. 1+1+1 = three attacks. We do not need to verify the rules of logic. IQinn (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC) As it has been outlined for you over and over and over YOU NEED AS SOURCE FOR ANY INFORMATION THAT IS CHALLENGED OR ELSE IT IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. It is not "logic" that an airstrike that occured in 1 place over the course of an hour be divided up into "3 Separate attacks" so you are going to need to find a source for that. You say the article "follows exactly the sources that verify 3 attacks". Post a link to this source that verify 3 separate attacks. OR ELSE IT"S ORIGINAL RESEARCH. V7-sport (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Shouting again? I must say i am fed up with your shouting by now. There are not divided into 3 separate they are put together from 3 verified attacks according to the WP:RS. The article presents this in a NPOV and the article describes clearly the events as they happen. This incident has been described as 3 separate attacks form the beginning. So by now there should be some reliable sources that claim that this would be wrong. You have one? IQinn (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC) I'm fed up with your pointless disruptive editing. I am not making the claim that they are "3 separate attacks" therefore I don't need to come up with a source to verify it. The sources listed refer to the events of tht day in the singular, that has been shown to you. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 seperate attacks or it's original research. That should be good enough to reply whatever stalling tactic you come up with next. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 seperate attacks or it's original research. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research'. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research'. V7-sport (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Shouting again, refusal to take the the point ad hominem arguments... You are showing here a long list of disruptive editing and behavior. I have ask you multiple time to stop this. The reliable source have been provided to you and things have been explained to you. Did you even read my last post? Why don't you answer my question? IQinn (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research'. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research' V7-sport (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC) The references have been provided to you and things have been explained to you. There is not OR. Your shouting, refusal to take the the point, edit warring, out of context quotes and ad hominem arguments do not change that. You are disrupting our work here. IQinn (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC) No references were provided, to state otherwise at this point is a lie. Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 seperate attacks or it's original research.V7-sport (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Shouting, refusal to take the the point, edit warring, out of context quotes and ad hominem arguments plus now calling other editors liars. Stop it. The reliable references have been provided to you and things have been explained to you. This is an well established article written by many people and there is no OR. IQinn (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Well it's obvious to anyone reading that you haven't provided a reliable reference to support your claim that this was 3 seperate attacks. Repeating that you have over and over indicates that you don't have a clue what a reliable reference is. (as I have explained to you several times now, it isn't Wikipedia,) So at this point either you don't understand basic English and shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia or you are not telling the truth when you state that you have provided a reliable reference to support your claim that this was 3 Separate attacks. Either way, you shouldn't be editing until you get a familiarity with what words mean or a familiarity with the truth as it corresponds to reality. Once again, Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research'V7-sport (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Well it is obvious to anyone reading that i have provided the reliable references that support that there were 3 attacks. No doubt about that. For everyone reading this here it is also clear that after continues shouting, refusal to take the the point, edit warring, out of context quotes and ad hominem arguments you are now turning to insults. Therefore you have almost broken every rule we have about civility. That is very troublesome. IQinn (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC) So off to the reliable references noticeboard we go. V7-sport (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Could you please explain your edit summary that comes with this edit. "Too bad there isn't an idiot noticeboard". IQinn (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Just_to_confirm_the_obvious.V7-sport (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) I already replied there. It is a gross misrepresentation of what has been discussed here what is also troublesome. It would also be good if you explain your edit summary: "Too bad there isn't an idiot noticeboard" Thank you. IQinn (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Ok, we have had some progress, IQinn has acknowleged that the only thing he has posted on this forum as a reply is not a vaid source. "Nobody ever has claimed that Wikipedia can be used as an reliable source" so, unless you can come up with a specific, non Wiki source to back your assertion that it was 3 separate attacks then even you acknowledge that to say so is original research.V7-sport (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC) That is absolute nonsense and an mis presentation of the discussion and out of context quoting what is considered as uncivil under our policies. Please do not do this. The 3 attacks are verified and that cut it. I am not going to copy and paste about 50 references that can be easily found under each of the sections. 1+1+1 = 3. One attack on the personal. One attack on the van. One attack on the house. All verified, described and commented on by multiple reliable sources. There is no OR there is no misrepresentation and all is described in the article in a NPOV. IQinn (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC) You don't need to cut and paste "50 references". All you need is 1. Otherwise it's Original research. V7-sport (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC) You are not listening, 1+1+1 = 3. One attack on the personal. One attack on the van. One attack on the house. All verified, described and commented on by multiple reliable sources. There is no OR and we do not need to verify the rules of logic as they are universal. IQinn (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original researchV7-sport (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC) As said we do not need to verify the rules of logic. 1+1+1 = 3. One attack on the personal. One attack on the van. One attack on the house. All verified, described and commented on by multiple reliable sources. One and two and three is verified therefore it is verified that there where 3 attacks on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. There is no OR. Your may have a look at this WP:LAWYERING section 2), 3) and 4) in the lede. There is described what you keep doing here. IQinn (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, IQinn has just been advised that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Period." on the reliable sources noticeboard, so referring back to it isn't going to work. IQinn, you need to provide another source other then Wikipedia itself that states that the action on that day was "3 separate attacks" or else that assertion is original research and needs to be removed. Stating "As said we do not need to verify the rules of logic" is not a source to back your claim. V7-sport (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

1) I have never made the claim that Wikipedia would be a reliable source. 2) I have told you multiple times that i have never made this claim.

3) All three attacks are verified, described and commented on by multiple reliable sources and we do not need to verify the rules of logic. 1+1+1 = 3. One attack on the personal. One attack on the van. One attack on the house. All three attacks are verified, described and commented on by multiple reliable sources. One and two and three is verified therefore it is verified that there where 3 attacks on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. There is no OR. Your may have a look at this WP:LAWYERING section 2), 3) and 4) in the lede. There is described what you are doing here. IQinn (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Every time I have asked you for a source you have referred back to the Wikipedia page itself, which you now know is not a reliable source. The "rules of logic" (and I dispute that Logic is what you have employed here, it's actually WP:SYNTHESIS) are not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, Verifiability is. And that is done with reliable sources. So you need to post a reliable source that states the incident was "3 separate attacks" as you have insisted on in the article or drop the insistence that it was "3 separate attacks". There is no need to waste more bytes here, just post a reliable source that backs your claim.V7-sport (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That is false. I have never done so and i have explicitly told many times that this is not the case. I have always refereed to "the sources" that are included in 3 sections of the article. All three attacks are verified, described and commented on by multiple reliable sources. One and two and three is verified therefore it is verified that there where 3 attacks on July 12, 2007 in Baghdad. There is no WP:SYNTHESIS involved in that. You either do not understand our policies or you misinterprets them knowingly. There is no OR and there is no WP:SYNTHESIS involved. Did you have a look at WP:LAWYERING section 2), 3) and 4)? You might also check Wikipedia:Policy shopping at the same time. IQinn (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"That is false. I have never done so"...Well anyone who tilts their head up can clearly see that the only source that you have posted is the wiki article in question and you have been told that isn't good enough on the other message board.

" I have always refereed to "the sources" that are included in 3 sections of the article." But you have never cited a source that calls the events of that day "3 separate attacks" as you insist they be labeled. That's original research, no matter how you try to confuse the issue. Post a reliable source. V7-sport (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well this is false again. I have never said that Wikipedia is a reliable source. And have been told nothing on the other message board. I have never made this claim and i have told you that many times. Please do not quote out of contest as you has done it here. Thank you.

