Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Museum records

If I visit a museum and view their internal records about a collection and include that information in an article about that collection, is that OR? Assume that there are published sources to verify the existence of the collection but no detailed records about it in the public domain. I am not creating new information or advancing a particular argument in the article, I am simply recording what is already written down in the museums records which they have never got round to publishing, but is that OR and does the extra information over and above what has already been published meet the standard of verifiability? Thanks Philafrenzy (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not so much that it is original research, but the internal records are primary sources. They are more likely to contain simple errors of fact than documents actually published by the museum would. Any information leaflets for the public are reliable sources, and so are explanations in posters, boards, labels in the museum. We can usually assume that museum staff check all these things before they are made public. If the information in the internal records is likely to be controversial in any way, then it should definitely not be used. If it is uncontroversial, it may be OK until a better source can be found. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely uncontroversial information and of a purely factual nature, but it is information that has not been published before. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's original research, and it is verifiable too if anyone can visit the museum and check the records. The real question is whether museum records are reliable sources. I'd take it to the RS board if I were you but a rule of thumb is that primary sources are reliable for claims about the author of the primary source i.e. museum records are probably reliable for facts about the museum in the way that a musician's website would be reliable for tour dates etc, album track listings and so on. Museum records are probably reliable for claims about artefacts such as exhibition dates, excavation dates and things like that, who worked on an artefact etc, but dating the artefact to a historical period would require a secondary source. Betty Logan (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Original research covers what you do with the information. This is more of a reliable sources issue. Sources need to be published. Unpublished material found in filing cabinets and other records doesn't count. If you could convicne the museum to scan or transcribe those records on their website then they'd become published primary sources, and could be used within the same limits as other primary sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You can describe what the museum records say... but be very careful not to make (or even infer) any arguments or conclusions based upon those records. For that you would need a published source. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that. WP:V say that we must used published sources. There is no provision for using unpublished material. The distinction that Blueboar is should properly be applied to primary published sources versus secondary published sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it has only been published by the museum if they put their reputation behind it, e,g, a label on a specimen on view to the public. If it is just one of their researchers notes stacked away somewhere then it has not been published. Dmcq (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I make clear that I was not thinking about interpretations or opinions penned by curators, so much as purely factual information in unpublished records about an object or collection. For instance, correspondence from donors, dates and places on printed items, figures in financial records, and other factual information in documents, all otherwise unpublished. So the citation would be "Extracted from the Record of the xxxx Collection at xxxx Museum, Volume X, Page X, date." This would allow verifiability, albeit only through a personal visit to inspect the same records. This unpublished information would be combined with the existing published information to expand the article beyond the stub that the article would be limited to using purely published sources. In most cases, I don't think the documents would have even been created by the museum except those relating to the specific bequest of the items to the Museum in the first place. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd avoid using anything that hasn't been published unless it is specifically referred to in a secondary source and only then if there is some overriding reason like the article would be wrong in some way, basically WP:IAR. It verges on or is original research, and what interest is it anyhow if they don't think it is worth publishing? Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of every trivial fact. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OK but I don't think we can assume that something is trivial just because it has never been published, it is often a matter of resources for institutions. Sometimes collections remain largely unexamined or unpublicised simply because there are not the staff in the institution to do it. Even if the information is detail, it can help to support larger facts and form a picture. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like original research to me, building up something that isn't supported by the secondary sources. If it is only for something like that I'd very much say to just forget about it. I know it can be sad to ignore things you know but it should be published somewhere else first instead. Dmcq (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Best alternative to a negotiated agreement

OR issue at RfC here. --Noleander (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick question about OR

Is the use of OR to argue for a position in a talk page appropriate? Can this be cited as OR or is OR only applicable to article pages?

Thanks. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Asking for a rulings on a hypotheticals are not useful. Looking at your contribution I have a guess what you might be talking about, but I want to hear it from you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You can directly post on my talk page too, if you know what I am talking about. Anyway... it's something like Person X asserted Location Y belongs to Entity Z and this claim is unverified and Person X is very insistent about it in a talk page. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it involves a current arbitration case. This remains a hypothetical discussion here at the moment. WP:RSN/WP:BLP/WP:FTN/WP:NORN do not give blanket statements on hypotheticals. We judge each on its own merits as presented to us. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not very sure what's the problem with asking if OR applies to talk pages or only to article pages. I see that you already wrote a message to accuse me of gaming the system and using you as a pawn in my talk page [5] (I don't know you, by the way). The attitude and accusations I get from people in WP can be quite baffling sometimes... :/ --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am merely asking for specifics on the particular situation and you appear to be avoiding giving them. Your current involvement in an arbitration case makes clear that this is not light question. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because I didn't consider a general question like this requires context. But if you insist, here's the context. A party raised a concern about another party preventing consensus with OR [6]. I basically said the use of OR should not be inappropriate in talk pages and now I am not sure if I am right.

For the record, I am not even involved with that discussion and my agreement or disagreement is inconsequential. But I see that my habit of nit-picking fine details is now getting me into trouble. I will avoid being so unnecessarily picky in the future. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry's GPA - OR or acceptable under CALC?

There is a disagreement at Talk:Rick Perry#Rick Perry's G.P.A. regarding editors' calculating of his GPA, based on a document posted by Huffington Post purporting to be his transcript. While I am not arguing that Huffington Post is not reliable, and I am not even saying that I doubt this transcript is valid - in fact I do think it is likely valid - I am pointing out that their article accompanying the transcript says "A source in Texas passed The Huffington Post Perry's transcripts from his years at Texas A&M University." - this does not seem to me to be a verifiable source. The editors at Talk: Rick Perry, in a sincere attempt at accuracy, have taken the grade points listed on the transcript and done their own calculation of the GPA, based on their assumptions regarding how such averages are calculated. They say that under WP:CALC, simple calculations can be made by editors and used. I think that this is not what CALC intended (as in figuring age from birthdate) - I think that our going to what appears to be a primary source, and doing our calculations based on what we think is the method that Texas A&M used for their calculations back in 1970 is OR and against policy. In addition, there is at least one secondary source that gives a GPA - I don't know how reliable it is, as I haven't looked into that - and I think that we should go with what secondary sources say, not do our own calculations. Would appreciate some feedback on that talk page on this - it is not a major point, but it is a BLP, and a widely viewed one at the moment, and I think we need to be careful and true to our policies. Thanks - I hope I have fairly outlined the disagreement. Tvoz/talk 18:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care to get involved in a politically-charged article but it sounds like your OR concerns are valid. It also seems that there may be issues of due weight if the GPA has not already been reported and discussed by others but is an original calculation done by Wikipedia editors. ElKevbo (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree... this definitely fails on BLP and UNDUE grounds, even if it might pass CALC (and given the provenance of the document the calculation is based on, I don't think it should pass that either). Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(came here due to question on BLP/N) If the school gave you both the number of credits (numerator) and hours (denominator) figuring out a GPA isn't generally rocket science and I would say fits into CALC. A&M's transcript does provide those values. But calculating Perry's GPA isn't as straight forward as that. By reading his transcript, you will note that the school converted to a 4 point system in June of 1969. The courses taken in 1968 and prior to June 69 were on a 3 point scale. This makes calculating his GPA a little more complex---and no longer a mere factoring of CALC.

You also have to look at the source where this is coming from. Normally, I would have no problem with an article in the Huffington Post being used, but individual stories within any reliable source might not be reliable. This article is, IMO, more of a smear piece than a news piece. First, there is an anonymous comment from a "classmate"---that could be anybody who attended the university at the same time as Perry. Second, there is the claim that Perry rarely received a grade better than a C and goes out of its way to highlight that Perry received "a lot of C's and D's." Well, over a third of his grades were better than C's---in fact he had twice as many A/B's as he did D/F's. The article mentions how he "only" had two A's, but highlights the one F. The article itself, ceases to be a news source but falls into an opinion/attack piece, thus unreliable.

As for undue... yeah, I don't like it, but GPA's are often common fodder for presidential candidates---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If they're "common fodder" then surely reliable sources have reported or will report the GPA, right? ElKevbo (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yupppers, and if this fails to become "common fodder" and no other source reports it, then it is clearly a sign of UNDUE. I mean, if the only source(s) that cite his GPA turn out to be attack pages/opinion pages, then how important could it really be? If we can get a good source, then I have no problem with its inclusion. But unless a SOLID (BLP proof) source is provided, then it fails on several levels.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no way in my mind it's appropriate to include someone's GPA based on a leaked transcript someone posted on huffpo. I don't think it would be a good idea in any situation like this, but it's especially inappropriate here because the primary purpose it serves in the article is too imply he's none too bright. Citing a leaked document posted on huffpo for negative information about a Republican presidential challenger is almost as bad as citing worldnetdaily to claim Obama was born in Kenya or something. Kevin (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors from the page in discussion, I feel the situation has been slightly misrepresented here by Tvoz (no offense, Tvoz) and I doubt most of you will go back to the talk page to read the entire discussion. So, I feel I must add a few things here in my defense. First, we made no assumptions in our calculation of the GPA. It is evident in the document itself how the school assigned grade points so that interpretation is not required for the calculation of the GPA. For instance a 3 hour course with a B grade always produced 9 grade points. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that A&M was assigning 3 grade points per credit hour for a B (3 x 3 = 9). Applying this to the whole document, one can easily tally all of the grades using A&M's own scale. After that, it is merely an average calculation, dividing the total grade points by the total credit hours. As far as the 3-to-4 point conversion, since we know how A&M assigned grade points, converting between the two point systems is like converting Fahrenheit to Celsius (covered under WP:CALC). Calculating an average is a routine mathematical calculation that should be covered under WP:CALC. As far as citation being RS, I think that's covered under WP:NEWSORG as Huffington Post is a major news organization. If this much scrutiny were given to every journalistic source on wikipedia, stories with anonymous sources could never be cited. There is a certain degree of assent that reasonable people give to the authenticity of documents uncovered in the course of journalistic research. Withholding such assent is a bit excessive among reasonable individuals. As to the distinction between news and opinion regarding the HuffPo article, the author's words aren't involved in the calculation of the GPA and weren't taken into account as such. All we were interested in was an academic transcript that had been provided by a major news outlet. Apologies for writing so much. Quophnix (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There's absolutely no way that Huffpo is reliable enough to be a sole source for negative information in a BLP. Let alone leaked primary source documents posted there. Kevin (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

We're only reporting what the GPA is. It's your own business how you choose to perceive it. Facts aren't positive or negative. They're facts. Quophnix (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. ElKevbo (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. A fact is a fact is a fact. People make them positive or negative. Quophnix (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But not all facts are created equal, nor are the required. UNDUE is about facts whose presentation or inclusion is not necessary and might bias perspective. Many opinion pieces in magazines, newspapers, and online present nothing but facts, but they are terribly scewed becaused they pick and choose facts. This is one of those "facts" that people will weigh differently depending on where they sit. Face it, if Rick Perry had a 3.86 GPA, some people who oppose the inclusion of his GPA would support it; and some people who support the lower GPA would oppose it. It's one of those factoids that people like to throw around to make their guy/opponent look good/bad. Which is why I think it needs a solid source, not our computations and not the judgmental piece found in the HP. IF this merits inclusion in WP, then the issue WILL be picked up by reliable sources. If it fails to garner traction outside of the HP partisan article, then it doesn't. Simple as that.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What everyone is saying is that it might pass NOR... but even if it does, it is problematic in terms of half a dozen other policies and guidelines. The simple fact is... There is no way it should be included. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The only other objection I'm hearing is BLP. I've been up and down that page and don't see how it applies. Quophnix (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Texas Tribune publishes an article citing HuffPo as a source for an article on Perry's GPA

This may be OR (it seems like a borderline case because of the necessity of applying standards of calculation) and it may be a BLP issue, but it definitely appears to be UNDUE seeing as we don't have any secondary sources telling us his GPA. Why not just say the guy was a C student?LedRush (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say that my objections are not based on UNDUE - I think if we have decent secondary sources discussing his grades, we are on solid ground including his GPA or a characterization of his grades, and it adds to the article. My concerns are only that we are using poor sourcing for a contentious assertion, and we are venturing into our own interpretation of the information we're using. BLP and OR. I hope we can find better sources that make the point, and then can include this. Tvoz/talk 22:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone produce a source telling *exactly* how to calculate his GPA from a list of grades. Even though this seems "obvious" to some editors, scales and substitutions might make this more complex than you realize, and could end up producing a false result. Your "assumption" of knowing how to calculate the grades IS original research, unless you can get the university to provide a complete calculation guide, taking into account any anomalies that might be present for his years at the college, or perhaps specific application of honors or transfer or who knows what. In short it's OR. -- Avanu (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Avanu, that was the point I was trying to make regarding assumptions. If the transcript had included a final GPA I might have felt differently - although there still could be questions of verifiability - but for us to determine how they managed their switch from one system to another in calculating GPA makes me uncomfortable. Tvoz/talk 22:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Avanu is 100% correct. Sometimes transcripts that do not contain cumulative GPAs provide the necessary information to calculate GPA or to translate grades from the school's grading system to a standard one on the back side of the form. Without knowing how to calculate the GPA it is absolutely original research to attempt doing so.Griswaldo (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would actually question the use of a calculation guide not published with transcript even if it's provided by the university who attest it would apply to the transcript or it's available on their website. It would seem to be WP:Syn to me. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that. Tvoz/talk 15:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I would see it as OR, because it is not immediately obvious how to calculate GPA. Do we average 0, I, II, III, IV, or do we use intermediate grades, or underlying percentages? Do we round the final grade, or do we use fractions? Do we count all courses, or just the ones required for graduation? Do all the courses have the same weighting? What happens if our calculation differs from the one provided by the school? Does the school even report GPA? TFD (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

G. K.'s Weekly

This paragraph is repeatedly (five times—WP:3RR may apply if broadly interpreted) added by an IP contributor. It may be valid, indeed it may be a useful for balance, but as it stands it is an unsupported expression of the contributor's view. Suggestions, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That is definitely OR. TFD (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Licensing in the United States for Caribbean medical school graduates

I have been editing the articles for medical schools in the Caribbean over the past several weeks and there is a WP:NOR issue that has been discussed on a few talk pages, but I would like some more outside input on.

As a little background, there are about 20 "offshore" schools in the Caribbean where mostly American/Canadian students study for the first two years, and then train at US hospitals for the second two years, with the intention of applying for US/Canadian residency programs. These are different from "regional" schools in the Caribbean which train students to practice in their home countries. (I am currently working on differentiating the two in the List of medical schools in the Caribbean article.)

With the exception of 4 of these offshore schools, several individual US states restrict licensure for the other ~15 schools, the most prominent of which is California. California has an "approved" and "disapproved" foreign medical schools list, but many of the Caribbean schools aren't on either list as they haven't been reviewed by the California board (a voluntary process.)

A few states require foreign medical schools to be on the California "approved" list for graduates to obtain licensure there; other states simply require that a school not be on the California "disapproved" list. Some states have explicitly restricted specific Caribbean schools outright. In addition, Kansas for example requires foreign schools to have been in existence for 15 years for graduates to be eligible for licensure.