It seems to me that you have not read WP:LAWYERING section 2), 3) and 4) yet. We with no doubt verified through reliable sources 3 attacks. An attack on personnel, an attack on the van and the attack on the house. 1+1+1 makes three attacks. How would you define "separate"? As far as i know our article does not say there were 3 separate attacks. IQinn (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well anyone can see that it's not false by the above links to the article you posted and if they want to follow the link in the above irrelevant bickering they can see that it was confirmed that Wikipedia is not a reliable source which is the only thing you have posted to back your assertion that there were "3 separate attacks".

" 1+1+1 makes three attacks" No, that is challenged; the delineation between the action is arbitrary and it was a progression of events, not 3 specific attacks. In order for you to keep the reference to "3 separate attacks" you are going to need to post a reliable secondary source, not just link to Wikipedia. Otherwise it is original research. V7-sport (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No that is false again and everybody can see that i have never said that Wikipedia is a reliable source. I have told you that many times and it is irrelevant as nobody here has ever made this claim. Stop bickering again. The attack on personnel, the attack on the van and the attack on the house are all verified through multiple secondary sources and no OR is involved. Full Stop.

1) You want really challenge that 1+1+1 = 3? 2) The separation is not arbitrary is not it follows along the sources. 3) You have not answered my questions what makes a debate almost impossible. 4) How would you define "separate"? 5) You behave like in WP:LAWYERING lede section 2, 3 and 4. described. 6) The article does not say that there were "3 separate attacks". IQinn (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your link to the article is the only link you have provided. It isn't lawyering to insist that you provide a reliable source for your assertion. Insisting on verifiability is one of the foundations of the Wiki project. You have insisted that the events were 3 separate attacks, so please, give me a link or stop your disruptive editing. V7-sport (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You do not reply to any of my previous points what is uncivil and disruptive and what makes an constructive discussion impossible, it comes with incivility and edit warring. Despite the fact that you have been warned you continue your disruptive behavior. Have a look at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Civility and WP:LAWYERING lede section 2, 3 and 4. described and expect to be blocked if this continues and you do not engages in an constructive dialog. So lets continue: 1) You want really challenge that 1+1+1 = 3? 2) The separation is not arbitrary it follows along the sources. 3) You have not answered my previous questions, please do so. 4) How would you define "separate"? 5) The article does not say that there were "3 separate attacks". Thank you. IQinn (talk)

That's still not a reliable source for your assertion. V7-sport (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In conclusion: 1) The claim that Wikipedia would be a reliable source has never been made and is irrelevant for this discussion. 2) The attack on the the personal, the attack on the van and the attack on the house are verified through multiple reliable sources. 3) The term "separate" is not defined. 3) The article does not say "3 separate attacks" and therefore does not make this assertion. 4) There is no OR involved in the way the article presents this information in it's current form. IQinn (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Re.1)It has been shown to you that you cannot cite a Wikipedia article as a reliable source, which is the only thing you have done here to back your claim.

Re.2)You haven't been able to source the delineation of the days events into 3 attacks. Indeed, you haven't posted a single source. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

Re.3)Understanding basic English is a prerequisite to editing here.

Re.your second number 3... The article claims the events of that day were "three attacks" and is broken up as such. The delineation of these into 3 units is arbitrary and un-sourced. You have steadfastly maintained that they were "3 separate" attacks/incidents here and at the articles talk page. That is un-sourced and original research.

4)It is original research because you cannot provide a source to confirm it. That much is abundantly clear after days of asking for one. According to Wikipedia "The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for... anything challenged or likely to be challenged"...If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research". To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

In conclusion, The only other person to post on this subject stated "I completely agree with V7-sport". (Mnnlaxeryou) You have had more then enough time to provide a source for your contention and you have not done so. No source = original research. V7-sport (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rere.1) That is false: The attack on the personnel, the attack on the van and the attack on the house are verified through multiple reliable sources.

Rere.2) The attack on the personnel, the attack on the van and the attack on the house are verified through multiple reliable sources. The references are easily accessible in the article.

Rere.3) The events are not broken up arbitrarily. The sources do so and there is no OR involved. Yes the article verifies 3 attacks. Let me ask you again how do you define "separate"? That would be important to know.

Rere.4) You seems to agree now that the article does not claim that there were "3 separate attacks". There is no OR involved in the way the article presents this information in it's current form. Have also a look at WP:LAWYERING lede section 2, 3 and 4.

In conclusion: Do not Quote other people out of contest you are welcome to invide Mnnlaxer to come back and state to what he agrees on or not. There is no OR involved here. All the 3 attacks are verified through multiple secondary sources easily found. 1+1+1 = 3. That is a fact as your continues WP:LAWYERING is is disruptive. IQinn (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting close to calling this "resolved" if you can't provide a source to back your claim. If you are just going to continue to repeat the same thing over and over without providing a source there isn't much point in carrying on. V7-sport (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Each of these three attacks is verified by multiple secondary sources and there are descriptions and commentaries on each of these incidents by reliable secondary sources. You know where the sources are. Stop WP:LAWYERING. The article presents the information in a NPOV with no OR involved. The article does not say that there were "3 separate attacks". You are not even giving us a definition how you define "separate" in this context even people have ask you for that. Please do so. IQinn (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If the days events are "verified by multiple reliable sources" as 3 different attacks then you could have posted one of them days ago. You have failed to do so. They aren't by the way. Stop parroting the the same accusations over and over. It's not clever and it's not a reliable source. The article claims there were "3 attacks" and that is original research. Was every trigger pull a different attack? You shouldn't be editing the English version of this encyclopedia if you don't know this:

Definition of SEPARATE adj \ˈse-p(ə-)rət

1a : set or kept apart : detached b archaic : solitary, secluded c : immaterial, disembodied

2a : not shared with another : individual <separate rooms>

3a : existing by itself : autonomous <a separate country> b : dissimilar in nature or identity <consulted five separate authorities>

Time is growing short, if you have a reliable source that these were 3 separate attacks post it. If not it's original research.V7-sport (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

3 attacks are verified through multiple reliable secondary sources. So tell us how you define "separate"? We ask you more that enough for that.

Huuuh...uncivil ad hominem attack again. "You shouldn't be editing the English version of this encyclopedia if you don't know this:" :)) Surely i know that and i could have also copied and pasted that down from the internet. But that does not answer the question that was ask. Let me here bold the important part for you as you obviously misunderstood the question.

Please define "separate" attacks in the context of this article. You know what counts still at the same attack. Different targets? Five minutes delay between different targets. Different places and different Helicopters? Or is everything what happened on one day is one attack. Take your position on that and stop posting nonsense ad hominem comments. IQinn (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "3 attacks are verified through multiple reliable secondary sources". WHICH ONE CALLS THEM 3 ATTACKS? IF YOU CAN"T PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR THAT IT"S ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You wrote; "Let me here bold the important part for you as you obviously misunderstood the question." It's not up to me to define the words that YOU are inserting into the article. You wrote "Please define "separate" attacks in the context of this article. "That's not up to me, that's up to reliable sources. I am not the one who is inserting that language or that structure. You are. Therefore you need to provide a source, something that you have not done here, at the reliable source noticeboard or at the articles talk page. Enough is enough, you have had 5 days to find a source. V7-sport (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn is clearly right about the dispute regarding citing WP, and V7's argument on that seem in bad faith and merely intended to inflame the situation. However, V7 is correct that generally on wikipedia you cannot merely synthesis the information from three sources to state something that none of them say separately. Iquinn's argument seems to be that this is an exception for WP:CALC. While I am skeptical of that argument, I ask Iquinn to refer me to a citation which calls the event a series of attacks, and the citations for each of these attacks as a separate event. If we have that, perhaps there is a WP:Calc argument to be made. Without it, it seems like synthesis to me.LedRush (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello LedRush, I appreciate your comment. I have to say that my argument is not in bad faith and is not intended to inflame anything. I have just been practically begging this editor to provide a source for the assertion that these were 3 seperate attacks rather ten a progression of incidents. When you say that "Iqinn is clearly right about the dispute regarding citing WP" what did you mean exactly? The only citation he has given me was referring back to the Wikipedia page, which isn't a reliable source. ThanksV7-sport (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean that Iquinn was not saying that the WP article supported his position, but that the citations contained in each corresponsing section of the WP article supported his position. He was simply taking a shortcut: instead of listing the actual citations, he said "look at the citations in this section of the article". I would prefer for him to list the actual citations, but the amount of time spent on that issue, and your insistance on pursuing it, was just ridiculous.LedRush (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the amount of time spent on the issue has been ridiculous and I too would prefer that he list his citations. V7-sport (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

V7-sport is edit warring again. There is no consensus yet for these changes. I am just writing my reply including all the references that could have been found by elsewhere anyway. This is an awful lot of work and i will post this here within the next 8 hours. IQinn (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The article has all the same information that it had before, it's just not arbitrarily split into 3 separate attacks which was.. Original research. I am going to follow LedRush's wise advice now and stop wasting time. V7-sport (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion should be resolved before related edits are made.LedRush (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

He performed the edits already through edit warring and under violation of the 3RR rule despite he had fact that he had been warned by an administrator 10 minutes earlier not to do so. I give up on him as it seems that our community tolerates such disruptive behavior that comes with a long list of other uncivil behavior and personal attacks what adds up into gaming the system WP:GAME. IQinn (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think that he is too uncivil, report him on WP:ANI. If you think he is edit warring, report him on the edit war notice board here [57]. Otherwise, I suggest just focusing on the content issues. Have you put together a list of sources which support your position that there were three attacks.?LedRush (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was half through to it but as said i give up on him and he can do with the article whatever he want to do. It has become irrelevant. IQinn (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so the content dispute is over and you agree that the article will present the situation as a single attack?LedRush (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is quite a misrepresentation to describe all the events that happened there at that day as a single "attack" especially the 3th incident - where the helicopter attacks the house - happens at a very different time and place. As said you can do with the article whatever you want to do now. WP:LAWYERING and edit warring have decided. IQinn (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So you know, I don't have a dog in this fight at all. The article remains the way it was before (with three separate attacks delineated) and I stand here waiting to see any evidence about how the article should look. I don't understand your response at all. Everything is going your way and you sound like someone kicked your dog.LedRush (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was because i did not see that you have reverted back to the previous version. I have now no problem to start over from that position and to work out the sources, the details and to present them here on the page for other people to judge on. Would 36 hours a problem? I am quite on under a bit of time pressure now and i do not want to do it in a rush. That is actually not an easy question and we might even end up in the middle at the end. IQinn (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

RE. LedRush, did you disagree with the presentation of the article as a progresson of events, rather calling it 3 attacks? (Which is still unsourced)V7-sport (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Generally, no, I don't disagree with that presentation. But then again, I don't disagree with the current presentation either. I really don't have a dog in this fight and am inserting myself here as an unasked for, extra set of eyes. I would generally agree that it is original research to state that three separate attacks occurred when no sources say this, but simple WP:CALC could be acceptable. For that reason, I suggest we wait until Iqinn gets his sources and we can see whether or not we can, per WP policy, call this three attacks. After that, hopefully editing the article to better conform to the sources (or leaving it as it now is) should be an easier prospect.LedRush (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise why don't we restore the progression of events presentation pending the result of his source search? I think it's fair, considering the amount of time and energy already spent on trying to get this verified and it will enable me to continue sorting out the articles issues. V7-sport (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at WP:CALC and I honestly don't see how it could be applied to this. The page says for "routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age". Using it for delineating separations in an airstrike looks to be pretty far off from the policy. It even links to conversion templates. V7-sport (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to edit the page concerning this issue until this issue is resolved. Concerning WP:CALC, if he shows three sources which each describe a separate attack, CALC may be used to say that there were three attacks. I said that I am unsure of this rationale above precisely because I haven't seen the sources. Once they are displayed, perhaps CALC will be appropriate. I really don't know.LedRush (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK I'm going to stipulate that I prefer that there was a source that described them as 3 attacks and I don't think the CALC policy fits here. That said, considering that you have described the amount of time spent on this as "ridiculous" how much longer should this be allowed to continue?V7-sport (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The time spent arguing about whether or not you could cite to WP itself was ridiculous. This discussion seems like a close call and one difficult to work through.LedRush (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The bulk of the time was spent on asking him for reliable sources to back his assertion that tis was 3 attacks. Please, If I am mischaracterizing anything let me know, but you seem to be saying that the article as it stands now is not sourced. He may be able to make an argument that it is sourced if he provides sources or explains how the existing sources back his delineation of the days events. Right? If so, that's what I have been trying to get here. Sources to back his claim. Do you agree as it stands now that calling it 3 attacks is not sourced?

I do not agree. I have not gone through all the sources he pointed to, because there are too many. I have asked him to point me to the correct ones, which he has said he will do within 36 hours. After that, I can better understand his argument and give you my opinion. Of course, my opinion is only that: one editor's opinion. Really, I hoped just to interject myself into an intractable situation so you guys could better work this out. But right now, let's just see what he comes up with and then analyze his argument.LedRush (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary of this content dispute by Iqinn

V7-sport suggests to perform these large scale changes to a well structured and long standing article written by a large number of different editors. I personally believe that this change would present the events that happened that day in a misleading way and that is not WP:NPOV and that it turns an well structured article into gibberish.

He performed the changes without prior discussion on the articles talk page what is perfecly fine under be Bold but he kept reverting to his prefered new version and did not directly engaged in a WP:BRD discussion on the articles talk page. What sparked an edit war.

Initially V7-sport gave the following explanations for his proposted changes.

Edit summary: Dividing it up into 3 incidents is not backed by the references, nor the title of the article...' (note: dividing...it...incidents)

I stated my opposition to the changes on the articles talk page and we discussed the topic there. articles talk page.

I would summarize the discussion there as:

His postion: "Where is your source that says they are 3 separate incidents? " {note: separate incidents)

My position there: '"The article concerns 3 incidents that are not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. These are 3 incidents and all of them are sourced."

Result: no consensus - nevertheles another edit war broke out despite i had suggested him to bring the topic to the OR board here what he then did and where we are now.

Rough summary of the discussion here in my view

V7-sport: "Come up with a reliable source that says that it is 3 Separate attacks or it's original research" (note: Separate attacks but in a few cases he referes to it just as attacks and at the beginning it was defined as incidents)

My view:

• 1) The article does not say "3 separate attacks" so that i think it is unresonalbe to repeately demand references from me for a claim that is not even in the article and therefore can not be OR.

• 2) The reliable sources describe 3 "attacks" or "incidents" and the reliable sources in the article verify at least 3 of them. This is not original research to list 3 things in the article that are each veryfied by reliable source.