Now let's say School X opened in 2005, is explicitly restricted in Texas, and is neither California approved nor disapproved. That means the graduates are not eligible for licensure in Texas, California, Kansas, Alaska, Indiana, New Mexico, and Tennessee.

The problem that arises in terms of WP:NOR is that the WP article could only say "School X is ineligible for licensure in Texas." The medical board laws for the other states don't explicitly say "School X is ineligible for licensure here" but instead basically say "if a school is not approved by California, it is also not approved here."

I should say that I am completely indifferent on this, and I think the counterargument that "if School X's ineligibility for licensure in California/Alaska/etc. was of interest, there would be reliable sources explicitly saying that" is a very valid argument.

But at the same time, only writing "School X is ineligible for licensure in Texas" is misleading since the other ineligible states aren't mentioned.

Thoughts? SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 23:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, but why not just say "Texas has listed this school as one whose graduates cannot receive licensure to practice in Texas". It is less misleading as the emphasis is now on what Texas has done (and not the licensure of school x in general). In generally, I would lean very slightly against inclusion of the entire list as an OR research issue, but I would totally cave if someone disagreed strongly.LedRush (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would just say what can be directly documented. So if the school is disapproved in California, it would be OR to say it is therefore disapproved in Texas. Requirements for practising as a physician should be in articles devoted to that topic, and links could be provided in the "see also" section. TFD (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazism

I have been doing a little informal mediation on Talk:Nazism after the Nazism article found its way to the dispute resolution noticeboard. There have been some issues with alleged synthesis, and I would like to hear some outside opinions on what the right course of action may be.

There are multiple points in dispute on the page, but the main one is the scope of the article itself. The term National Socialism is often used synonymously with Nazism, and there is disagreement over exactly what uses of National Socialism should be covered in the article. OpenFuture (talk · contribs) is arguing that uses of the term before WWI are referring to the same topic as uses of the term after WWI. I think this quote from him captures his viewpoint well:

The connection between National Socialism pre and post-WWI are obvious: Before WWI it means "state socialism" and is sometimes associated with nationalists. After WWI it means a state socialism and is strongly associated with nationalists. So the "implication" that they are the same should be there because they are the same. If they are not, that must reasonably be possible to source that claim, and then there should be different articles or a disambiguation page that explains the difference, with that source.

R-41 (talk · contribs), on the other hand, claims that some uses of the term "National Socialism" before WWI - such as by Ferdinand Lassalle, and by the National Social Union - have nothing to do with Nazism, and shouldn't be included in the article. I think this quote is descriptive of his views:

The point is that a major ideology called "National Socialism" arose under the leadership of Hitler that became so influential that the term "National Socialism" came to be expressly mean Nazism. It was and remains the dominant ideology termed "national socialism". In order to determine the evolution and creation of a specific ideology, it is necessary to work backwards from present to past to find the causation and avoid the danger of connecting correlation with it because of this important analytical fact: correlation does not imply causation. It is also necessary to bear in mind that before a popular ideology "seizes" a name and entrenches it in culture as its own, it often can refer to many disparate meanings as promoted by various people for various reasons. For instance, let's say a Marxist party in a certain country in 1900 called itself the "National Socialist Party" and adhered to a "national socialism" because it wanted the development of socialism and communism in a certain nation, it is not a Nazi movement and not related to the history of Nazism in spite of a similar name.

R-41 and The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) have requested that OpenFuture provide a source that links pre-WWI National Socialism to post-WWI National Socialism. I also agree that the burden of evidence should be on OpenFuture; furthermore, I think that including material on pre-WWI National Socialism in the Nazism article without a source explicitly linking them implies that they are related, and falls foul of WP:SYNTHESIS. I would like some outside opinions on who needs to provide evidence to back up their claims in this situation, and on whether including pre-WWI mentions of "National Socialism" in the article could be considered a synthesis. (By the way, if any of the editors think I have misrepresented their position, please accept my apologies and clarify below.) All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I remain with my position that the current idea that "one size fits all" does not work, and that the topic be divided into at least four articles as I suggested on the article talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that the German Wikipedia has a disambiguation page (de:Nationalsozialismus (Begriffsklärung)) which distinguishes between the mid-19th century sense of a socialism which unlike Ferdinand Lassalle's is not international, and the more recent (starting late 19th century) various forms of de:nationaler Sozialismus, including de:Nationalsozialismus. The linguistic distinction between nationaler Sozialismus and Nationalsozialismus is a subtle one that does not work in English. The former is socialism, modified by the adjective national. The latter is a single word. Nowadays, Nationalsozialismus is the normal term, except for the usage of neo-nazis who want to stress the 'socialist' aspect of their ideology. But nationaler Sozialismus is a much more general term than Nationalsozialismus. E.g. it is also used to refer to the National-Social Association, a liberal, socially progressive, nationalist and Christian party that cannot be said to have been national socialist in the usual sense.

In my opinion, the article national socialism should only be about Nationalsozialismus, leaving pointers to various forms of nationaler Sozialismus to national socialism (disambiguation). This is the German structure sans the article on nationaler Sozialismus, which doesn't make much sense in English because it is only about the various uses of this term. Hans Adler 16:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have two notes on this. The first is that I *have* provided sources. The other is that the burden of proof without a doubt is on those who claim that the concept of "national socialism" in 1914 is unrelated to the concept of "national socialism" in 1918. Claiming that the burden of proof is on the one who says that the meaning of the word is the same is absurd. Nobody requires proof that the White House was the same house in 1914 as it was in 1918. And in the article the rebuilding after the fire and the big renovation after WWII are there and sourced, while there are no sources that say that the house remained the same, did not burn and was not rebuilt any other year. Nobody lies any burden of proof on Liberalism being the same in 1914 as in 1918, and the different variations of liberalism are mentioned and sourced in the article. So why would national socialism be different?

I would welcome a debate on who has the burden of proof in this case. If it is decided that the burden of proof lies on the one that claims that the meaning of a word did *not* change between two years, I will of course accept that, but that would be quite absurd as anyone then could remove any part of a history of something if they don't like that history, claiming that "it's not the same meaning of the word", and requiring sources to show that the meaning of the word was the same during those years. That's what happening here, some people don't want to see the early socialist roots of national socialism mentioned, so they claim that it's not the same national socialism, but a different sort of national socialism, who just happens to look exactly the same and have the same name. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have since looked at the talk page of the article. What I missed at first is that the article is entitled "Nazism", not "National socialism". That's important because "Nazism" can only refer to Nationalsozialismus, but not to nationaler Sozialismus, as it is neither applicable to that as a technical term nor is it the literal translation. The fact that there is a redirect from National socialism to Nazism doesn't change this. The redirect exists because Nazism is the primary meaning of "national socialism".

I have found where you provided sources on the talk page. You provided the following:

• A history of fascism, 1914-1945, Stanley G. Payne. [7] (1995)
• The Roots of National Socialism, Rohan d'Olier Butler Butler. [8] (1941)
• The Road to Serfdom, F.A Hayek. [9] (1944)

As TFD said on the article talk page, the last two are too old to be really useful. There is a great deal of modern scholarship on national socialism, and it would not be appropriate to rely on works that appeared during the 2nd World War for a contentious analytic claim. So let's look at Payne.

Chapter 2 ("Radical and Authoritarian Nationalism in Late Nineteenth-Century Europe") is probably the most relevant. It discusses many movements in various countries without making sweeping claims, so it is not easily summarised. I will try to summarise what is relevant from what it says about German movements named "national socialism" or similar. The first sentence says: "A number of small groups emerged in imperial Germany and Austria that attempted to combine nationalism with semicollectivism, corporatist or statist economics, and broad social appeals to workers, though none achieved any electoral or political success for more than a fleeting moment." Payne describes several of them, without actually saying that they were socialist, but stressing their antisemitic character. The Ostara Society (with an ideology of Aryan supermen) is somewhat relevant because of its influence on Hitler. The German Workers' Party was the most successful. Payne says that the party evolved from a democratic and socialist one into one "promoting pan-German nationalism and imperialism" as well as antisemitism. It was the predecessor of the Austrian Nazi Party, which preceded the German one by two years.

As Payne's approach shows, it's well accepted that Nazism did have aspects that can be called socialist, or perhaps more precisely collectivist. Some, but not all, of the movements called "national socialism" are precursors of Nazism. I do not think that it is fair to include the early forms of actual socialism that were called national socialism to distinguish them from international socialism. At first, "national socialism" was just a juxtaposition of two words that could have various meanings based on the meanings of the individual words. It took some time for one of the meanings to become the dominant one. The claim that mid-19th century "national socialism" is a precursor of 20th century national socialism is original research if it is based only on their having the same name and maybe some old books. Both are discussed sufficiently in the modern literature, and if there were such a connection, the modern literature would say so.

My very superficial impression is that one side in this dispute may be trying to deny the socialist aspects of Nazism, and the other may be trying to paint genuine socialist movements as Nazism which lack important characteristics and are not directly historically related. Hans Adler 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

One issue is that "National socialism" redirects to the "Nazism" page - which is one of the key problems. Another is that there is no "national socialism" page to handle in a reasonable manner all the uses other than "Nazism." Which is why I had proposed specfically 4 articles to handle the clear variants which would make up encyclopedia articles. Your point about the single title of this aricle is thus not quite able to fully cover the issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The redirect is fine as it's the most common meaning. The necessary hat note linking to national socialism (disambiguation) is already present. I think the only major omission on the disambiguation page is mid 19th-century non-Lassalle socialism. Hans Adler 13:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Another redirect is the term Nazi, which is far more recognizable than Nazism. Would readers naturally search nazism instead of nazi if they wanted to learn about nazis? United States Apollo program (1961–75) or in this case Nazism should not be over Apollo program or Nazi. People may also be interested in the nazism, but is it the entire or even primary reason they searched nazi which is searched 20 times more often? Since nazi party and nazi germany both have more searches, and the ideology is listed as fascism, rather than nazism, perhaps we rename the article nazi? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The current article already defaults to nazi several times: Etymology The term Nazi derives from Darkstar1st (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hans, adding the socialism portal has been discussed and dismissed as OR, the current article displays the fascism portal. here are some passages from Paynes book, perhaps we should exchange the portals, or at least add the socialism portal?

• (the) national socialism (of the DAP) sought the nationalization of big business. it differed from marxist socialism in advocating a common economic policy to benefit all...pressing for a mixed socialism...the original german-bohemian national socialism was in essence a radical democratic movement.
• there were some fundamental differences...nonetheless, hitlerian national socialism more nearly paralleled russian communism than has any other non-communist system p211
• In some specific ways National socialism paralleled russian communism to a much greater degree than italian fascism was capable of doing p210
• national socialism is a parody of fascisim, mussolini p231
• Fascist accused Nazis of being too socialistic, too anti-individualistic... page 232
• Nazi publications denounced Jewish Fascist party officers. page 232
• ultra-Fascist wrote nazism was offensive and would push europe into communism. the difference between fascism and nazism are profound and unambiguous. page 232
• Fascist publications referred to Hitler as the anti-christ. page 232 Darkstar1st (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment, Hans. Your posts, as usual, are insightful and get right to the heart of the matter. I agree with your "superficial impression" too - although I don't think either side believes the picture is really that clear-cut, both sides have become entrenched in their arguments leading to the polarity you see on the talk page. I think what's really needed now is some discussion about the specific claims both sides wish to make in the article - which groups presaged Nazism, what aspects of those groups were similar, etc., along with the sources that are used to back them up. OpenFuture, I think I must have missed the specific claims you made and the sources that you use in the flood of discussion (I estimate we have produced 120kb in the last week alone). I think it would make the discussion flow much more smoothly if you could post them at the talk page again - does this sound like a reasonable course of action to you? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Hans. This all pretty much is what I've been trying to say all along, although said much better. I think we'll be able to go forward based on this. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Prince Michael of Albany / Michael Roger Lafosse

Disappearance of an individual and the NOR policy - an apparent anomaly:

I am a novice Wikipedian. I recently edited an article about the Claimant to the Scottish Throne, Prince Michael of Albany as follows: "September 2011: Prince Michael of Albany seems to have disappeared in 2006 when he, allegedly, returned to Belgium. There appears to have been no sign of him since 2006. One of his former supporters, Laurence Gardner, who died in 2010, is said to have renounced the titles awarded to him by Prince Michael. See Laurence Gardner's obituary in The Independent, 19 Aug 2010." This edit was removed by a senior editor on the grounds that it contained unsourced comments. He argued that "I can't see anyway you can include it (i.e., the reference to Prince Michael's apparent disappearance - Radex09) until a reliable source comments on it." I am puzzled by this interpretation of the NOR rule. It seems literally correct, but it seems to exclude the possibility of saying that an individual appears to have 'disappeared', or even to say that nothing has been heard from him or about him in the last five years. If an individual has 'disappeared' then there may well be no accurate sources to cite, and the absence of secondary sources is itself significant. It seems contrary to common sense to be unable to state that an individual appears to have 'disappeared'. My discussion with the editor who removed my edit is at User talk:Dougweller under the heading 'Prince Michael of Albany' Radex09 (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A view points:

• Please include the exact title of the article to which you are referring. I find the best way to do this is to cut and paste the title from the article itself to the discussion page and then add square brackets around it. In this way anybody who wishes to add an opinion can see the exact context to which you are referring. I did a quick search, but could not find the original article.
• The article Michel Roger Lafosse casts many doubts on whether or not he is a legitimate descendant of Bonnie Prince Charlie. That article might also help you to understand why "Prince Michael of Albany" has "disappeared" and give you some sources that you might like to follow up.

Martinvl (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl - thanks for your points. The original article is Michel Roger Lafosse. Prince Michael of Albany takes you to the same page. I assure you that I understand the reasons why Prince Michael of Albany might have disappeared and mention them at User talk:Dougweller under the heading 'Prince Michael of Albany'. But I don't wish to discuss Prince Michael of Albany here. I am concerned with the apparent anomaly of the NOR rule which prevented me making the observation that Prince Michael of Albany / Michael Roger Lafosse has not been heard or seen in 5 years and appears to have 'disappeared'. The fact that the Claimant has gone missing is relevant to the article because it has implications for the status of his claim to the Scottish throne, but the NOR policy seems to prevent me from mentioning that he has 'disappeared'. When someone 'disappears' there may not be any secondary sources to cite, as in this case. Radex09 (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We also say you can't write that a book doesn't mention something unless you have a reliable source stating that. Google doesn't cover everything. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Google doesn't cover everything", which is why I said only that he appears to have disappeared. This issue reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes story Silver Blaze where the solution of the mystery depended on the dog that didn't bark in the night:

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

Under the NOR rule Sherlock Holmes would have been forbidden to mention the fact that the dog did not bark. Radex09 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but Sherlock was always trying to get to the bottom of the story. We are just writing up encyclopedia articles based on what the sources say. You will be hard put to find a piece of evidence considered by Sherlock that would constitute a reliable source in WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Bain & Company

It would be extremely helpful to have some further input on a content dispute for the Bain & Company page. The page is now protected after repeated reverts in both directions over the dispute. The full details of the dispute are provided on the talk page , with even more extensive discussion here: Talk:Bain_&_Company#Misleading_content_related_to_so-called_Bain_India_incident.

Could someone with expertise on synthesis and original research questions please weigh in?

NJmeditor (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Hungary

I would like to report article "Principality of Hungary". It exist only 2 sources which speaks about "principality of Hungary" in 9th century. Majority of sources speaks that Hungarians in that time was a semi-nomadic tribes of various ethnic origin. First source supporting the existence of "Principality of Hungary" is Hodos: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Bz7aKaJNfokC&pg=PA19&dq=%22principality+of++Hungary%22&hl=en&ei=dpBeTrLUDYT_-gbj0_2QAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22principality%20of%20%20Hungary%22&f=false but he created a fictive countries: "Principality of Hungary" and "Czech-Bohemian kingdom of Moravia" - these countries did not exist. Second is Weciorek: http://books.google.com/books?id=B5XpAAAAMAAJ&q=%22principality+of+hungary%22&dq=%22principality+of+hungary%22&hl=sk&ei=gNJ9TpqTLfPE4gSFx-CoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA but on the next page he uses the term "Slovak principality" - so this author created 2 new countries in the 9th and 10th century. Article was nominated for a deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principality_of_Hungary but editors are not experts in this topic so they considered this fictive names as a reliable name for the principality. But the majority of sources says nothing about this principality. Arguments of Hungarian editors are that their rulers are called a prince in some sources but in the majority of sources they are called a tribal chieftains. Now behind the fictive therm "principality of Hungary" is hidden all history of Carpathian basin in 10th century - Hungarian rides, Hungarian tribes, Hungarian tribal alliance and union, Christianization of Hungarians. Are we going to write a new history of Hungary in the 21th century at Wikipedia? Are these source really reliable if they speaks about fictive countries? More informations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Principality_of_Hungary --Samofi (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be a significant number of sources and maps referring to such a "principality" - Wikipedia would suggest that even if a majority of sources said it did not exist, but contemporary sources seem to indicate that it did exist, you might have a content dispute, but not an "original research" dispute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Last Mountain

Love for you ll to walk me through this so the final product will be acceptable to Wiki's established standards.

Thanks, Eric Mathis

The place to request feedback about articles is Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. You might prefer to just post the ink onto the talk page of a wikiproject that has an interest in the area, in this case Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film might be an appropriate place. This page is for problems about WP:Original research, if you have a query about a particular problem with that you think there might be in the article please expand further here. Dmcq (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There's an entry about this in the COI board: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#The_Last_Mountain --Jean Calleo (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

List of changes in Star Wars re-releases

List of changes in Star Wars re-releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article consists almost entirely of unsourced statements regarding differences between releases of the various Star Wars films. Ignoring the issue as to whether such exhaustive lists are encyclopaedic at all, would it be possible for policy regarding original research be clarified in regard to this matter - does watching two different versions of a film, and noting the differences between them, fall under WP:OR policy or not? It seems to me that the films themselves are primary sources per WP:PRIMARY, and that the exhaustive listing of changes is 'research' by any reasonable definition - effectively resulting in Wikipedia being a contributor-generated secondary source. I'd like to get some feedback on this though, and would particularly welcome comments from anyone who has dealt with this type of issue before. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck is that? That article is shocking and should be stubbed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article is a bit shocking. It is more than 12,000 words long and has only 11 citations, that's a red flag for me. It appears to be a massive compilation of trivia base on OR. In my opinion the article should be summarized to about 1,000 words or less depending on the citations. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cringe_comedy#Humiliation_comedy

This section is quite speculative and particular in characterizing the humor employed by Ben Stiller in various "Ben Stiller movies". The critical points for me:

1. Complete lack of citation
2. Laser focus on Ben Stiller
3. Seemingly unsympathetic (though possibly neutral) characterization of Stiller's performance

If it weren't for the first one, I would easily overlook the last two. In the absence of citation, the critical focus on Ben Stiller is in need of justification here.

• (Note: the comment above is not mine)--A quick Google search reveals there is no readily available source that defines "cringe comedy" or "humiliation comedy". That, and the fact that the article has been tagged as citations needed for four years and there is not a singe reference in the article make if fair game for bold editing and removal of questionable content and maybe even an AfD. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• • I removed the section as original research. There are also BLP concerns as Stiller is very much alive. Binksternet (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

County surveyor

County surveyor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I ran into this while fixing dab links, and it's a doozy. Massive page, referenced only to primary documents, such as the Domesday Book and the Oxford English Dictionary, and with this bizarre author's statement on the talk page. Considering reverting it back to before this editor started in on it, but would would like some feedback before doing so. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 16:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that OED is a primary source, but otherwise I agree. The main thing wrong with the article is lack of sourcing. Zero^talk 05:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The user has agreed to move his draft to userspace, a couple editors will help him work on it. Resolved for time being.The Interior (Talk) 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Hungary - synthesis and original research, no sources talking about this principality in 895

Users wrote that my older report was not belonging to this topic. But Iam sure that it belongs here. I would like to report article Principality of Hungary because this article is a synthesis: [10] It broken also this rule: [11] „If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research“ - we have a extremly small minority view, from the authors whose are not experts in topic This term is not based at reliable secondary sources: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Term „Principality of Hungary“ is based only at tertiary sources and non-scholar publications. Its very rare anachronism for a Hungarian tribal alliance and it does not deserve own article. Entry of the article is classical example of synthesis:

The Principality of Hungary, also Hungarian Principality or Duchy of Hungary (also "Grand Principality" Hungarian: Magyar Nagyfejedelemség), was the first documented Hungarian state, a tribal alliance in the Carpathian Basin, established 895 or 896, following the 9th-century Magyar invasion of Pannonia.

The Magyars (Hungarians), a semi-nomadic group of people led by Árpád formed the Principality of Hungary at the very end of the 9th century, arriving from Etelköz, their earlier principality east of the Carpathians.

The principality was succeeded by the Christian kingdom of Hungary with the coronation of Stephen I in AD 1000.

In contemporary Byzantine sources, the territory of the Hungarian tribal alliance was also known as in Greek as "Western Tourkia", because of its allegiance to the the Khazar Khaganate.

Sources deprecating the existence of Hungarian principality:

[12] „the is no reson to believe that conquering hungarians considered a carpathian basin as their final home“ „after defeat at Ausburg (955) Arpad princes trying to make a independent christian state“ [13] talks about hungarian tribes and chieftains in 10th century, „1001 – creation of the state“ [14] no simple word about hungarian principality [15] in 899 Pannonia mentioned as the part of Frankish empire, talking about tribes in 10th century and „after 955 was formed a basis for future hungarian kingdom“

NOTE: 50% of sources speaks about Hungarian principality only after 955 and 50 % of sources about Hungarian history dont use the term Hungarian principality, they speaks about TRIBAL ALLIANCE in Carpathian basin ([16] [17] [18] [19]) and kingdom in 1001.

A pagan principality is a tribal alliance.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I wanna see sources from historians which speaks that "pagan principality of hungary" is the "tribal alliance". Its your original research. --Samofi (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources talking about principality in the end of 10th century:

[20] talks about tribal union in 950 – p. 102 and about principality after 955 [21] about principality of Hungary in 10th century not in 9th century [22] about principality in 948 [23] hungarian principality – started to create after 955 and creation finished in 972 [24] principality in 10th century, not in 9th century

For instance, Etelköz was another pagan Hungarian principality in present-day Ukraine in the 9th century.[25]Fakirbakir (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Only one book says that Etelkoz was a principality - its original research. 99% of sources talks about magyar tribes. --Samofi (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I could not find a book which speaks about foundation of the Principality of Hungary in 895

Its a classical kind of the essay, synthesis and original research from User:Fakirbakir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position). Firstly he created article Principality of Hungary without proper references and sources for example he used the translator as the reference. It was kind a propagandistic and patriotic ([26]). I have found a mistakes and uncited matherial and reported this article, he started with canvassing (other hungarian users) and he repair this page – but without consensus and he used only hungarian point of view. This user was firstly trying to legitimize a term Principality of Hungary. His sources:

1) [27] We cannot verify this book and we dont know about which hungarian principality talks this book – 17th century in Transylvania or Principality of Geza in 972? Author is theologian and book is assigned for high schools.

2) [28] this book is just a outline of history and author is not expert in topic. He use the fictive names of the countries. „Principality of Hungary“ and „Czech-Bohemian kingdom of Moravia“ – this countries are fictive and they are not useing by seriouse historians. Btw in the book is mentioned that hungarians came in the end of 9th century and than established a principality, but principality could be established after 955, there is no exact year.

3) [29] term principality of hungary is used, but in this book is also used the term slovak principality (so can we call the Principality of Nitra the Slovak principality? It can be mentioned like an alternative name but not like a name of whole article). and we dont know from this book the establishment of the principality so it could be after 955.

4) [30] this source is from 1905, its talking about principality of hungary and about slovaks. But in which period? It could be the principality of transylvania in 16th century or it could be attempts from the Slovaks to make a principality in the northern hungary in 19th century.

5) [31] it talks about hungarian principality in 10th century, so it could be after 955

The next activity of the User:Fakirbakir was to make a connection with the arrival of the Magyar nomadic tribes into Carpathian basin and establishment of principality, but his sources says nothing about establishment of the Hungarian principality:

1) [32] its only tertiary source and says that hungarian state starting with creation in 896 – can we talk in this time about principality or about tribal union, tribal alliance, tribal federation...? creation started in 896, but when the principality was a realy created? Was it created?

2) [33] same encyclopedy like above – he used a feedback to source his claims

3) [34] its book from amateur astronomer talking about hungarian state in 895. Which kind of polity in 895? Is it principality or tribal alliance? Connect it with the principality is the original research.

4) [35] its book about Tokay vine and its only mentioned hungarian state in 895. Which kind of polity in 895? Is it principality or tribal alliance? Connect it with the principality is the original research.

I do not understand this problem. The pagan state was founded when the Magyars settled (from Etelköz) in the Carpathian Basin around 895.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Find a reliable secondary source about this. Your sources talks about "state" - tribal polity. Find a sources saying that "Principality of Hungary" was founded in 895. Now it just a original research and synthesis. --Samofi (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions:

A. Term „Principality of Hungary“ is mentioned only in the tertiary sources or in non-scholar publications and it should not be the name of article according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary

B. Majority of seriouse historian publications deprecating existence of Hungarian principality, Principality of Hungary, etc.

C. Term „Hungarian principality“ is used from the reign of Geza in 970.

D. Term „Hungarian principality“ in Hungarian language is very rare and it used only in one book (other books say the same sentences about this so its feedbacks): [36] and seriouse Hungarian academics use term Hungarin tribal union in 997 ([37])

E. Calling the rulers of Hungarian tribal alliance princes in Hungarian patriotic literature does not make a principality from the seminomadic tribes. Term prince is used for a monarchs, lords, tribal chieftains sometimes.

Principality of Hungary was called "Western Tourkia" or "Tourkia" by contemporary Byzantine sources. The term of Principality of Hungary or Hungarian Principality or Duchy of Hungary are latter expressions. (Principality of Nitra is same case in reference to its latter name)Fakirbakir (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Show me the source that principality of hungary was called a western tourkia. I have found source that hungarian tribal union in pannonia was called a western tourkia and it was not independent state. (http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=VOVrTp3XLIGd-waJvvjeBA&ct=result&id=K2ppAAAAMAAJ&dq=Nomads+and+their+neighbours+in+the+Russian+steppe%3A+Turks%2C+Khazars+and+Qipchaqs&q=%22western+Tourkia%22#search_anchor) --Samofi (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible solutions:

A) Rename the article to Hungarian tribal alliance (Carpathian Basin)

B) Move the present content of the article to [Hungarian prehistory] or [Magyar tribes] and delete this article

C) Rename article to „Geza´s Principality“ or „Hungarian principality“ and we can talk about history after 955 or 972 and the earlier period move to the articles [Hungarian prehistory] or [Magyar tribes]

D) Create articles Hungarian tribal alliance (Etelkoz 830-895), Hungarian tribal alliance (Carpahian basin 895-972), Hungarian principality (972-1001) --Samofi (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, there was a pagan principality (Western Tourkia in contemporary sources), English sources exist about it (at least) from the 18th century as Duchy of Hungary.[38]. The rulers were called Duces or Princes by contemporary and latter sources. The first ruler of this entity (Árpád) was called prince.(895-907)[39]Fakirbakir (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed.....why we do have two sections here about Principality of Hungary?Fakirbakir (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You dont agree because its your synthesis. Find source that Principality of Hungary was called a "Western Tourkia" in Byzantine sources. Its clear syntheis, you are connecting sources about tribal alliance, duchy, magyar tribes, principality. You are connecting name prince with principality. Samo (founder of samo empire) was called rex, king. So was it kingdom? Svätopluk was called rex - king too. So great moravia was a kingdom? Nope.. "Principality of Hungary" is a frinde theory and its no place in wikipedia for such theories and original research. You really dont see, that its synthesis? Why its not a 1 source which speaks that Principality of Hungary was established in 895? Btw one from your sources says that "Principality of Hungary was established in 830 in Etelkoz". Its just a minority views.. Term principality of Hungary is not videly accepted by scholars so article should be changed or deleted. Its used by non-scholars for a variouse polities in periods from 830 to 1900.. Do you have sources that principality of Hungary, Hungarian state, Duchy of Hungary, Hungarian Tribal alliance, Western Tourkia are the same polity? So show it. About duchy of Hungary: http://books.google.com/books?id=N3rxAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Duchy+of+Hungary%22&dq=%22Duchy+of+Hungary%22&hl=sk&ei=LaSOTu_HKM6F-wbwpaX1Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA - Geza established monarchy and his son stephen inherrited the duchy in 997. Reign of Geza started about 970. So we cannost talk about duchy of hungary before 970. Old english sources (from 18th century) useing the term "Duchy of Hungary" and all say the same thing: "Thus -Henry II. erected the duchy of Hungary into a kingdom, in favour of Stephen, who before had the title of duke" but its sources from 18th century (you should use a modern neutral secondary sources) and Hungarian duchy was mentioned only with connection with Stephen so after 997. How can you connect it with 895? Its here 2 times, because first report was not done good, now its better and its belonging to the original research noticeboard. --Samofi (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed a 2 manipulations with sources you written here. "The first ruler of this entity (Árpád) was called prince.(895-907)[40]" the is writing about hungarian leader prince arpad, but which entity do you mean? Try to read all sources not only informations you need to your synthesis. There is written that hungarians were destroyed by pechenegs, thier mortality was high, they were ethnicaly mixed and they were nomadic (its not sure if elites were). Article speaks about tribes. First mentioned hungarian polity is in the 990 with connection with geza. Second manipulations is this. You written "I disagree, there was a pagan principality (Western Tourkia in contemporary sources)". But source says: By the terming their land "western tourkia", the hungarian tribal union in pannonia was reffering their allegiance to larger turkish tribal union. So it was a tribal organization and not Principality of Hungary (http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=VOVrTp3XLIGd-waJvvjeBA&ct=result&id=K2ppAAAAMAAJ&dq=Nomads+and+their+neighbours+in+the+Russian+steppe%3A+Turks%2C+Khazars+and+Qipchaqs&q=%22western+Tourkia%22#search_anchor). --Samofi (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

1, There are Byzantine sources about Western Tourkia,[41]

2, Samo's Empire is called Empire (hypothetically it is more than kingdom) , however there is no medieval source about this name "Samo's Empire"

3, Principality of Nita is the same, there is no contemporary source about its name "Principality of Nitra"

4, Principality of Hungary was not a kingdom it was a pagan principality,

5, You did not read carefully the sources, all of them are about 10th century

6, Please prove your statement why Etelköz is just a minority view.