I personally think this here is a classic case of WP:LAWYERING section 2), 3) and 4) in the lede.

I personally think this dispute here has little to do with OR and is merely something that circles around definitions and minor tweaks in language.

Sources

1) Reliable sources that verify an attack on personnel: [58], [59], [60], [61]...

2) Reliable sources that verify an attack on the van:, [62][63], [64], [65], [66]

3) Reliable sources thaf verify an attack on the house:[67], [68]

The text of most of these sources and other sources devide the airstrike into into different attacks or incidents. "people affected by these incidents'", "Around thirty-one minutes into it, the Apache—its crew designated Crazy Horse One-Eight—flies to a nearby part of Baghdad" [69], 'In the second incident captured by the video, " [70] "Der einzige, der den ersten Angriff überlebt hat" (the only one who survived the first attack.[71], "The helicopters later destroy a vehicle..."[72], "second round of shooting" , "The third bout of gunfire" [73]... just to name a few

Further sources can be provide or found in the article and on the internet.

The whole dispute seems to me just circuling aroung certain words and definitions that should be clarified in certain areas of the article as there it seems some changes needed.

Suggested solution and changes

I object the large scale revamp as performed by V7-sport and suggest the following solution.

• Article title:

"July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike

Keep in its current form.

• First sentence:

"The July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrikes were a series of three air-to-ground attacks"

Change the word "airstrikes" to singular "airstrike" with no other changes.

• Infobox:

"At least 18 people killed in total. In the first two airstrikes: about 12 people killed, including 2 civilian reporters; 2 children wounded. In the third airstrike: at least 7 people killed. "

Replace the words "airstrike", "airstrikes" with "attack", "attacks".

• Lede:

Replace the "The second airstrike" with "The second attack" and "In the third airstrike" with "In the third attack".

• Sections and sub-sections:

Now we have a "Incidents" section with the sub-sections: "Attack on personnel", "Attack on a van", "Attack on a building"

Keep this sections and sub-section in it's current structure. The sections give a clear overview about the events and do present the them in a WP:NPOV and leaves it up to the individual reader to make their own judgment about it.

I think we have to be coucious with language and we have to seperate different issues and parts of the article.

I think this dispute here has nothing to do with OR and is merely something that circles around definitions and minor tweaks.

In conclusion

There seeem to me no OR involved in these issues here and the article present the events in a WP:NPOV and leaves it up to the individual reader to make their own judment about these events. Nevertheless there seems to be some changes needed. I would welcome your comments and i am open to make additions or corrections to the from me suggested solution and will keep working towards consensus. Shall we replace the words attack with the word incident? IQinn (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

So you have a source from Siri lnka that says "second incident" A source from Germany that says "Der einzige, der den ersten Angriff überlebt hat" and you want to string them together in international synthesis. As you wish. I'm not going to dispute this indefinitely. We will keep it as 3 attacks, any further bickering can be continued on the articles talk page. V7-sport (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually i think you brought up some interesting issues. Did you have a look at the from me suggested changes that i think could fully resolve this issue. Do you think it would be a good idea to change the article in that way? If not you night point out what is wrong with it so we can make further progress. IQinn (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We can hash it out on the articles talk page. I'm acquiescing to keeping it as 3 airstrikes because it is a minor point that has taken 5 and a half days. V7-sport (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to stop in the middle of the resolutions process of a content dispute and to start edit warring . So you agree to implement the changes according to what i have suggested here? If not you night point out what is wrong with it so we can make further progress and i can go ahead an implement these changes. IQinn (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's resolved, this was about 3 attacks. I'm going to back off that for the moment because it's become a colossal waste of time and a roadblock to fixing the article. I've unwatched this page. V7-sport (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This content dispute is not solved by one party starting edit warring again. We solve content disputes through consensus. I have spent the same amount of time and i have taken the work to put a proposal together Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Suggested_solution_and_changes that clearly shows that i am working towards consensus so please state if you are willing to solve the dispute in that way or tell us what is wrong with it so that this can come to an end. Thank you IQinn (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

"Communist terrorism is the term used to describe terrorist actions committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology and who use terrorism in their attempts to overthrow an existing political and economic system in an attempt to force regime change. It is the hope of such groups that the use of violence will inspire the masses to raise up in revolution."

Could editors please comment on whether the above definition includes the following. The issue is not whether these actions are "Communist terrorism" but whether the definition includes these actions.

1. Terrorist actions carried out by Communists for reasons other than overthrowing an existing political or economic regime.
2. Terrorist actions carried out by Communist governments against their own citizens.
3. Terrorist attacks carried out in order to intimidate people, rather than rise them to action.

TFD (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I commend anyone thinking of opining to look at the article talk page first, where one editor first said "there is no definition" then "but this definition is not a definition, and the term is not used in any RS sources", then "but the RS sources 'meant' something else" and then "and besides, the list of RS sources was found using Google, and thus is OR which means we can't use any of them" (not intended as precise quotes, or as referring to any single specific editor). In short, there is a real chance this is forumshopping at lest. Collect (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Knowing both of you, and this area of editing, is there any reason why the underlying issue is unable to be resolved by 3rd party mediation? Are there other article editors who are unwilling to solve the underlying issue? Fifelfoo_m (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

On the Communist terrorism talk page you can find a quote from a reliable source that confirms an obvious idea that no universal definition of terrorism has been proposed so far, and different writers/scholars interpret the word "terrorism" quite differently. In this situation it is simply ridiculous to expect that some single definition can be proposed for Communist terrorism. Therefore, the answer should be: "all of these three definitions have been proposed by various scholars, and none of them is generally accepted".

I would add to that that one more definition can be proposed:

4. Terrorist actions carried out by Leftist extremist groups whose ideology has just a tangential relation to Communism (i.e. the actions usually described as Left-wing terrorism)."--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you give any RS source stating that any specific communist gorup has just a "tangential relationship to Communism" or the like? Considering the gaming/stubification/dab-ification tried on this article, as well as AfDs etc. isn't it actually about time to simply add material related to the topic and move on? Collect (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Some groups, e.g., the ETA, which were Marxist, are excluded from this definition because their main objectives were independence rather than revolution. In fact the author specifically groups them as nationalists rather than communists in his ideology section. TFD (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Palestine and its membership in United Nations organs

Cross-posted from WP:RS/N. Nightw 11:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations Regional Groups is a geopolitical grouping of the United Nations. According to the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations, Palestine was accorded full membership in the group on 2 April 1986: "On 2 April 1986, the Asian Group of the U.N. decided to accept the PLO as a full member", (Source).

In 1998, the General Assembly Resolution 52/250, which conferred upon Palestine further rights and privileges in the General Assembly, noted that: "Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia". Other official websites, such as the Conference on Trade and Development website, also make the same statement (source): "At present, the PLO is a full member of the Asian Group of the United Nations, ...". Last year, an article by Jurist (published 27 November 2009), on the prospect of Palestine gaining full membership to the General Assembly, stated: "Palestine is already recognised as a full member of the Asian Group of States in the UN, and often thereby submits and influences UN resolutions. Being a member state would also give the Palestinian representative to the UN the right to vote on General Assembly resolutions, among other UN decisions." This is just one example of a secondary source that supports the resolution.