7, Please prove your statement why Principality of Hungary is not accepted by scholars.

8, Please see the page and you will find another new (2004) source about Duchy of Hungary. I wanted to demonstrate its English usage.

9, There is no other Prince Árpád in Hungarian history.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is out of question that there was a "Principality of Hungary" before the "Kingdom of Hungary" was founded in 1000. So the name of the article itself is correct. We can discuss about when was this principality founded. As far as I know it is a standard statement in textbooks that the Hungarians conquered the Carpathian Basin in 895/896. The period between this and the foundation of the Kingdom of Hungary is called the "age of principality" when princes, such as Árpád, ruled the country. Several sources were already given in the article and the talk page, as well. Anyway, it is acceptable if somebody wants to challenge the foundation date of the principality, but this discussion should be done on the Talk:Principality_of_Hungary. Koertefa (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User Koertefa is right. Cited:"Age of Principality between 896 and 1000 AD"[42] Fakirbakir (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The name of article is original research and all article is just a synthesis. Cooking from a water, findig a exact words from the text and writing this synthesis. Cited:"Age of Principality between 896 and 1000 AD" I see again attempts to make a synthesis. "Age of Principality between 896 and 1000 AD" which principality? It could be meaned Nitra principality [43]: Duke of Nitra, united the other Magyar chiefs under his rule and became the ruler. It was also Principality of Transylvania in this time or Principality of Great Moravia. Btw Great Moravia finished in 906, so Magyar tribes created principality and lived for a 10 years in the Principality of Great Moravia in the Tisza valley? Stop with synthesis and original research. If you are right It will no problem for you find a 2-3 sources which speaks that "Principality of Hungary" was founded in 895/6 "Age of Principality between 896 and 1000 AD" is not connected with "Principality of Hungary" - in this time in central Europe was a Nitra principality, Great Moravian principality. Transylvanian principality, Pannonian principality, Bihar... Give me a evidence.--Samofi (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Original research continues:

Answers:

1, sources are about tribal union in the panonian basin (http://books.google.com/books?id=uo_xAAAAMAAJ&q=western+tourkia&dq=western+tourkia&hl=sk&ei=AN-OTuaGN4vwsgbcoM3-Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ) - no connection with principality

2, it has nothing to do with this dispute

3, http://www.hervardi.com/images/conversio_bagoariorum_et_carantanorum006.jpg - vocato Nitrava - locality is mentioned and the ruler rex (king) Pribina. So we know that "King Pribina was ruler of Nitrava" But connection of western tourkia with present-day hungary? :) its original research. Its like I would make article "Kingdom of Slovakia" because Pribina was the king of Nitra according to primary sources. BTW primary sources are base for a original research at wikipedia. Your edits in this case are a product of "romantic nationalism" and again original research

4, no it was not, "Principality of Hungary" did not exist. It was Geza´s principality or Hungarian principality after 972. find a source connecting "Principality of Hungary" with 895. This source doesnt exists

5, 10th century is after 900, hungarian principality could be founded after 972. its no connection of this polity from 10th century and establishment of this polity in 895

6, its easy, 2850 sources talking about Etelkoz (http://www.google.com/search?q=etelkoz+tribal&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk#sclient=psy-ab&hl=sk&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=etelkoz&pbx=1&oq=etelkoz&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=22030l22030l3l22254l1l1l0l0l0l0l164l164l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=ca7f4cea4f4eb571&biw=1680&bih=839), only 1 calls this region "principality" - its original research. wikipedia is no place for original research

7, You should prove that it is - say me 5 names of scholars writing the secondary sources which use this term. I have written above about 10 scholars which dont use it.

8, I agree, but English term Duchy of Hungary is used from the reign of Geza or Stephen, so we can talk about Hungarian principality or Duchy of Hungary after 972. I could not find earlier usage than 972, 990 or 997 connected with term "Duchy of Hungary"

9, It was prince Arpad and he was prince :) But he has not principality. His father Almos is called prince and was a nomadic tribal leader (was he traveling across europe with his principality?? lol :)). So again original research.. Its also Prince (musician) and Prince Nasheem the boxer. :) It was just a title for rich man with own army. --Samofi (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I can not follow you. In 947 Taksony was called Dux Taksony.[44] I think it is a content dispute we should not discuss it here.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, its not content dispute. He was called Dux Taksony, but was he a ruler of the "Principality of Hungary"? He was a Dux of the Duchy of Nitra - earlier Slavic principality was not destroyed but was ruled by new monarchs - Magyar tribal chieftains. There are no archeological evidences that Principality of Nitra was destroyed. He could be a Magyar dux of the Principality of Nitra, but here is a no connection with the principality of Hungary. Please think about this: 1. Hungarians were running against Pechenegs, they came into the valleys of Tisa and Maros - majority of sources say this and its archeological evidences, they were not too numerous in the time of arrival and they suffered from a big mortality. 2. In this area was a Great Moravian empire (Principality of Moravia, Principality of Nitra, Principality of Pannonia, Principality of Bohemia, Principality of Sorbia) when Hungarians arrived to present-day Hungary. 3. Hungarian tribes had a tribal structure and they were not a ethnically homogenous. 4. It was a more clans which raid into Europe with a more leaders and it was a more smaller polities 5. its no reason to believe that hungarians consider a Pannonian basin for their final home, they were running against Pechenegs 5. It was a Geza in 972 who united magyar tribes and the creation of "natio hungarica" started 6. Mike Kenedy: "The history of the Hungarian state begins in the late ninth century when tribes of Magyars, led by a chief named Arpád, swept from the east into the middle Danube Basin." it doeas not mean, that it was a principality in that time. The history of Slovak state begins when Slavs arrived in the present day Slovak territory. Can I talk about Slovak principality when Slavs arrived to Carpathians? There was a ruler Samo and than Pribina. I would like to find a compromis in this case with you. But I dont know how to do. As I can see, term "Principality of Hungary" is not used as a stable historian term, and connecting all history of Carpathian basin in 896-1000 with principality of hungary is unscholar. There was a lot of smaller tribal polities connected with the raids to Europe. Btw Slavs and Hungarians made a common raids against Europe - for example in 970 the hungarian raid against Byzantinium was led by Svjatoslav. Say me the name of one principality which was established before the polity become feudal. Principalities are connected with feudalism. Polities before the feudalism we dont call principalities. Hungarians were semi-nomadic in that time - no feudalism. This kind of polities we call Tribal alliance, union, federation and so on. The most frequented terms about feudal principality of Hungarians is Hungarian principality or Duchy of Hungary and its connected with Geza. Name "Principality of Hungary" its just a minor theory - original research and synthesis and original research is also connecting the history of 10th century in the carpathian basin with principality of hungary. Look to english language sources. I hope that I just a little opened your eyes. I can write article about Hungarian tribal alliance and there will no original research.. But I want a consensus with you. --Samofi (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We have to sometimes change our opinions. You should be more critical with your history and you should take all good and bad parts from this history. History of "Hungarian political nation" started in 972/3 when Geza started to unify Magyar tribes and started with Christianization - begin of feudal system. History of "Slovak political nation" started in 1728 when Baltazar Magin wrote apology of Slovaks in: Murices Nobilissimae et novissimae diaetae Posoniensis scriptori sparsi, sive Apologia pro inclito comitatu Trenchiniensi. Iam not trying to create a Slovakia from Samo´s Empire or Nitra Principality so you should be proud for your history but you should not know make a original research and you should be neutral. --Samofi (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

Is it original research to include selected Quranic verses in our article on women's rights in Saudi Arabia without secondary sources demonstrating their relevance? Noloop and Aerobicfox argue that because the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia states that the Quran is the country's constitution and judges there apply the law by citing it, we may, for example, include quotes that "seem relevant" such as 4:34:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.

in a paragraph about how women require a male guardian for most public activities in Saudi Arabia, not cited to a source. I argue that we nonetheless need secondary sources applying the Quran verse to the situation in Saudi Arabia, just as we would need secondary sources applying any other general, broad-brush "constitutional" principle to a specific law or case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a clear case of original research. The Quran says lots of different things and courts need to interpret it. A secondary source is required to indicate the relationship between the text of the Quran and existing practice in Saudi Arabia. Zero^talk 05:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Zero. The Quran is no different from other key religious texts in that it can be interpreted many ways. A straight quote from any such text cannot serve as a support to disputed facts. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The two editors above should take attention to the specific case of Saudi Arabia as well as the purpose of this quote since they are just coming into this. In Saudi Arabia no written legal code is used, and judges are given enormous discretion to give individual interpretations of the Qur'an and other early Islamic texts in order to arrive at their own verdicts. Differences in enforceability and interpretations vary widely from judge to judge as well as region to region, the sum of the different approaches to female guardianship normally described to western audiences as the legal requirement for females to have guardians. It is however more of a custom that varies between different localities with a pseudo-legal backing which is enforced largely by ultra conservative judges who do not actually require any specific law or direct quotation from a Muslim text to support their ruling. Now, in order to familiarize the reader of this article to the nature of male guardianship in Islamic society a quote from the Qur'an is provided to illustrate a sentiment within the Muslim community, which it does successfully. There is no explanation of the quote, or use of the quote in any way to support a "disputed fact" or to support a legal position. While weight could be a potential argument, previous consensus agreed to the current quotes on the page, and I believe it does not add undue weight but gives the reader useful background to the culture. I agree that it would be beneficial to find sources that specifically mention certain quotations from the Qur'an that are often cited. At the moment though I have little access to a computer to search for such sources or respond here. Please consider helping to find a source or explaining how this quote misleads or is harmful to the article; I should be able to do so in a few days after I get my computer back, so apologies if I am late to respond in the meantime.AerobicFox (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is required to prove that the quote is harmful to the article. It's the job of the editors who wish to include it to find sources connecting it to the article topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm too busy right now to be burdened with looking this stuff up. It doesn't really seem to affect the article too much either way, so go ahead and do whatever you like.AerobicFox (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well that settles it, then. And, since God has willed it that Noloop be indeffed, I have gone ahead and removed all the annoying disembodied quotes from the article. If anyone is thinking of reinstating them, please consider also adding Sura 4:34, without which any scriptural commentary on women's rights in SA seems incomplete. --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of Windows and Linux

Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux#Market_share refers to another Wikipedia article which calculates the median of market share for 2 operating systems, based on a number of sources. Firstly, I'm not sure that it is proper to reference another article this way. Secondly, I suspect that the calculation of the median constitutes synthesis. Statistics is not my field, but I'm pretty sure that median is not the way to deal with possible bias introduced through possible self-selection and biased sources.

So how to deal with this: Leave the reference? Cite the same sources with the same caveats? Choose the sources which seems least biased? Or just remove it altogether since there's no way avoid WP:OR? Useerup (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be easier to just redirect to the other article with a small blurb discussing the difficulties getting exact numbers? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But my concern is that median between a number of potentially biased sources is not a proper way to even out bias, and it smacks of OR in the other article as well. A redirect would work, if the median was removed from the other article. The sources are ok, and a reader can reasonably determine from the differences that potential bias is at play. Perhaps the potential bias should be better explained for each source. But the median, how does that come into play? What I need guidance on is whether such calculations are considered OR or not. Useerup (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest documenting the differences between the sources, rather than evening them out--you can say that opinions regarding market share vary, give a range of values citing the various sources, or, if the sources are notable enough, list values separately with attribution. Determining these values is not trivial, and the numbers will not only vary from source to source but also year to year. WP is not a reliable source, however, so referencing another article is not appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuation War again

I posted about this here before but only got one user to respond; the problem still remains.

The sentence in question is:

...according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day, [ref1][ref2] although the war diary of the Finnish 12th Division facing the settlement [ref3] does not mention the fighting and notes that it was quiet at the time [ref4] and neither does Finnish chronology of the Continuation War. [ref5] [45]

The last part implies that the fighting is not confirmed by Finnish sources and probably did not happen.

The citations ref1 and ref2 are for sources that explicitly say that the fighting took place. However, User:Wanderer602 says that he can't find any confirmation of this in Finnish sources and adds the "although..." part that puts the information from reliable sources into doubt. (see 2nd paragraph here: [46]) Is not that original research? Since when does information from reliable sources have to be confirmed by the research of a user to be taken seriously?

As far as his sources, ref3 says that the 12th division was near the town, ref4 refers to diary entries (primary source) that supposedly say that it was quiet in the area the 12th division was covering.

To me this looks like a clear case of synthesis: 12th division near N. Beloostrov + diary entries of the 12th division saying that it was quiet = no fighting in N. Beloostrov

-YMB29 (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

To be more exact... Finnish 12th Division was at the western shore of Rajajoki river (which is 10 - 20 m wide, see picture [47], non-wiki map [48]). N. Beloostrov lays on the eastern shore. Ref. 3 is there stating the location of the unit since YMB29 refused to accept it. Ref. 4 is direct quote from war diary discribing situation at the line which run along the river (it describes the situation at both the Rajajoki facing N. Beloostrov as well in the whole of 12th Divisions area as 'quiet'). Ref 5. is a Finnish histography of the Continuation War which does not mention fighting at N. Beloostrov at 4/5 September at all while making clear statements of other fighting that took place in the vicinity (such as at the S. Beloostrov) - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Does not mention it, does not mean it did not happen... This is your own conclusion based on the sources you have looked at.

The sources I used explicitly mention the fighting and your sources don't contradict them, only your own analysis does.

I don't refuse to accept that the 12th division was in the area, but I do refuse to accept your conclusion that it was the only Finnish unit that could have been there and that there was no fighting. -YMB29 (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I only followed advice from the last reviewer of the page

If there are indeed reliable secondary sources that do not mention fighting at that location, than the claim that there was no fighting is not original resource. Of course the Finnish source should be reliable in that it is a thorough description of where fightings took place.... -POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

- Wanderer602 (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This might be so if there were no sources that said that the fighting did take place, but in this case there are and you can't claim that the sources are wrong because you can't find Finnish sources that mention it. -YMB29 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. He said that should there be Finnish secondary source which deals with the fighting in detail that does not make any mention of the fighting at N. Beloostrov at 4-5 September then it would be valid to state that fighting did not take place (according to Finnish sources). And now there is such a reference. Soviet/Russian sources can state their point of view but the Finnish sources omissions of the fight are equally valid and important to be noted in the text. Unless ofcourse you can provide Finnish sources which mention the fight and the units involved. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To state that the Finnish sources omit it you would have to do some research involving many sources, which is OR. This is what you fail to understand. If a historian did this research, came to the same conclusion as you, and published it, only then you can insert it into the article. -YMB29 (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone comment on this? -YMB29 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Finland at War" states the Finns launched a large scale offensive at the Tuulos river on the 4th and halt their advance on the 7th and do not take Leningrad despite Hitler's urgent request to do so. Unfortunately, that's the Finns advancing on the other side of Lake Ladoga; that said, any action not in that vicinity was certainly away from the center, but I haven't found any additional detail as of yet. Националист-патриот ►TALK 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We are treading here The Issue which has confused Soviet and Finnish historians decades. This is also in a such small scale that it cannot be found properly handled in any books written in English, German or Swedish, not to mention any more distanced language. It is not properly handled in any Russian or Finnish books, in fact the only book in the Finnish side with required depth is "Suomen sota 1941-1945" part 2 (of 11) and based on YMB29's Russian sources, outside memories/hearsays there isn't any books written by historians available. So, basically on the both sides, Finnish and Russian, one has to dig deep to the primary sources, as has been done. But, that means it is extremely unlikely that there is even a single wikipedian capable of providing insight to this issue. At least the roaring silence which has answered our calls for help points to that direction. --Whiskey (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking anyone to dig into sources... This is the original research noticeboard you know... Any experienced user can tell what is original research or not, and does not have to know anything about the topic.