However, a user has recently called this claim into question, citing the following sources, which exclude Palestine from their lists:

• Document, "Members of the General Assembly are arranged in current Regional Groups"; (uploaded 11 May 2009).
• Document, "Part VII: Statistical Annex", which contains (p 329), according to the footnote, "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups"; (uploaded 13 November 2007).
• Document, "UNAIDS Governance Handbook", which contains (p 28/30), according to the heading, the "composition of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board"; (published January 2010).

However, I identified these sources as unusable, because none of them contain any explicit statement regarding Palestine's membership in the Regional Groups, and each of them could be argued to be unrelated to the topic. The first two documents, as is stated above, contain lists of Members of the General Assembly, which Palestine is not. The last document, as it says on the above-mentioned page, outlines "the composition of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board", which "is based on the regional groups that are used by the UN General Assembly". It does not describe, as is claimed, the UN Regional Groups.

So the questions are: do the second group of sources conflict with the first group, or is further research needed? Are they relevant to Palestine's membership in the Asian Group? Can the first group of source be used in the article as they are, or is further research needed?

A preliminary discussion took place on the article's talk page. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Nightw 10:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Night w forgot to add a fourth source: a resolution of General Assembly (p. 7, sec. 25) of May 2009, which determines that Palestine's status (in round-table sessions) is identical to that of a member state which is not a member of any Regional Group. Additionally, User:Night w ignored other quotations, which are taken from footnotes in these sources, and which prove that Palestine, Holy See (two UN observers) and US (a UN member), are in same category of not being members in any Regional Group. For more details, see the section about Palestine in this old version. The issue is discussed deeply on the talk page of United Nations Regional Groups, including the quotations Night w ignored. Eliko (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lovely. I'm assuming you're referring to point 25: "A Member State that is not a member of any of the regional groups may participate in a round-table session to be determined in consultation with the President of the General Assembly. The Holy See, in its capacity as observer State, and Palestine, in its capacity as observer, as well as organizations with observer status in the General Assembly, may also participate in different round-table sessions to be determined also in consultation with the President of the Assembly."

This does not state that Palestine is "not a member of any Regional Group"; it instead makes a note about member states which are not members of any regional group, that they "may participate" in accordance with what the President determines. And then, in a separate sentence, says that entities with observer status (such as Palestine), "may also participate" determined also in consultation with the President. It does not state anything about Palestine's membership in Regional groupings, so it's irrelevant in this context.

And the quotation that supposedly "proves" that "Palestine, Holy See (two UN observers) and US (a UN member), are in same category of not being members in any Regional Group.": "By General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the rights to vote or put forward candidates", doesn't say anything about Palestine's membership in a Regional group. You're using that statement and its placement with statements about other states to come to the conclusion that is not backed up by any secondary source or any statement of explicit nature. That is Original research. Nightw 12:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No original research, because, as I've explained in my last responses on the talk page of the article mentioned above, the limitation against original research refers to claims appearing in articles rather than to claims appearing on talk pages. Additionally, I've already proved, on the relevant talk page mentioned above, that these foonotes consider Palestine to be a non-member, but User:Night w has ignored my proof ibid.

As I stated above, the issue is discussed deeply on the talk page of United Nations Regional Groups, including the quotations.

Additionally, next time, when coming to the Noticeboard page, user:Night w should try to present all sources and all quotations about which both parties disagree, what User:Night w hasn't done.

Eliko (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at both types of sources above (those by Eliko and those by Night w) it seems that there is a reliability problems with some of these. The sources that support the statement "PLO/Palestine is a full member of the UN Asia Regional Group" are circumstantial and thus unreliable. They include such statement only in the context that PLO/Palestine: is UN observer; is participating in many UN System organizations and initiatives (but it participates there 'according to' its UN status, e.g. as observer and not as full member); is member of UN ESCWA (the only officially confirmed exception of PLO full membership in UN system body); is member of a few other organizations (NAM, G77, etc.) - thus these circumstantial sources imply/make assumption such as "since PLO is a UN observer that is a member of 'UN ESC Western Asia' then it is a member also of 'UN Asia RG'" - I would not object to this assumption/implying-by-circumstantial-source if it wasn't in contradiction with direct sources and most importantly with the Official UN list of Regional Groups.

So, we have the official list not mentioning PLO/Palestine and we have some circumstantial sources stating such membership, but seemingly pulling this out of another related membership/observerships of the PLO. My personal assumption is that PLO has the status of something like de facto observer/special observer of the UN Asia Regional Group (just as it has such status in many UN System bodies), but because of its UN ESCWA full membership some sources wrongly state that it is also a UN Asia Regional Group member (because of the primarily geographical character of both?).

My bold proposal (reverted by Night w) was to list UN ARG in a section "conflicting or inconclusive sources" - just as we have such section for states about whose recognition of the State of Palestine we have conflicting or inconclusive sources. Alinor (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

? This is your interpretation from your reading, and it isn't backed up by secondary sources. It also requires some serious mental leaps for another to get to the same conclusion, especially when the statements made in the sources are so plain. You're reading of the second group of sources is also baffling: it isn't an "official UN list of Regional Groups", it is (quoting from the heading): "Members of the General Assembly are arranged in current Regional Groups" (which Palestine doesn't qualify for), so who knows how you came to that conclusion. You're hardly an innocent bystander, though. Nightw 13:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about "innocent bystander" - have I claimed to be such?

The "official UN list of Regional Groups" description I gave was taken from the United Nations Regional Groups article. Now that you point out about the file heading - yes PLO is not Member of the General Assembly, but still having no UN non-member in the official list maybe shows that no UN non-members are members of UN regional groups (pretty reasonable assumption).

Also, Eliko has given many other sources not mentioning PLO/Palestine - so we clearly have "conflicting or inconclusive sources" here - so what's the problem with listing it as such? Do you question the validity of all the sources Eliko has given? (I will leave this issue for you two to discuss) Also, you don't give any source that shows regional groups members - the sources you refer to make some statements that PLO/Palestine is member of UN ESCWA and other organizations, and among these it mentions UN Asia group, but this is not convincing enough - since we lack any confirmation. Also, it seems very dubious since the nature of these UN regional groups is such that non-members have nothing to do there. Most probably the circumstantial sources you refer to wrongly use 'United Nations Regional Groups Asia' instead of 'United Nations geoscheme Asia'. Alinor (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Probably": again your assumption, not backed up by secondary sources. I certainly do question the validity of Eliko's sources! Have you read any of my original statement? Because I clearly pointed out what Eliko's list was at the start—where I also pointed out exactly what his "other sources" were, and why they weren't valid here. Please read the introductory. Nightw 14:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my assumption - I just point out why the sources you refer to are problematic - they apparently mix two different UN grouping concepts.

In your introduction you state about one Eliko source: "is based on the regional groups that are used by the UN General Assembly". It does not describe, as is claimed, the UN Regional Groups." - what do you mean by that? UN Regional Groups are the UNGA regional groups - "as claimed" - why do you claim they aren't? Also Eliko stated on multiple occasions that he proved the things he claims, but again - I will leave this issue to you two.

Do we have any official source listing PLO as member in UN Regional group Asia? Or even listing any UN non-member as member in any UN Regional group? Lacking such is very suspicious and unexplainable. That's why I propose leaving UN regional group in "conflicting or inconclusive sources" section for the time being - until we find a proper source. Alinor (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• It seems plain to me, as an outside observer, that the arguments against Palestinian membership in the listed groups is based on opinions outside of the sources and reading things into sources that they do not state. The list of GA members by regional group is just that, a list of assembly members organized by regional group. It is not and does not present itself to be a complete membership list of those groups. A UN proclamation and reliable secondary source notes a claim oft-repeated in reliable sources that Palestine is a full member of those groups. A brief search reveals that Palestine's membership is referred to in many reliable sources and disputed by none that I could find. (I found quite a few that decried it, usually in context of Israel's exclusion, but none that denied it.) Even the laziest research could confirm the full membership. The very top result in Google for several related searches is a Google Books result for ISBN 0415939216. It is the Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, published by Taylor & Francis/Routledge, a gold standard academic publisher. It is unquestionably documented in the highest quality sources. These hairsplitting games over the matter are quite obviously disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1. What really matters, is not what the Encyclopdias state, but rather what the UN documents state, and these documents seem to be contradictory. There are 5 UN documents in favor of Palestine's membership, against 5 other (more recent) UN documents.
2. For exmaple, this is a GA document of August 2000 (i.e. two years after Palestine was admitted to the Asian Group, according to a previous GA document), and it uses the wording: "United Nations list of reginal groups" (p. 17, sec. 32), which sends the reader to #8 footnote, stating (p. 34): "The unofficial list is used only for General Assembly elections"; Whereas, Palestine has no right to put forward candidates for elections!
3. Further, a recent document of UN-HABITAT (2007) - which classifies countries by explicit lists under the title: "United Nations Regional Groups" (See: UN-HABITAT's Global Report on Human Settlements, 2007, pp. 329-330), along with a more recent document of UN-AIDS (2010) - which classifies countries by explicit lists according to the "Regional Groups that are used by the UN General Assembly" (See: UNAIDS, The Governance Handbook, January 2010, pp. 28-29), indicate (when referring to the explicit lists of Regional Groups): "The US...is not a member of any regional group, but attends meetings of...WEOG as an observer, and is considered to be a member of that group for electoral purposes...By General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the rights to vote or put forward candidates" (See: UN-HABITAT's Global Report on Human Settlements, 2007, p. 335, 2nd footnote;UNAIDS, The Governance Handbook, January 2010, p. 29, 4th footnote).
4. Additionally, this footnote mentioned above, begins with the following introductory: "All members of the United Nations General Assembly [are] arranged in Regional Groups". So, the Regional Groups are assigned for "members of the United Nations General Assembly" (in order for them to put forward candidates for electoral purposes, as I proved above), whereas Palestine is not a member of the United Nations General Assembly!
5. Additionaly, that footnote mentioned above, which is attached to the title located above these Regional Group lists, mentions also Holy See (as well as Palestine); This proves that the whole context is not only about UN members but rather about all countries, including non-members, like Holy See (and Palestine), whereas the Regional Group lists to which this footnote refer, do not include Palestine (nor Holy See)!
6. Furthermore: had these UN document assumed that Palestine (or Holy See) is a member of any Regional Group, then the footnote mentioned above, which is attached to the title located above these Regional Group lists, should have stated something like: "The US is not a member of any Regional Group...but attends meetings...as an observer...In additions to the member states, there is also a non-member state, the Holy See, which - despite its having an observer status in the United Nations - has a member status in the Regional Group [of so and so]. Palestine, which has an observer status in the United Nations, has a member status in the Asian Group, although it does not have the right to vote or to put forward candidates".

Eliko (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, as has been stated, you're reading things in these documents that they do not state, and missing things that they do.

The first document, as it says in section 33: "represent[s] Member States only". The second document lists, as it says on page 335, "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups." The third document simply describes the "composition of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board", which is "based on the regional groups that are used by the UN General Assembly". How similar it is to the original groupings and what differences there may be are not specified.

Your last few points are plainly your own interpretation, and you've used unrelated statements and the placement of footnotes alongside others to come to a conclusion that is baffling to any impartial eye. None of the documents say that membership in Regional Groups is exclusively for members of the General Assembly, as you claim. That is, again, original research.

I've humoured you up until now, but to have any kind of standing in this discussion, you need an explicit statement. Something like "Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States" (but the opposite). Nightw 13:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I've already explained (see #4 above), the statement "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups" - proves the opposite. This could have been my personal interpretation - rather than a proof, only if the footnote hadn't contained the comments about US, Holy See and Palestine: Those comments clearly prove what is meant by the statement "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups", as I've explained already (see #2, #3, #5, #6 above).
• The UNAIDS document (p.28-29), does not list the Programme Coordinating Board, because the PCB comprises 22 representatives only (that are elected from among the Member States of the Consponsoring Organisations). See ibid. p. 18.
• No original research has been made, because, as I've explained in my last responses, the limitation against original research - refers to claims appearing in articles/templates, rather than to claims appearing on talk pages.
• As Alinor has claimed, User:Nightw needs an explicit list which contains Palestine/PLO.

Eliko (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note... when someone argues that something should be included because they can "prove" it, that is a red flag that they are engaging in OR. Being able to "prove" something is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. We require citation to a reliable source that explicitly reaches same conclusion that the editor is making. Verifiability... not truth. So, to say that these Primary UN documents "prove" something about Palestine, you need to point to a secondary source that explicitly states that the documents "prove" something about Palestine. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note... the limitation against original research refers to claims appearing in articles/templates, rather than to claims appearing on talk pages. Any argument of mine based on a proof, appears here, on the talk pages, whereas what I and Alinor want to add to the article, are citations only, backed by UN sources. No proofs, nor personal interpretations, nor original research. Eliko (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

When you are using said claims in an article to both dispute sourced information and display contrary information, without providing sources that make the claims you do, that is original research. Nightw 15:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any claim based on an original research, appears on talk pages only. The article itself presents none of such claims, but rather presents quotations only. Additionally, even if any article had presented claims based on OR (really no article does, but if any had done...), that would undoubtedly have been less bad than articles whose current version was obtained by violating the three revert rule. Eliko (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You harbour grudges against me. We get it. Nightw 16:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, OR is allowed to a limited extent on a talk page. However, the purpose of talk pages is to discuss the article, not the subject. Talk pages are not the place to "prove" things about the subject either. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Was your recent comment referring to any article, or to my comments? Any comment of mine, that was "proved" by me and presented on talk pages, was referring to comments made by other editors, and that's allowed, just as your recent comment is allowed, although it was not referring to any article. Eliko (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