So you are calling a war diary and an official army report memories/hearsays? -YMB29 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting claim. So tell me, why nobody dares to stick their heads to this discussion? We have got just one or two comments from others, but also they have abandoned us almost immediately before following this to the conclusion. We are providing an information overload to all others and they cannot help us because they do not know enough to evaluate presented sources.

I guess we have already concluded that Pavel Luknitskiy's book wasn't an official document, but even there he describes only the September 20th attack to the railway station, and passes the September 4th with a single sentence as he seemed not to been there then (hearsay?). 23rd Army report uses quite wide area with description Beloostrov, which could include fighting in Aleksandrovka.--Whiskey (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well looks like you did not read the army report; it is very specific. Also you can't claim information about an event to be hearsay just because the person writing about it did not witness the event himself.

As for lack of comments, I kept it simple in the initial post but Wanderer602 is the one who flooded the discussion with too much detailed information, which does make it difficult for others to understand the problem. -YMB29 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

2112 (song)

I have just been in what could be called my first edit war, in which I was (unfairly, in my opinion) accused, first of insufficient citation, then of inserting original research. On the first, I relied on no additional sources aside from what the article already cited, so I didn't feel a need to add a "ref" (nevertheless, I did subsequently include one that I thought would be comprehensive enough to cover the entire Synopsis section--both my edits and pre-existing stuff). On the second, I don't believe that I crossed the line between simply paraphrasing (acceptable) and making subjective personal inferences (unacceptable)--but "Wisdom89"--whose user-page suggests he considers himself a pre-eminent authority on the rock band Rush--disagrees and threatened to block me like a common vandal (touchy, touchy--considering he knows nothing about me personally).

Strictly speaking, ANY paraphrasing of a source--putting something "into your own words"--involves making interpretations and inferences; therefore, anything other than verbatim quotations (which I also included in my edits) could be considered "original research" by an overzealous, overprotective editor. IF I crossed the line and made personal deductions that didn't necessarily follow from the lyrical and non-lyrical text (which I DID NOT intend), THEN some of the previous editors must have done so as well--and, since their text apparently wasn't reverted, they got away with it. I simply expanded on what was already there to the extent of providing more detail. I may have been over the top by referring to the song "2112" in the beginning of the article as a mini-rock opera onto itself (that could be considered speculative), and perhaps my interpreting the "Overture" and "Grand Finale" as the rise and fall of the Solar Federation (when they weren't explicitly so documented in the CD liner notes) was too far (although, on his talk page, Wisdom89 personally agreed with another editor who made the same inferences). But I stand by all of my other edits--as I relied on the exact same sources as previous editors--namely, the CD liner notes. (Should I have mentioned that in my "ref"?) In any case, any change to the overall meaning of the Synopsis section was minor and--in my personal opinion--in the direction of greater accuracy.

I understand that "common sense", in and of itself, is not sufficient rationale for inferences--as what's obvious to one can be counter-intuitive to another, depending on life experience and prejudice, but if what I added was unreasonably speculative--then the article was already that to begin with. (It's like saying that "1 person, then 2 more people, came" can't be paraphrased as "3 people came".) I'd like know more on how I might--might--appeal or arbitrate this (I've already posted my objections on his talk page and the "2112 (song)" talk page). I'm not a sorehead, but I take objection to his assuming vandalism on my part and being so quick to do a blanket revert. I've been an editor for less than 6 months, and edit disputes are an entirely new experience--although I've already created my own article on something, which required me to research not only my subject but your instructions on many things. (You could say I have a fair amount of experience in Wikipedia matters but I'm not an expert yet.) I don't want to get blacklisted for things that were innocent (in intention) even if wrong; and the web site doesn't say a lot about "taking issues upstairs" before you get blocked or banned.

-User:RobertGustafson (talk) October 7, 2011

Good that you came here and that you are keeping a cool head. Take a day or two away from this article. Then read the article through again and see where you think it needs to be improved. Then make a suggestion on the talk page, in a new section, saying what you think needs doing and see if others agree. I saw that the other editor three times reverted you, each time saying they were good faith edits. Now is the time to start a discussion on how to work up this article from sources. Have a look at some featured articles on music to see how they use sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Whose edits did he say were good-faith? His (the reversions) or mine (which he reverted)? Is he giving me the benefit of the doubt? Also, how do I provide a detailed description on the talk page of what I think the article should say without using more text than a simple edit on the article would use? You've noticed, no doubt, that when I complain I can be a bit wordy.

Yours. That's what the edit summary means. He used it because he wanted to revert but didn't want to label someone a vandal. When you're ready to go to the talk page, try and make a short proposal of the kind of things you would like to have in the article. Say "I would like to add some ..., what do people think?" Draw a line under the past. A featured article on a song that I found was Smells Like Teen Spirit. If there is so much to say about that song, with references, there should be just as much on 2112. And if you think an editor has been rude to you on a future occasion, a Wikiquette alert is a simple way to get someone else to look at the situation. Happy editing. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Personally, I've noticed that just about every Wikipedia article contains something that somebody could deem original research. As I said, it's a fine line between paraphrasing and speculating.

Not at all. Have a look at WP:OTHERCRAP. Yes, I see it could be a fine line. There is an art in summarising a source accurately. So it is good if all concerned can assume good faith and discuss the best ways to use sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

...my interpreting the "Overture" and "Grand Finale" as the rise and fall of the Solar Federation (when they weren't explicitly so documented in the CD liner notes) was too far (although, on his talk page, Wisdom89 personally agreed with another editor who made the same inferences).

—User:RobertGustafson

User:RobertGustafson's statement above is indeed WP:OR. I tend to agree with the substance of it, but it's still his personal commentary until a source can be provided for it. Since this is an article about a song, editors'll probably be relatively liberal with regards to WP:V, but User:Wisdom89 was acting within policy in reverting the additions.—Biosketch (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

RobertGustafson (talk):

I have posted on the 2112 (song) talk page my "Proposed New Synopsis", along with another section talking about how I think my proposed version has less OR & synthesis, is more straightforward & less redundant, and how a case for an exception can be made regarding the meaning of "Overture" and "Grand Finale"--in that it would not make sense to explain only some of the song to Wikipedia's fans (my proposed version is careful to qualify that Rush has not officially confirmed my interpretations regarding "Overture" & "Grand Finale", yet "many fans" believe them), that my interpretations are probably widely held (I intend to look for 2ndary sources to back them up, however), and that Rush no doubt has people who'd remove anything they objected to (not that it's their responsibility). I also said that I would wait 7 days for any feedback on my talk page, the 2112 (song) talk page, and Wisdom89's talk page--and that, if I recieved no negative responses, I would paste my proposed changes into the article. I then advised anyone who objects after the fact to discuss it with me on the talk pages (in search of a compromise), and make only surgical edits to fix or remove specific problems, rather than doing blanket reverts and accusations of vandalism.

I also posted what I said on the 2112 (song) talk page to Wisdom89's talk page; he deleted my posts without responding to me. When I re-posted, he accused me of harrasment; I posted a formal apology and advised him to give me feedback on my proposals. I worry, though, that if after 7 days, I get no feedback and make my edit, he'll respond like he has in the past--revert-and-accuse. Are there some Wikipedia editors who are "control freaks" regarding article content? Is Wisdom89 somehow connected with Rush, thereby giving him a "right" to micromanage edits regarding their songs?

• Update: I have found 1 source to back up my assertion that "some listeners" regard "Overture" to mean the rise of the Solar Federation, and 5 sources to back up my assertion that "some listeners" consider "Grand Finale" to be its fall. I am careful to qualify that these interpretations are not officially endorsed by Rush. They are all internet sources, mainly reviews and blog reviews by listeners. I hope this suffices to make them non-OR.

I don't think it's good practice to instant-delete messages left in good faith on editors' Talk pages, so I don't know what's up with that and the harassment accusations. But what's your source for the assertion you're trying to incorporate into the article now? As long as you preserve the source's qualification that it's an interpretation suggested by listeners and don't give it more prominence in the article than what's solidly sourced there, it should be ok. Also, please remember to sign your comments with four ~ signs.—Biosketch (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Natib Qadish (a 'modern neo-Pagan religion')

Natib Qadish is a modern neo-Pagan religion which may or may not be notable enough for an article. However, this article is mainly about ancient religions, coins, death masks, a black stone in Rome, etc. Am I right in thinking that most of the material should be deleted as original research? Of about 27 sources, less than a handful mention the subject of the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is a doozy of an article. Yes, you're right. It's almost entirely OR and SYNTH. Maybe totally. Anything that is not backed up by an independent reliable source should be deleted as you suggest. I suspect that there will be very little left, which suggests that an AfD might be the next step. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Almost entirely SYNTH. I'll see if I can find any sources for the Neo-Pagan version. Until then let's strip the entry of the synth material.Griswaldo (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There are really no sources to use so I redirected it to Semitic Neopaganism, but that entry could also use some attention, and/or perhaps be deleted.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Update - Someone objected so it is now at AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natib Qadish (2nd nomination).Griswaldo (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Patriarchs (Bible)

Specifically, the section on "Religious significance." This section seems to contain original research of a definite POV nature. Edit Centric ^talk 23:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but the place to start would be the talk page of the article. I would suggest being bold--make some edits, add some sources, and ask for feedback on the talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Pierce Brosnan

The following Statement in the article is FALSE and libelous:

"educated in a local school run by the Christian Brothers while serving as an altar boy.[7] Brosnan has expressed contempt for his education by the Christian Brothers. "I grew up being taught by the Christian Brothers, who were dreadful, dreadful human beings. Just the whole hypocrisy. And the cruelness of their ways toward children. They were very sexually repressed. Bitter. Cowards, really. I have nothing good to say about them and will have nothing good to say about them. It was ugly. Very ugly. Dreadful. I learnt nothing from the Christian Brothers except shame."

Pierce Brosnan was not educated by the Irish Christian Brothers, nor did he attend a school run by them!

Please have that statement removed!

There are various sources that say Brosnan was educated by the Christian Brothers and which seem to confirm the general sentiments attributed to him in the article: [49] [50] [51] [52] --FormerIP (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:BLPN#Pierce Brosnan - same complaint.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor should also review our policy against legal threats, and avoid describing a well-referenced quotation as "libelous". We are simply quoting Pierce Brosnan on his education. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence in Data Mining

Student essay full of speculation and redundancies. See talk page: Talk:Artificial_Intelligence_in_Data_Mining#Nomination_for_deletion. I can, however, not go on with the nomination for deletion, since only registered users are allowed to do so.

Note that this article is part of a student course assignment: Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Courses/Fall_2011/Artificial_Intelligence --178.2.61.184 (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi

Continued unsourced additions by Mark Hayesworth [53] to a good article, without explanations or citations. Requesting assistance rather than edit-warring. Thanks, 99.137.209.90 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This new(?) contributor just seems unwilling to talk, or to stop. I think a block will be the end result. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mark_Hayesworth_at_British_Bangladeshi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented there. My experience is that wholesale additions of unsourced content and original research are usually removed, especially from high-quality articles. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Boxford, Massachusetts

Section on points of interest is becoming a site of contention, beginning with an attempt to link to a business whose importance I've questioned. Link has been restored, along with much original research, no sources. Taking here rather than edit warring. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a better place to start would be on the talk page of the article. Has there been discussion of this somewhere other than edit summaries? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps; I think this is primarily an effort by several accounts to slide Ponix Laboratories into Wikipedia, and I'm asking for a broader overview. This edit summary [54], accompanied by an unacceptable reference, kind of makes my point. Aside from Ponix the larger issue now being broached is whether local notability, unsupported by any sources, is enough to justify content that's essentially chamber of commerce text and/or spamming, and appears to be mostly, if not all, original research. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(Same user as above, new IP) Given that this appears more and more to be about the laboratory getting its name into the encyclopedia, in one article or another, and that three separate registered users are acting as WP:SPA accounts, this may be more appropriate to discuss at a different noticeboard. Comments or bold move elsewhere welcome. 99.178.163.46 (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think initiating discussion on the talk page would be a good idea, esp. if we are to assume good faith. I do see your point, but let's see how it goes. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nuujinn. I've initiated discussion at the Boxford talk page, Ponix talk page, and at the talk pages of several users. My take is that the defense of the 'Points of interest' section isn't the real agenda here. 99.178.163.46 (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

James, son of Alphaeus

I believe that these edits are basically original research. Starting from the top, a citation request for " there is no Biblical account of the two being called brothers" was replaced by references to biblical passages, which is OR. The next paragraph, 'Calling of the James, Son of Alphaeus' again has no sources other than the Bible, which is true of the paragraph after that. The next para is also headed 'Calling of the James, Son of Alphaeus' and is again sourced to the Bible, but also has 2 references to The Good News Bible Revised Edition 1994 but with no page numbers or quotes. Following that we have another paragraph called 'Ambiguous James' entirely sourced to the Bible. And finally the section 'Tradition' has unsourced text saying " we are never explicitly told that James son of Alphaeus has a brother." and two sources which supposedly back the statement "Robert Eisenman <ref"James brother of Jesus" Robert Eisenman</ref> and The New Advent online Catholic Encylopeida Catholic Encyclopedia: James son of Zebedee both suggest that the death of James in Acts 12:1-2 is James, son of Zebedee and not James son of Alphaeus." I can't find this in the Catholic Encyclopedia (I may of course have missed it) and I will ask the editor to provide a quote from each backing the claim. See also James son of Alphaeus Biblical Criticism by this editor, prodded as OR by one editor with the prod endorsed by another, who added WP:SOAP and WP:FORK as reasons for the prod. Bunofsteel (talk · contribs) has accepted the prod but is still confused about our policy of OR. Hopefully once he understands he will become a good contributor. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that we are starting to get somewhere now. What I have been accused of by others is the synthesis argument. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Lets apply this to the first part of the Possible brother of James. Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14 (reliable source says A). The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9 (reliable source says B), which has led some[who?] to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers (implied conclusion C not explicitly stated by any of the sources). "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Therefore the citatation is required at this stage.

I then put in the biblical references to try to defeat this unreferenced synthesis argument. The biblical references in some ways backs up the statement which I might add that I didn't write but I agree aren't ideal. I would simply delete this whole section.