So what's the consensus? Is it not reasonable to just stick to what the first set of sources say? It doesn't look like the Eliko is willing to accept this, but without sources that directly and explicitly disagree with the first set, there's not much for him to stand on. Unless anyone else objects... Nightw 04:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Blueboar's comments discuss OR made on talk pages; User:Blueboar hasn't expressed their position about whether the direct quotations, presented by User:Alinor and by me in the article itself, involve OR. Is it not reasonable to stick to simple quotations involving no OR? It doesn't look like User:Nightw is willing to accept this, but without explicit updated full lists containing Palestine as a member (as required by User:Alinor), there's not much for User:Nightw to stand on objecting direct quotations given by User:Alinor and by me. Unless anyone else objects. Eliko (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Would any of the frequent monitors on here care to provide their opinion? We need a consensus for this. Nightw 09:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• A request for comments on this discussion has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine. Nightw 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• A request for comments on this discussion has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Nations. Nightw 15:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had comments from only two editors and the discssions seems to have stalled, so I've readded it in the hopes that the other editor has changed his opinion. If not, any ideas about where to get other opinions? RfC? Nightw 12:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted by Eliko. I'm at a loss. The sources support my information, but a user objects. Would anyone else here like to comment? Nightw 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, have you tried to arrange with Eliko to use this formulation that we adopted recently on the other page? - "For the purposes of United Nations Regional Groups arrangement the Palestine Liberation Organization participates in the Asia group since 2 April 1986" - of course this dodges the issue what these purposes are in the case of UN observer (that doesn't participate in voting or elections) - for example Vatican is not shown on the page to participate in any regional group. If some source are found about Vatican or Switzerland in the 20th century it would clarify the issue. Also, it may help if you add this text to "Special cases" and not in the main "Asia Group" section. Alinor (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand of Wikipedia policy (verifiability, not truth), we can only say what is said in reliable sources. In this case, both primary and secondary sources explicitly state that Palestine is a full member of the Asian Group of States. No sources have been provided that directly disagree with this statement. I'm open to discuss the arrangement of such information within the article, but having a user block the addition of such information with his interpretation of other sources—unless that interpretation is added alongside—is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Nightw 03:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to discuss (with any user who does not violate Wikipedia rules) the arrangement of all relevant information within the article, but having a user who wants to add unilateral quotations only, and who blocks the addition of other quotations (no interpretations but rather quotations) — is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Eliko (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't related. All of the documents you've provided are about Palestine's rights and privileges in the General Assembly, not about membership in its Regional groupings. You're attempting to selectively present unrelated information as though there is a disagreement between sources, when clearly there is not. One group of sources state Palestine is a member of the Asian group, while the other group describes its rights and privileges regarding voting and eligibility, with no reference to its standing in the Regional groups. Describing this latter piece of information as though it contradicts the first is original research, as such a contradiction is not clear from any reading of the sources. Nightw 15:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• No word like "contradiction", nor any similar wording, is mentioned in the version proposed by me. Contradicting or not, related or not, all of this will be determined by the reader.
• User:Eliko is really doing original research - for proving that the quotations are related, but this original research is not presented in the article, but rather on the talk page - in accordance with Wikipedia policy which has never prohibited original research carried out on talk pages, and please note that most (if not all) of the content of talk pages - consists of arguments - i.e. of original research; While the article itself (under the version proposed by me) contains quotations only, rather than any original research, thus letting the reader determine whether or not those quotations are related.
• Anyway, User:Eliko has already proved that some UN documents do not consider Palestine a member in any UN Regional Group, however user:Nightw chose not to discuss my proof, but rather stated: "I don't have the time to read through...I've only been able to glance through."
• Eliko (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You've been told by numerous editors here that your sources don't "proove" anything of the sort. Moreover, they're completely unrelated to the issue. Which of the UN documents don't consider Palestine a member in any Regional group? Certainly none of the documents you've provided above make such a claim, in fact most make the opposite. The documents provided list (as they describe) members of the General Assembly, organised by Regional groups. Palestine doesn't fit into this category. Nightw 09:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• User:Nightw has been told many times - by both User:Alinor and User:Eliko - that the article should contain all sources, rather than the (selective) sources presented by User:Nightw only.
• No "numerous" editors said that the sources presented by User:Eliko - don't prove. User:Blueboar has just claimed that: "when someone argues that something should be included because they can prove it, that is a red flag that they are engaging in OR". User:Eliko agreed, and added: "Any argument of mine based on a proof, appears here, on the talk pages, whereas what I and Alinor want to add to the article, are citations only, backed by UN sources. No proofs, nor personal interpretations, nor original research". User:Blueboar agreed, saying: "Yes, OR is allowed to a limited extent on a talk page". Anyways, User:Bluboar has never claimed that the sources don't prove, so who are the "numerous" editors who have claimed the sources don't prove?
• As to User:Nightw's claim that "The documents provided list (as they describe) members of the General Assembly, organised by Regional groups": User:Eliko has already referred to this claim here, however user:Nightw chose not to discuss Eliko's long answer, but rather stated: "I don't have the time to read through...I've only been able to glance through".
• Whether the sources - presented by either User:Eliko or User:Nightw - are related or not, all of this will be determined by the readers, rather than by User:Eliko and User:Nightw only.

Eliko (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Commenting here, it looks to me like the notion that Palestine is a full member of the Asian group is well sourced and verifiable. That the lists mentioned don't list Palestine are in my opinion of lesser weight, since they don't positively comment on the issue and Palestine's absence is explainable by error or the fact that it isn't a GA member. Here is another source that states very clearly that "On 2 April 1986, the Asian Group of the U.N. decided to accept the PLO as a full member". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody disputes the sources (including your well-known source) which indicate the resolution of 1986. On the other hand, nobody disagrees that other UN sources - of more than 20 years later - which supply the full formal list, don't list Palestine. However, these UN sources - giving the full formal list - do comment on the issue, and do mention Palestine – among other non-Regional Members (like US and Holy See) – in a footnote, indicating that neither Palestine nor Holy See has the electoral right (being the main right of a Regional Member, whereas that footnote indicates also that: although US is not a member of any Regional Group - it's “considered” a WEOG member for electoral purposes). The suggestion proposed by me and by User:Alinor, is to avoid being selective, and to give all citations, including your well-known source, and including the other UN sources mentioned above which give the full formal list and which comment on Palestine - without us giving any external interpretation to those citations, thus letting the readers determine what is meant by all of those citations. Eliko (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

...But you don't have sources that draw the assumptions that you yourself do. So, presenting only what the sources say, what is an appropriate version in your opinion? Nightw 08:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Presenting only what the sources say, is the only legitimate and appropriate way for avoiding OR. Eliko (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't see your sources as relevant, so can you phrase a proposal which would make them so? Nightw 14:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

the readers only, should determine which sources are more relevant: the outdated sources of 1986 and of 1998, or the more updated sources of 2007 and of 2010. Eliko (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking you to draw a draft for what you propose be added... Nightw 02:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So should we say that Palestine has been formally given full membership, but that it isn´t included in some membership lists? That doesn´t sound optimal, but is it the best text that can now be agreed on? --Dailycare (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the problem with that is that none of the lists provided by Eliko would include Palestine, as they're all restricted exclusively to members of the General Assembly, which Palestine is not. Nightw 05:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, not all of the sources are restricted to GA members; Some of them don't use the expression GA members (nor UN members nor any similar expression) in the title above the full list, while they do state (in a footnote) that the Regional Groups are intended to arrange the GA members; Regarding your claim that none of those sources would list Palesine because it's not a GA member; Well, all of the sources would have listed Palestine - had it been a Regional Member, because they do mention Palestine in a footnote - along with other two non-Regional Members: Holy See and US. Eliko (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Eliko has attempted to make the same edits to the foreign relations article, aided by another user. I've asked the user to revert himself, so that the discussion here can reach a conclusion beforehand. Nightw 11:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think "aided by another user" is me. Night w and I are involved in back and forth editing at the Foreign relations of PNA article. Sequentially each of us puts "his" version of the article. When I do this I take care to copy all intermediate changes by another users (and also Night w changes that I don't object). Eliko added the sources (following deletion/merge of the template). Night w then put "his" version of the article. Then I put "mine" version and I included the Eliko sources.

About reverting - both Night w and I have gone over 1RR and even 3RR in the past on this page, but no administrator/noticeboard was involved. Currently there is a incident noticeboard about Night w; the page is with some kind of protection, etc. I don't know if I can edit it, but I don't intent to do so - if Night w wants to remove these he can do it, I think we have enough AN/Is. I suggest that Night w and I don't make any edits to these two articles, make a list of all changes (compared to the real stable versions - Night w claims that "his" version is the stable one), discuss and hopefully agree (with the involvement of another editors), then implement only what's discussed, then we will know what the "new stable" version is, then we can discuss further changes.