I'm unaware that if you use only the bible then that is not ok in a paragraph. You will have to find that in the rules for me. Taking passages from a the bible to alert the reader to aspects of the story is not original research because I'm not trying to interpret the story. However, the facts when laid out does challenge the reader to think more deeply about James.

Matthew is not referred to as Mattew son of Alphaeus. I wasn't quite sure what to do there as far as quoting it. I'm thinking that when I get around to it I will find everytime that Matthew is mentioned in the bible and quote that. I will fix this up in the next few days.

My good news bible also idicates which stories are paralled in other books in the bible. It does this by placing the biblical references at the top of each story so that you can read the different accounts. I'm not 100% sure how to quote this properly.

Acts 12:1-2 which I strongly believe refers to James son of Zebedee. I admit that I was being lazy with my James brother of Jesus reference but with good reason. I deleted Acts 12:1-2 and stated the reason why in the talk page but it was reinstalled with no explanation. Given that I believe that whomever wrote that in made a mistake I felt compelled to write an argument contradicting as a tempory measure until this line gets deleted. The plan is to delete my section from the tradition section once the original incorrect line has been removed. Also you will find James son of Zebedee's death here. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08279b.htm

Citing the bible to support a statement as to what is (or is not) contained in the bible is not OR. It is an acceptable use of a primary source. That said, it is important to remember that there are multiple translations of the bible, and they are not the same. A word or phrase may appear in one translation and not in another (just a general comment... not one directed at this specific issue). Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Citing the Bible to show what is not in the Bible is, I think, generally considered OR (what else could it be if it's not sourced?), as is counting the number of times something is mentioned, eg Matthew - we are not reliable sources for something like this, are you saying we are? Are you saying that "we are never explicitly told that James son of Alphaeus has a brother" is a statement we can make on the basis of our own reading of the Bible? Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is absolutely OK to cite the bible for a statement as to what is or is not contained in the text of the bible... the statement "The King James version of the Bible does not contain the word 'fluoride'," can be reliably cited to the King James version of bible. On its own, the statement and citation are not OR...

However, context matters, and if we change the context it can be OR... for example... if an article states "Biblical scholar, Ima Expert, believes that Christ's parable of the aardvarks refers to the necessity of using fluoride in one's toothpaste <cite to Ima Expert>" it would be OR to counter this with "however, the Bible does not contain the word 'fluoride' <cite bible>" The reason it is OR is that we are setting up an implied conclusion - "Ima's view is wrong". A primary source should not be used to reach a conclusion. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen numerous sitatuions in which people have been told that they cannot make claims about what is not mentioned in a book in order to construct an argument. Are you saying that they were wrong or is that what you are describing as OR (I think it is, but would like it confirmed)? You haven't commented on counting the number of times X is mentioned, I've also seen that described as OR. Have you read the passages in question? Because it looks to me as though the editor has been building an argument based on his own research on what the Bible doesn't say, and you agree that that is OR. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

men's rights

Men's rights could really use some people with experience applying the original research guidelines. There are many potential OR/synth issues in the article, including some that haven't yet been discussed on the talk page yet. This talk page section is one where I would especially appreciate outside opinions, but the talk page needs more NOR-experienced contributors in general.

(Also: this article is currently under probation, the terms of which can be viewed here.) Kevin (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Call for a constitutional convention in Occupy Wall Street?

Should the following paragraph be added to Occupy Wall Street and summarized in its intro?

Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC. Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections. Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.) Lessig also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle. Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments. Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan, Karl Auerbach, and others.

This is being discussed at Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Constitutional Convention. I do not understand why people are trying to claim that Lessig and his call for a constitutional convention are not part of the movement after Dan Froomkin[55] and Peter M. Shane[56], both cited in that paragraph, have both reported just so, and here is Lessig speaking to Occupy DC and on the Rachel Maddow show. (I am asking here because the only uninvolved party who responded where I first asked on RSN suggested ORN would be more appropriate.) Dualus (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, neither of those sources reports that. And Lessig wrote the book and planned his conference before OWS even existed.

As I and other editors have mentioned at the duplicate discussion over at RS/N, as well as other discussions in which your contentions (that OWS was somehow responsible for Lessig's book and conference, or that Lessig collaborating with a Tea Party leader somehow means that OWS was collaborating with the Tea Party) were rejected by numerous other editors, such as this discussion, and this one, and this one, you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the nature of the connection between OWS and Lessig. Even if, for example, Lessig publishes a book tomorrow entitled I am OWS — And So Can You!, that will still not mean that his conference, co-chaired with a Tea Party leader, is an instance of "OWS collaborating with the Tea Party". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The one uninvolved respondent at RSN asked that it be discussed here at ORN. Here are several more sources on the question. Dualus (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that Lessig has nothing to do with the OWS movement, nor has he (as far as I know) commented upon it, I do have to wonder why an article on the Occupy Wall Street movement is discussing Lessig in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He has repeatedly commented on it, e.g., [57], [58], [59], [60], and here he is speaking at it. Dualus (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected (and looking deeper, I stand more than corrected). But I still have to wonder why we mention him in the article in the first place. The purpose of the article should be to explain what the OSW movement is/was for future generations. How does mentioning Lessig further that goal? Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He's saying that there's no way the protesters can get what they want without a constitutional amendment, and he's trying to help them get one. Dualus (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What he is saying they should do is entirely different that what the protesters are actually doing. It is synthesis of material to take Lessig's opinion with the sources you have to imply that a constitutional convention has any meaningful aspect within OWS. Do you see the difference? Arzel (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The 99 Percent Declaration includes a call for a constitutional convention. Dualus (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand the concept of reliable sourcing. Arzel (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a news story saying that is the first official document from the New York City General Assembly. Dualus (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK... I can see where Lessig himself has stated that, in his opinion, the protesters won't get what they want without a constitutional amendment... what I don't see is a statement from Lessig himself saying that he is trying to get them one. Do we have such a statement? If not, then someone else is interpreting Lessing's comments that way. If that someone else is a wikipedia editor, then we have a case of Original research. If not, we have to ask further questions... Is that someone else a reliable source? How much weight should we give that person's interpretation? At a minimum we would need to attribute the interpretation to the person who makes it - we need to say who believes that Lessig is trying to the OWS movement a constitutional amendment. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Lessig says, "That system for us is a representative democracy, cabined by a constitution that both limits the power of government and checks the power of one branch against the others. It is the rules of the game. The terms upon which competition happens. Sometimes those rules don't work. Or they don't work anymore. Sometimes they defeat the objectives of not just one side in a competition, but all sides. And when that happens, all sides need to stop the competition for a moment and fix the rules."[61] and [62] has a copy of his draft amendment. Dualus (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, though, Lessig had this idea, and was writing his book, and planning his conference, all before OWS came a long. He would have done this even if OWS had never come along. He's a progressive professor on Constitutional Law; this is his gig. As I said before, making proposals that are very appealing to OWS is very different to doing the same thing for or on behalf of OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone should probably ask Lessig whether he subscribes to Adbusters or is on their email list. I'm sure he knows people who do and are. Dualus (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Centrify's comment is apt here... there is a difference between calling for a constitutional convention and amendments, and calling for them specifically on behalf of the OWS movement. We need a source that directly links OWS to Lessing's calls for an amendment. Otherwise the connection, while perhaps quite logical, is a synthesis that we (ie Wikipedia editors) are making. Blueboar (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The most recent version cited [63] and there are many newer stories which have appeared that I'm working on. Dualus (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

All that source shows is that Lessig is very supportive of OWS. But OWS still had zero to do with Lessig's book, conference, and collaboration with the Tea Party leader. No amount of enthusiasm for Lessig's ideas after the fact is going to change that-- and we really haven't even seen any evidence that OWS is specifically interested in Lessig's idea in particular--rather, people have said that his proposals, like other proposals for constitutional amendment, should be of great interest to OWS. Hence none of this supports leading off the OWS demands and goals section with an extensive paragraph on Lessig, complete with a promotional tone, sound bites, in-article links to Lessig's convention website, and mention of other people whose ideas on reform OWS had nothing to do with—and it certainly doesn't support the fairly ridiculous claim that OWS has been collaborating with the Tea Party. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Simply put: No this material should not be added to the lead.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive‎‎

• Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the end of World War II, the Kaiser Wilhelm Society was renamed as the Max Planck Society, and the institutes associated with the Kaiser Wilhelm Society were renamed as "Max Planck" institutes. The records that were archived under the former Kaiser Wilhelm Society and its institutes were placed in the Max Planck Society Archives. What happened to the records in this archive?

Research materials related to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, including personell, photographs, etc. are very difficult to come by. Indeed, information, including photographs of now-deceased researchers, are effectively "classified" (unavailable). This article illuminates why these research materials are difficult to access.

...

What does the above discussion -- true or not -- have to do with difficulty in accessing materials at the Max Planck Society Archive? Let us examine the following. Any normal, thoughtful person has thought processes that can travel back and forth in time. Suppose one wanted to censor the history of National Socialism in Germany during the Third Reich. One might then think 'What ideas prior to the Third Reich should be censored in turn?' One might find a precedent to the actions of Facism in what transpired in German Southwest Africa. This in turn might imply a necessity to censor the ways in which German Southwest Africa led to ideas during the Third Reich. Thus, finally, the realization in the present time, that aspects of the history of German Southwest Africa must be censored, in order to censor the origins of Nazi racism. Not only does this require thought (as a function of time), but also the 'dialectic' of moving back and forth in time. A use of Temporal (or Chronological) Modal logic.

The underlined bit seems to sum-up the problem. Is anything salvageable? So this baby seal walks into a club... - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that ArtifexMayhem has a problem with the way the article is introduced. I suggest s/he take a stab at fixing the introduction so that it makes more sense, or -- even better -- ask some questions. If ArtifexMayhem doesn't feel qualified to fix it because s/he can't follow the article, that's possibly due to a lack of clarity in the article's writing, a problem with the way the article develops its argument (structure), or possibly a lack of familiarity with the subject matter.

Now: Is the material worthwhile? Hmmm. Is it worthwhile to note when historians meet with great difficulty due to censoring or obscuring of the historical record, on the part of the people who were key figures in that history? ArtifexMayhem's user page portrays him/her as a skeptic; therefore, he/she already knows the answer to that one.

Anyway, "baby seal", stand by. I'm going to be doing some editing of the article's language in the next few days. Maybe if you check back you'll find the article easier to comprehend.

Excelsior,Virago250 (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Teardrop tattoo

Could use a second set of eyes on this one. A stubborn but good faithed editor is insistent on adding his own interpretation of this tattoo. The sources simply don't back it up, nor are they reliable, but it's all we got so far. -- œ^™ 13:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I found a bunch of sources and have added excerpts on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  17:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That was very helpful. -- œ^™ 05:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I did a re-write based on those sources and deleted some material based solely on blogs. However a single-purpose editor, User:TheFrogPrints, reverted it to his preferred version. I've asked him to discuss it on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  19:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning criticism of kosher slaughter in the Criticism of Judaism article

On the talk page of Criticism of Judaism an editor has repeatedly alleged that the section of the article on kosher slaughter is original research. For the entire discussion see:

• Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism#Kosher_slaughter

A majority of editors commenting do not agree that it is original research, and because of this I've repeatedly asked the other editor to start an RfC or a thread here to ask for outside input on the matter if he wants to try to get consensus for his POV. He has not done so, and therefore I am now doing that for him. I'd like this to be settled so that it doesn't come up again and again every week. Any comments, but particularly uninvolved comments, would be greatly appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I just hate all these "Criticism of... religion" articles. I can't see any way to get them to conform with NPOV. I suppose if there is to be an article with this title, then criticism of Kosher slaughter is one thing people would expect to see in it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent about "Criticism of ..." articles even more generally ... not just religion. However, I don't see them disappearing from the project, and IMO the kosher slaughter section of this article is a good example of a fairly neutral presentation of the material. It gives a pretty balanced view of the topic, explicitly covering how such criticisms were at times part of antisemitic canards and how recent research answers the criticisms of animal rights groups. If a "Criticism of ..." article is simply a pile-on of negative commentary then I'm inclined to think it doesn't belong, but when it is more balanced it can be quite informative. The difficulty is keeping them balanced, but I think editors at this entry are trying in good faith to do so.Griswaldo (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm involved, but given that it's really just one editor making the complaint like a broken record, and, as Griswaldo says, not showing much interest in seeking more productive discussion, I don't see much to be gained by Griswaldo opening this thread, other than seeking reassurance (especially since it will keep coming up even if editors here are clear about it not being OR). I know that Griswaldo doesn't much listen to my advice, but I'll give advice anyway: don't let that one editor get to you so much. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's be careful to distinguish between the two separate issues going on here. There's one issue, which is whether or not a section on criticism of kosher slaughter belongs in an article on criticism of Judaism. Underlyingly, that's not the issue being disputed at the article. The issue being disputed at the article is whether editors can project onto FAWC a context that FAWC never itself so much as implied. The bottom-line question is Is FAWC being critical of Judaism in its criticism of kosher slaughter? The answer is that to associate FAWC with criticism of Judaism, when what they're criticizing is kosher and halal slaughter, is original research. There's nothing in what FAWC says to indicate that they have an problem with Judaism, and we can't synthesize their criticism of kosher and halal slaughter into an article on criticism of Judaism in a way that mischaracterizes them as criticizing something that in all likelihood don't have any problem with. If FAWC had criticized Judaism, it wouldn't be original research to mention them in the context of the article. But nowhere has FAWC expressed any criticism of Judaism – not the religion, not the people, not Jewish history, not Jewish philosophy. They've criticized one component of Judaism and never articulated their criticism as a criticism of Judaism. It's therefore original research to make an inferential leap from one criticism to another.

Now, is the section on kosher slaughter original research? That depends. Given that it's nowhere been established that FAWC is critical of Judaism, it's pure WP:SYNTH to mention FAWC in the section and attribute things to that organization that they never themselves took a position on. So yes, on some level at least, the section constitutes original research. Ergo, is it just "an editor" repeatedly alleging that the section on kosher slaughter is original research? No, that's again a mischaracterization of the debate taking place on the Dicussion page. There have been issues raised that continue to go unaddressed by the editors arguing for the inclusion of FAWC in the article. And the situation is made worse by the same inclusion-bent editors engaging in divide-and-conquer tactics to isolate one editor they disagree with and pommel him with nasty remarks. Add to that the fact that one of these editors just had to revert an entire section he added to the article because he failed to verify any of the sources in his addition, and there's probably a more serious problem at work here.—Biosketch (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch your argument fails because the view of Judaism you present is incomplete. You suggest that the Farm Animal Welfare Council isn't criticizing "the religion ... the people ... Jewish history ... Jewish philosophy," and therefore it isn't criticizing "Judaism." How is it that you are excluding religious practice and ritual from "the religion," or from your overall picture of "Judaism?" The various practices of the Jewish ritual tradition are at the core of Judaism as a religion, and the Jewish way of life more generally. To claim that a traditional Jewish practice, which is proscribed in religious texts, isn't part of the religion is beyond my comprehension. Reliable sources also show that Jewish groups feel that the FAWC is being critical of their religion, because they consider the practice an essential part of that religion. This has all been explained with sourcing on the talk page. In the end, please also recognize that the FAWC material is about 1/4 of the entire section, so when editors like Jayjg call the entire section OR, we're dealing with much more than just this issue, which you have oddly twisted the debate into only addressing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification - Jayjg actually argues that the entire section is original research. That is why I posted this. Biosketch's reply does not address the scope of Jay's disagreement which is, again, why I posted this. I'll respond to Biosketch as well, but contrary to what Biosketch says, there are indeed editors arguing that the entire section is OR and it isn't a "tactic" to engage those editors on their actual arguments. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, and in the future, don't make straw man arguments or "clarifications" on my behalf. See my more complete response below. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that's what User:Jayjg argues or not. There's a general problem of people misrepresenting or misconstruing one another's arguments. From my perspective it isn't so much that the section is original research but rather that it's WP:SYNTHESIS to force FAWC into an article on criticism of Judaism when they never expressed any criticism of Judaism. WP:SYN is a section of WP:OR; so yes, at least on some level the section constitutes original research.—Biosketch (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that this is your opinion, now can you please address the actual argument I made to you above about the scope of Judaism. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How many times is it necessary to tell you: FAWC nowhere expressed any criticism of Judaism. We have no information from them directly that they have any problem at all with Judaism. They've taken issue with kosher and halal slaughter. Does that mean they have a problem with Judaism and Islam? It assuredly doesn't. If you want to attribute to them an attitude that's critical of Judaism, you need a source – from FAWC or from a reliable news source – where FAWC's criticism is directed at Judaism. They've made no indication that they have a problem with Judaism, hence you cannot characterize them as attacking Judaism. Characterizing FAWC as having criticized Judaism when they never articulated any criticism of Judaism is pure OR.—Biosketch (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I've deleted FAWC from the page, although I don't know whether I'll be reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, despite Trytofish's claim that "it's really just one editor making the complaint like a broken record", there are actually several people who have objected to this section on OR grounds, including the editor who placed the tag on the section in the first place (and that wasn't me, I might add). Second, I'd appreciate it if editors here would not make straw man arguments in my name - particularly if they don't have the decency to tell me about this discussion or their presentations in my name.
My consistent point has been that the sources in this section have not stated that they are criticising Judaism; on the contrary, as I've pointed out, they would likely vociferously deny this accusation - pretty much the point Biosketch makes in his comment of 09:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC) directly above. In fact, they are criticising shechita, a practice observed or demanded by a small number of Jews and not considered mandatory by many Jewish religious movements. In fact, these critics are often merely insisting that animals be anesthetized before shechita is done. This is a problem with all the sources used in the section; none of them say (or even imply) they are criticising Judaism per se. When challenged, the editors who insist on using these sources bring various other statements from the sources which neither state nor imply a criticism of Judaism itself, and then say that what the sources really mean is that they are criticising Judaism, despite not actually saying so. This is, of course, Original Research.
I have no objection to criticism of shechita in the shechita article. Nor would I have any objection to this section in the Criticism of Judaism article if the sources actually said something like "one of the problems with Judaism is that it demands shechita". Neither, however, is the case here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is original research. The article is called Criticism of Judaism. That happens to define its scope. Its scope is not just anything that seems approximately similar to "criticism of Judaism". No group or individual finds fault with the religion when they articulate that in their opinion there is unnecessary suffering associated with a method of slaughter. They are in fact referring to a topic that might be called animal welfare. That is an unrelated topic to the topic indicated by the title of the article. That topic does not belong in this article—in fact the inclusion of that topic would be highly misleading. By putting "Kosher slaughter" in this article we would be misleading the reader into thinking that those expressing objection to kosher slaughter have articulated an objection to Judaism when they have not—according to sources. We can't and we shouldn't be reading into the motives behind objection to kosher slaughter. Objective and respected commentators such as Temple Grandin support the counter-thesis that the method of slaughter used in producing kosher meat is not more cruel or painful than methods used in dispatching the animals that supply the non-kosher food market. If the groups or individuals opposing kosher slaughter cannot be found to to be formulating an objection to the religion then we should not be foisting on the reader that in fact Judaism is being objected to when these groups and individuals are in fact objecting to a method of killing animals. Let us not mix and muddle these two unrelated topics. No source has yet been presented in which a group or individual presents any semblance of an objection to Judaism. We should not be including in the "Criticism of Judaism" article a section on kosher slaughter unless sources can be found supporting exactly that contention. Bus stop (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Great American streetcar scandal

The article Great American streetcar scandal is badly compromised by synthesis and original research, starting with the name. First of all, there are no sources that use this name. It is used by Wikipedia editors to refer to an alleged conspiracy that every reliable source presented so far agrees did not happen--that GM purposefully destroyed the streetcar system in the United States. It is true that they were found guilty of conspiring to monopolize bus sales. But that is all. The hyperbolic and fanciful title is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia to invent.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The conspiracy did happen. There was a court case which decided against the conspirators, fining them $1. The tiny fine showed how the court determined there were many other social and economic factors working against the light rail line operators.

Regarding the problem with original research, I thought most of the article was based on the 1995 book by Bradford Snell: The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit. Have you read it? Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned, GM was found guilty only of conspiring to monopolize bus sales. That is a tangential issue to what the article is purportedly about. As far the book you mention goes, I can find no trace of it. It certainly doesn't seem to have been published by a reputable publisher, and it is not cited in the article. However, it is indeed clear that the article is principally based on Snell's allegations, made in other contexts, which are ultimately dismissed as unfounded by every reliable source the article does cite, including the detailed assessment in Urban Affairs Quarterly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit is cited in the bibliography, not via inline refs. The work was published by the New Electric Railway Journal. Here are three scholarly papers that cite it. Here's another, a paper cited in turn by others. Here's another, one in which Snell is quoted saying that he thinks that in 1922 GM decided specifically to kill the streetcars. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Very well, then we have a single reliable source that characterizes the events as a conspiracy. That shows only there is an alleged conspiracy by that one source, which all the other reliable sources given dispute. Titling the article "Great American streetcar scandal" endorses the view that the conspiracy really did happen, which is hopelessly POV. It also makes it even worse by throwing in the sensational word "scandal," which is also found exactly nowhere in any sources and is purely an editorial adjective thrown in by wikipedia.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If I might jump in here, I looked to find this "book" and couldn't but I did find an out of print item on Amazon self-pubished by Bradford Snell called: Statement of Bradford C. Snell before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly: Presented at hearings on the ground transportation ... in connection with S1167, February 26, 1974 [Unknown Binding]Bradford C Snell (Author). Perhaps THAT is the book being cited but under a different title? Google books turns up no result either but does show mention of a paper Snell wrote called GM & The Nazis published in a periodical called Ramparts June 1974. it seems that all the other google references to Bradford C. Snell are reflected back to his own publications or an article here or there which I can't get access to. I don't have a dog in this fight but the topic piqued my interest so I did a search to see what I could find. I hope this info is of some use. LiPollis (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to send you on a wild goose chase. The Snell document by the title "The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit" is a journal article. It is currently hosted at this URL. The book I first read about the conspiracy is probably Geography of Nowhere on pages 90–92, with related discussion of increasing automobile use before and after those pages. It was a while ago which is why I am still not clear about which book. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No bother! It was kinda fun. I found this page in my goose-chase that really has a fun paragraph about Snell. Check it out Eco Chronicle: GM Street Car Conspiracy was paranoid nonsense! The paragraph that begins with.. "Who doesn't know Bradford C. Snell, the founder of the GM Conspiracy Theory? He devised the whole plot so unreservedly that there was hardly any justification left to dribble over." Well, obviously we need to know more about this guy! Anyway, it was fun and got me to make a few edits. Can that be a bad thing? Nope ;-) LiPollis (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotation mark

I've got some concerns about the article Quotation Mark. I've just removed what I believe to be an OR claim.[64]

One editor came into the section that deals with terminal punctuation, changed all of the "American"s to "typsetters" and added the claim that the term "American style" is a misnomer "because it is also sometimes used in British and other non-American journalism and fiction writing, and is not universally used in American writing." As sources, this editor gave two style guides that require British style. However, these sources don't claim that the term "American" is a misnomer; they're just examples of American style guides that do things the British way. I removed the misnomer claim and changed all of the "typesetters" back to "American."

Background: Most American and British style guides differ on how to treat periods and commas that come next to quotation marks. The short, short version follows. American: Bruce Springsteen, nicknamed "the Boss," performed "American Skin." British: Eric Clapton, nicknamed "God", performed "Cocaine". American style is also called "typesetters style," etc., but this is a lot rarer than "American."

Who's right? Is it enough to give examples or does this editor actually have to find a source that says "'American style' is a misnomer"? (The article already said/still says that American style is not used by every single American writer and style guide.) Does this have any bearing on whether the article itself should call the style "American" or "typesetters" in the body text?

Full disclosure: we're on opposite sides of the keep/replace WP:LQ issue that keeps cropping up on WT: MoS. This editor has repeatedly expressed a belief that American style causes problems (without giving evidence or citing sources) and I believe that pushing the term "typesetters" is an attempt to frame American style as old-fashioned. I believe that American style does not cause problems and should be permitted on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've sourced this to the bejeezus belt, far more than is actually needed in the article, here: User:SMcCandlish/Logical quotation, though any/all of these sources could be added to the article. The WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, which is far more serious, is the pushing of typesetters' a.k.a. printers' a.k.a. etc., etc., quotation marks as "American", and logical quotation as "British" (I've PROVEN that these labels are false). It's a blatant agenda. Wikipedia has been directly attacked in the British press for being inaccurate on this. (See essay; I cited that, too). My edits brought the article into line with actual reality. I don't need a source to say "American-style is a misnomer", though the Slate piece essentially does this, as do others I've cited in the essay. It's just wording expressing the cited facts; if someone doesn't like them exactly as they are, they can be tweaked, but reverting everything back to "American" is a falsification of the facts. Proponents of this hyper-nationalistic label, on whom the burden of proof lies, have to show reliable and independent sources for this term. The vast majority of published style guides are neither, because their authors and publisher have a very strong, vested monetary interest in falsely nationalizing punctuation and other grammar points, because this is what sells style guides. Those that do falsely patrioticize the issue do so only by ignoring demonstrable facts (which I've provided citations to in the essay), so they're not reliable as well as not independent of the subject. It's a bit like quoting guidebooks on American vs. British "psychics" for "facts" about the veracity of the claims made by the practitioners. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources that you provided showed that not all American style guides use American punctuation (which the article already said). They did not show that "American" is a misnomer. I kept the statement that not all American style guides etc. and deleted the statement that "American" is a misnomer.

"American" is accurate because most Americans use this style—and the sources in the quotation mark article say so. If 100% compliance were required, then the term "typesetters" wouldn't be usable either because American style isn't universal to typesetting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, here are sources that refer to these styles as "British" and "American." They include but are not limited to the Chicago Manual of Style and APA style guide website: [65] [66] [67] [68] Even if not all Americans use American style, etc., "American" is still the name by which this style is known. If you wish, you can think of it as how a London restaurant can list "Chicago-style pizza" on the menu even though the food isn't flown in from Illinois. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a level of confusion here. We're here to document what reliable sources say, not to worry as to why style guides say what they do. Style guides do vary in terms of quality, but I cannot see that they would not be reliable sources for questions of style. But in this issue, they are generally primary sources, as they define the style, rather than analyze them, and we should give preference to secondary sources. Questions regarding which are more reliable really belong at RSN, but I would suggest sticking to the major style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style and APA style guide. Looking over the sources, it does seem clear to me that the terms "American" and "British" are use to describe the different usage of quotation marks, even if the sources do not exactly agree about what those terms mean, and even if not all sources use them. In regard to this, it reinforces the notion that the terms are used, if inconsistently. I would say that to state that the terms are "misnomers" would require a direct source, and I don't think Guardian article supports that, although I think it makes a fine source to state something like "although the terms 'American' and 'British' are widely used, there is inconsistency in their usage". Finally, I would also think this is all rather irrelevant to WP's MOS, and I hope that article space is not being used to argue MOS issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Journalist editors

If a journalist does some research on a story (that they are not involved in), and has the story published in a mainstream newspaper, and then cites the published article to support edits to the relevant Wikipedia article, is that allowed?  Card Zero  (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well... as long as it's not overly promotional and the source supports the statements made then that seems OK to me - got a specific link? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The details are at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Not-quite-original_research_awkwardness. I admire the journalist Svenstein for making the phone calls, and don't want the edit to be reverted. The majority of published sources seem to be parroting something spurious (to be specific, that the manuscript was "found at the end of the cold war"). Svenstein's new article in Bild doesn't say this, but it doesn't clearly say that the manuscript wasn't found at the end of the cold war, either - although that was what he discovered. So if some future editor puts "found at the end of the cold war" back in, I shouldn't argue, right? Yet I shouldn't argue with Svenstein's removal of this supposed fact, either, right?  Card Zero  (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have an original research problem. Svenstein has removed what he calls incorrect information, and I think the report (his report) that researchers were working on it in the 1970s clearly contradicts the idea that it came to light in East Berlin after the Cold War which, per wikipedia, ended roughly in 1991. Why not add to a footnote that earlier reports than his said something different and let it go at that? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Golden Domes

What do traffic jams, weather, a pony cart, a murder, President Bush, an electric heater, gilded breasts, a baseball field, Afghanistan, hormones, and the Lebanese Civil War have in common? They are all included in a coatrack article titled Golden Domes, which was recently put up for GA review.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize sources, but this article is more like journalism: it takes bits and pieces of information -- which are largely passing mentions in articles on related topics -- and weaves them into a 4,000-word article. There is no single source that includes this information, and as far as I know, there is no third-party source that focuses solely on the subject of the Golden Domes. My question is whether this sort of journalistic approach to writing Wikipedia articles is acceptable or original research. --BwB (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

First, this seems like a bad faith posting since the OP didn't place a notification on the article talk page and he didn't notify me, the principle editor, either.

Every source mentions the Golden Domes, and every incident in the article directly concerns the domes. The OP seems to be suggesting that articles are limited to including topics all of which have been included in a single source. I doubt there are any featured articles which meet that standard.

I don't see any part of WP:OR which this article could be considered to violate. Nor does it violate the WP:COATRACK essay since all of it is about the Golden Domes, and the incidents and phenomenon which have occurred there. None of it is about tangentially related biased content.

If this were an article about a theater or a stadium, it would likewise be natural to describe various important or unusual events, even if the sources about those events were not primarily about the venue.

As for the specific incidents listed by the OP, the answers are obvious in the text. Is it really a coatrack to say that one of the domes is located on the site of a former baseball field? Is it a coatrack to quote descriptions of the domes? Is it a coatrack to describe a notable event which occurred at one of the domes? I get the feeling that the OP does not understand either the policy or the essay to which he is referring.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not posting on the talk page. I have only done a NB once or twice before and I completely forgot to do it. --BwB (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This accusation won't have come as a surprise to you because "coatracking" was raised on the day after you created the article. And the GA reviewer called it "a rather shameless fluff piece" for TM. Since the article is about buildings it should contain the info about the buildings. Yes, you can briefly mention things that regularly happen or have happened in the buildings. But also, the article should stick to the point. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a surprise. But I think it's standard practice to notify interested editors about noticeboard postings.