About the Eliko sources themselves - the article has a table of international organizations and it shows how do PLO/SoP/PNA participate there - as member, observer, etc. Initially 'UN Asia regional group' was listed as one of the organizations where PLO is member. Subsequently, in the template, Eliko added the two sources in question here, that show that it isn't a member (and 'UN Asia regional group' was listed twice - as one of the organizations where PLO/SoP/PNA is member, and as one of the organizations where PLO/SoP/PNA is observer).

Afterwards, since 'UN Asia regional group' is not an international organization, but a grouping used for post elections and other purposes inside the UN, it was removed from the table of international organizations altogether and information about it was put as a footnote on the UN line (where PLO is an observer). The footnote is the following: "For the purposes of United Nations Regional Groups arrangement, the Palestine Liberation Organization participates in the Asia group since 2 April 1986" This was backed by two sources (not the Eliko sources). In the last version of the page with the Eliko sources they were just added as 3rd and 4th. With or without these sources the article remains the same. So, unless somebody claims that the Eliko sources are unreliable (and this is unlikely since they are from the UN and other UN-related websites) I don't see any reason not to include them. This is not OR issue, since including or not including the sources doesn't change anything in the article. Alinor (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not unreliable, but they don't very well pertain to the subject. It's attributing a statement to a source describing an entirely different issue. For example, the UNAIDS document doesn't describe the UN regional groupings. It describes what it says it does: it's own groupings, which are "based upon" the groupings used by the UN. The two are not the same.

The footnote that has been added to the article is most definitely OR. Where in the sources does it state that Palestine has "participated" since 1986? The sources only describe its membership. It may well have been an associate before that, yes?

There are 2 things we can take from the sources:

1. Palestine is a full member of the Asian Group of States. This is stated explicitly in the first group of sources. No sources have been provided that state the opposite.
2. That through General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the rights to vote or put forward candidates. Nobody disputes this. I am disputing its relevance to the topic at hand.

There's also an issue of an added "[are]" in quoting the footnotes, which is not what the source says and in fact changes the entire meaning of the statement. That is definitely OR.

It is regrettable that you should not choose to revert your own actions concerning this issue, as, regardless of our respective opinions on the matter, discussion is still ongoing here and consensus has not nearly been achieved. Completely bypassing the discussion on this noticeboard, no matter how "accommodating" your intentions were, is what you've done. And you should correct it. Nightw 06:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w, when I don't like something in a Wikipedia article - I change it (of course sometimes this results in a revert and in a discussion - if somebody doesn't agree). I don't ask numerous times other people to do it (unless it's in some special format that I'm unfamiliar with and I have seen you do more complicated edits than this). I already re-formatted plenty of citations because you asked so.

Of course I can revert it. I was giving you the chance to do it yourself to show good etiquette towards this discussion. It does not reflect well on you that you should so casually ignore an active ongoing attempt at seeking consensus, and make the very changes that are being discussed without accommodating anything that has been said on here. Nightw 12:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

First I didn't knew that this discussion here continued for so long, second as I said multiple times these are Eliko sources and you should reach agreement with him, not me. See [74]. Alinor (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You do now so that is a pisspoor excuse. But I barely expected a self-revert from a user who has been blocked for the exact same stubborness. I'll have to lodge a PER. Nightw 19:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been blocked for such thing, and also you can see the edit over which I was blocked still stands unreverted, because I was right in making it. My block was about 1RR with a user pushing a non-consensus change.

And regarding the sources in question here - I'm neither the first nor the last editor who added these, so please stop speaking with me about adding/removing them. Ask Eliko, somebody else or even better - do it yourself. Alinor (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

About the [are] - I don't see that as a big issue - it can be easily removed if you insist to keep the quote pure.

"It may well have been an associate before that" - and it may well haven't been. When we have a source for earlier participation we can make respective changes. I don't know of any "associate" status in the regional groups, but if we have such source, then OK.

The second point that you give is fine - PLO rights at the UN and UNGA are not directly related to the regional groups. I don't see any harm done by leaving it there and I think Eliko finds it as needed - but maybe he will accept such compromise.

One problem that I see is that this discussion here (and some of the sources) uses phrases like "Palestine...member/non-member of the UN Asian group of states" - this is misleading, since it implies that "Palestine...state", and we all know that "Palestine" in these sources is reference to the PLO, the UN observer entity and not to the State of Palestine. SoP has no relations with the UN.

Anyway, if the [are] is removed and the not directly related source about the PLO rights at UNGA is removed is there any problem with leaving the rest of the sources in the article? If you think it's needed - propose some additional rewording to the text in the reference (besides [are]). Alinor (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the original research being discussed here has been reintroduced to the article without consultation here, I will not be contributing to this discussion until this is undone. Nightw 12:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to insult you, but this is childish stubbornness. Especially if you agree with the proposal above. If you agree - just say so. We need also Eliko's opinion. Alinor (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't. Your assessment of the situation is under-educated and hardly takes any of the issues presented into consideration, not surprisingly. Nightw 19:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your arrogant behavior is appealing. And since you don't agree with this proposal - go speak with Eliko and propose him a better compromise or another solution. I don't want to be contacted about these sources anymore until you agree with Eliko what to do with them. It is useless for me to discuss these with you. Alinor (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cry for attention!

While the dispute on Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority has made some leeway, it remains on United Nations Regional Groups and has just come up on Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. It's amazing how one editor with persistence and an obvious disregard for WP:NOR can affect so many articles for such a length of time. This thread has been on this noticeboard since early December, and before that was on RS/N. I'd be extremely grateful to any editor here to take a glance over the discussion and provide another opinion. Nightw 11:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Quotations - backed by reliable sources and supported by the majority of editors - are not OR, even when they are reverted by User:Nightw. The question of relevance - should be resolved by all readers, not by User:Nightw only. Eliko (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well then hopefully we can clear that up here. Does this sound relevant? "...although Palestine (being a GA observer only) is not included in the list of Members of the General Assembly, arranged in current regional groups..." Sounds like common sense to me. Why would it be? Nightw 12:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

1. The sentence "although Palestine (being a GA observer only) is not...", is just a short version of the following more exact version (with its full context):

On the other hand, Palestine was admitted as a full member of the Asia group on 2 April 1986., although the "United Nations list of regional groups" "is used only for General Assembly elections" - while Palestine (being a GA observer only) does "not have the right to vote or to put forward candidates" and is not included in the list of "United Nations Regional Groups" nor in the list of "Regional Groups that are used by the UN General Assembly ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies" - a fortiori nor in the list of "Members of the General Assembly, arranged in current regional groups".

2. The readers of Wikipedia articles should not be given OR; However, all readers of Wikipedia articles should be given all quotations - backed by reliable sources - and supported by the majority of editors. Once all readers of Wikipedia articles are given all those quotations (backed by reliable sources and supported by the majority of editors) - those readers of Wikipedia articles can decide by themselves whether what they are reading from the articles is relevant. Let's not be selective; Let's not revert each other's work. Let's let the readers decide. Let's compromise. Let's be more open. Let's let the readers decide. That's what I'm saying: Let's let the readers decide. Not me, nor User:Nightw, but rather: the readers of Wikipedia articles should decide.

Eliko (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)