One editor raised the issue of "coatracking" in August, and we discussed it on the article talk page. There don't seem to be any unresolved issues there. I replied to the GA reviewer on his talk page,[69] but have not yet had a chance to incorporate his suggestions. FWIW, my impression is that WP editors who have spent time in the Golden Domes do not seem to object to it as being a fluff piece. We could ask the OP his views on that issue. As can be seen from the reference list it is not a piece of fluff, but rather a carefully researched article about a pair of structures which some believe to be the most influential buildings in human history. Despite the fact that such extraordinary claims are made about the domes, the article's structure is not so different from Royal Albert Hall, for example.   Will Beback  talk  17:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Golden Domes talk page, FYI - [70]. --BwB (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Bigweeboy, do you view the article as "a rather shameless fluff piece" for TM?   Will Beback  talk  18:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Will. You wrote this article.Why not allow uninvolved editors to comment without side stepping into interrogating the posting editor. He seems to have thoughtfully posted and then removed himself from the discussion. Would you consider doing the same, please.(olive (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

I'm here to discuss the article with anyone else who wants to discuss it. Itsmejudith raised a point, echoing a point raised by Malleus Fatuorum. I told Malleus that I'd try to improve the balance by adding more critical sources. What's your view? Do you think that the article is "a rather shameless fluff piece" for TM?   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm involved. My thoughts are on the talk page. I'm interested in seeing how others see this. Talk away.(olive (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

People can comment on an article relating to a building (pair of buildings) without having visited it/them. Do you want this article to be included in WikiProject Universities, i.e. are these university buildings? If so, then see articles like King's College Chapel, Cambridge. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

These buildings are unique. While we can draw comparisons to other structures, there are no comparable buildings. In some regards, they are similar to churches. Attendees participate in two 90-minute sessions daily (some spend longer) and assert that their group practice of Yogic Flying has a direct and measurable effect on both their immediate surroundings and the world. They have conducted scientific studies, issued press releases, and otherwise spread the news about the influence of the group practice in the domes. [In comparison to churches, it would be as if these were the only churches of note, and very specific claims had been made about the power of the prayers made there.] I would not characterize them as university buildings in the conventional meaning of that term because their significance goes far beyond their role in the university. In that regard they are more like the Stanford Linear Accelerator, to which the Maharishi compared them. The domes are located on the campus of the Maharishi University of Management, and daily attendance is required by faculty and students but members of the community also attend. They are not classrooms, though they are occasionally used for gatherings, like graduations and concerts, other than their intended use. Both because of their unusual appearance and the extraordinary claims for their far-reaching effects, they are landmarks, centers for the entire TM movement, and have been featured in a number of documentaries. FWIW, I have never visited them myself, though I imagine that some other WP editors have done so.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Further regarding the "coatrack" claim, FA New Orleans Mint includes an extensive section on the coins produced inside that building. I think that shows that it's acceptable to include material on the events which happen within a building.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to the outside editors who contributed above. We appreciate your comments and suggestions. I have posted a comment on the Golden Domes talk page about next steps [[71]]. --BwB (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

BigWeeboy is asserting that there was a consensus here that the article is a coatrack. Yet there hasn't been any agreement here that I can see, and no one has specified which material in the article is not about the article's topic. I also thank editors for participating here, however I don't think the input here has been specific enough to direct the article's development.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not true Will. At no point does BWB say there was consensus. We have some feedback from the uninvolved editor who posted here, and I for one would like to see if we can satisfy some of her concerns. No one is talking about deletion of content. We're talking about taking another look at the article. (olive (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

Is this acceptable synthesis?

In February 2011 an editor added an unsourced claim to Vegemite. It was eventually removed in July, but he restored it in September, using a source that clearly didn't support the claim.[72] When that was removed, he resorted to a little bit of sockpuppetry, restoring the claim using his IP, but speaking of himself in the 3rd person, as if to mask his identity.[73] The link between his account and the IP was revealed in an edit in the ensuing discussion on the article's talk page. Four days after the discussion began he proposed adding an alternate claim to the article, even suggesting it did not require a citation.[74] Much later, he claimed to have made "a 3rd ammended article insertion",[75] but what he claims he proposed has not been made clear. One of the issues has been verifiability of the claim that Vegemite has a 7.5% salt content. There's no argument that it has a 3.45% sodium content, that's stated by the manufacturer,[76] but the salt content isn't actually specified anywhere. There are some sites claiming that it's 3.45% (the sodium content) while other references say it is 8%. However, the editor has resorted to his own methods of calculating the salt content. In his additions to the article and his 12 September talk page proposal he claimed 7.5%. He is currently (this is a "discussion" totalling some 8,600 words over 8 long, long weeks) arguing that it's acceptable to use a combination of sources and that it isn't WP:SYNTH. One of the sources is the manufacturer's stated sodium content, while the other is this. That page does not include a direct conversion. Instead, one has to use one of the two roughly calculated examples presented on the page, dividing 6,000 by 2,300 to arrive at 2.608:1 or dividing 5,500 by 2,150 arriving at 2.558:1, round those off to 2.6:1 and then multiply 3.45% sodium to arrive at 8.97%, and let's round that to 9%, which is not even close to the 7.5% he claimed. This seems to go completely against WP:SYNTH, but I'd like to know the thoughts of others. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a jar of vegemite (produced in Australia & packaged for the UK market), the nutritional information on the label gives a sodium content of 3.5g per 100g and specifies that this is equivalent to 8.5g of salt. Surely info from the jar itself is a reliable source? It is widely quoted on UK supermarket product nutrition info pages eg [77] . There is also a paper originating from the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers that calculates the sodium to salt @ 8.6% [78] , perhaps this will help? 94.195.187.69 (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Commodity fetishism

"Commodity fetishism" is a prominent term in Marxist theory. Marx is using the word "fetish" in the sense that historians of religion use it to refer to a certain kind of magical object. The most common interpretation of Marx's phrase is that it describes an atitude that people have towards money, and more generally the things one can buy with money, in a capitalist economy.

In the past year or so user:Jurriaan has rewritten the article, and reverts almost any change. I believe she is advancing a novel theory. In response to any challenge, Jurriaan adds more quotes from Marx (or Marx and Engels) and argues that this is what marx himself believed. I and one or two other editors have challenged this on the talk page, leading only to long lectures on what marx really meant.

This can be handled from a number of approaches - certainly more editors knowledgable about Marxism should add material from reliable secondary sources.

But I am hoping that people who watch this page can approach it purely from a policy perspective, having to do with the ways that we should and should not use primary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bozeman, Montana

A relatively new editor user: Missoulianette (< 100 edits) has on several occasions added the following to the article on Bozeman, Montana. With a student body population of 14,153 [7] and a city population of 37,280 [8] the student population of the University accounts for over 37% of the city's population [79] On each occasion these additions have been removed and an explanation provided to the editor. here’s the latest on the talk page about WP:SYN and why this bit of content violates our WP:OR policy.

This is a well meaning new editor, but I have failed in my comments on the talk page to convince the editor that this bit of content is OR. A bit of dissection is necessary here. The first number—14,153 is a valid total student population of MSU for the 2011/12 academic year. That includes resident, non-resident US and foreign students. The second number—37,280 is the valid 2010 census number for Bozeman. Doing the math, user:Missoulianette contends that 37% (or 1 in 3) of the Bozeman population is an MSU student, yet no reliable source makes that claim, nor could they. That is the basic synthesis taking place here. Simple math that is drawing a conclusion not supported by any reliable source. Although the math may be correct, the conclusion is unsupported as well as flawed. Even though the census will count students as residents while attending a university away from home, there is no reliable data that says 14,153 students (remember this number is one year removed from the census number) were counted as Bozeman residents. That would be highly unlikely because 3% of the MSU student body are foreign students and 35% are non-resident students. Without reliably sourced data, we don’t know what number of MSU students were included in the 2010 census for Bozeman. Couple that with the fact that a significant number (> 10%) of the MSU student body doesn’t actually reside in Bozeman, but in other parts of Montana. I am personally aware of graduate students that live on the Crow Reservation and commute once a week to class.

I have advised user:Missoulianette to study WP:SYN and if a reliable source can be found that says 37% of Bozeman’s population are MSU students, then it can go into the article. I am pretty confident no such source exists, but I don’t want to continue an edit war with a new editor, because I can’t make the case well enough. So it’s here for the community to weigh in on.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think your point is well take taken. We should not compare apples and oranges to calculate a ratio, and as you note, not all of the students are residents of the town. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I must point out that "on several occasions" means three times please check the Bozeman Montana page to verify this. After it was deleted the first time I asked for help on the talk page please feel free to verify this also. According to census rules, people should be counted ("enumerated," in census-speak) at a residence if they:

▪ Live or stay at the residence most of the time.

▪ Stayed there on April 1, 2010 and had no permanent place to live.

▪ Stay at the residence more time than any other place they might live or stay.

If I'm understanding it correctly that would mean most college students should be counted at their college address, either on campus or off campus. http://2010.census.gov/partners/pdf/langfiles/qrb_English.pdf Thank You Missoulianette (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith on your part and have no position on editor conduct, since I'm not familiar with the article history, and this wouldn't be the proper place to comment in any case. The way I see it, we have some census data (A), and some data about the student population of the school (B), from which a percentage is being derived (C). C is a conclusion. Now if A and B came from the same source, we might be able to assume that the pool of people upon which A and B were derived were the same, but we can't assume that given that source are different. Please, if you have not, take a look at WP:SYNTH--we're not supposed to draw our own conclusions or even to juxtapose different sources to even imply a conclusion, and I think this particular case does that. As Mike Cline points out, students attend the school who do not live in the town, so they would clearly not be part of the town population yet members of the student body. What you really need is a secondary source that compares the two. Or, you can simply say that the school located in Bozeman has a student population of 14,153 at MSU for the 2011/12 academic year, and let the reader draw the appropriate and logical conclusion that the ratio of gown to town is high. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a small clash with WP:SYNTH. Juztaposing population estimates is not unreasonable. I think saying that "the student poplation is a large fraction of the town polulation". Reporting the numerical fraction is going just too far. "Population" is not an obvious and well-defined thing. There are biased definitions and problems with measurement. Don't do the calculation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I must also point out the first and second time I edited that I stated that over a third of the city’s population was students. I added figures with citations after I thought this was asked of me. I also asked on the Talk page for suggestions on phrasing but received none. Truly, with the way the Census Bureau counts students and given the student body population and the city population the student population does make up at least a third of the city’s population. I am so very much open to help on phrasing here! The University is such an important part of this city! Thank You Missoulianette (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

College students are counted at their college address, either on campus or off campus. They are counted at their parents' home only if they live and sleep there most of the year. http://2010.census.gov/partners/pdf/langfiles/qrb_English.pdf Thank You Missoulianette (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

College students are counted at their college address, either on campus or off campus. Thus, a student living off campus in a different town would be counted in that different town, since that would be their college address (not, as we phrase it at my uni, their permanent address). SmokeyJoe has given you a good wording suggestion, and I'd like to think mine is good as well, but please don't use different sources to draw a conclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In another effort to explain why this is SYN I have been doing a lot searching for specific data about Bozeman's population and the MSU student body and came across this interesting statistic--There are 43 registered sex offenders in Bozeman (city-data.com). So using Missourianette's calculation and conclusion methodology, I could rightly say that there are 16 registered sex offenders in the MSU student body. (37% of 43). But that would be pure synthesis and OR because no reliable source makes that claim and there is no data that connects the 43 number with the MSU student body. It would be an outrageous claim unsuppported by any reliable source. The math is correct, but the conclusion is flawed and a gross synthesis. That's why we have our WP:OR policy, to prevent unsupported and unsupportable claims in our articles. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like the suggestions on phrasing from SmokeyJoe and Nuujinn this is what I have been asking for all along. It sounds like my original phrasing was closer to what should be used. Thank you for your suggestions. When it comes to students living off campus in another town you can’t look at this in an urban context. This is Montana the next closest major town is 90 miles away over mountain passes and I really don’t think anyone is commuting 180 miles a day to school. In the case of MSU off campus means somewhere in Bozeman. Also isn’t this forum about help? Do you really think Mike Cline taking pot shots at me is helpful or hurtful? Is that Wikipedia expectable behavior? Thank You Missoulianette (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page that Missoulianette makes a number of OR assumptions about college students, some of which are quite condescending. Many Bozeman residents take a class or two, thus might be counted as an enrolled student, but would not identify themselves as someone seeking a degree; many Bozeman residents choose to attend their local university for their degrees but are also permanent residents. Most of all, over 1/3 of the enrolled students at MSU (last I checked) are "non-traditional" students -- people who are married, are parents, or at least are over age 23 and not legal dependents of anyone. You make a huge set of assumptions to imply that being an MSU student somehow means you are just a young early-20-something who really lives with your parents somewhere else. And Mike is right - Bozeman is the largest community in Gallatin County, but there are several other towns where people can make a daily commute, many MSU students don't live in Bozeman, they live in Belgrade, or Livingston, or Manhattan, or at least outside the Bozeman city limits, so it's really comparing apples and oranges to say that you can even correlate the student population of MSU to the city population of Bozeman. My position is that you cannot really make a direct correlation of what percentage of the population are college students; even people with a Bozeman zip code might still live outside the city limits! I happen to know of students who commuted in from Butte and Helena for classes, there are also distance learning via video conferencing set up in these communities. Also, what has NOT been pointed out by Mike (who is far more gracious and diplomatic than I) is that Missoulianette's user name implies that this editor is closely affiliated with the city that contains the University of Montana, which is the sports rival of MSU, (think Mets and Yankees, it's an intense rivalry) and hence though I will assume good faith and that her intent is not to slam the rival town and school, they DO sell t-shirts that say "flush twice, it's a long way to Bozeman/Missoula", depending on which town you live in. Just saying. Also did a quick check on other cities linked to the article "college town" -- the ones I checked (Eugene, Oregon; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Ames, Iowa; Ithaca, New York) do NOT use this sort of population synthesis. Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have lived in Missoula but I went to college at MSU in Bozeman, I love Bozeman. I also added college town to the Missoula page because I think it's good thing not a bad thing. having gone to MSU not that long ago I can tell you that the nontrad population is not 1/3 of the student body, not even close. There is not that many nontrads, however that may be up a bit with the economic down turn. And most off campus students live in over priced housing in Bozeman. a lot of this can be found here http://www.montana.edu/opa/facts/quick.html

Missoulianette (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I must point out that Montanabw just edit the Missoula page to cover up the early comments they made please check the edit history on the Missoula page. I am sure this isn't the right place to bring this up but I see this person bully editors all the time. Can anyone please tell me where I go to deal with an editing bully? Please!

Missoulianette (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I answered the nontraditional student question at the article talk page, and I am not trying to insert that material into the article itself, it was merely an example. (Though having been a nontraditional graduate of MSU, I find Missoulianette's attitude a typical expression of the invisibility that nontrads face and because I was offended by that I made some of my own snarky comments above, for which I do apologize and refractored in an appropriate manner) But as for Missoula, yes, Missoulianette also inserted the same improper synthesis of college enrollment to population into the Missoula, Montana article, which I just discovered today and removed. I believe that I have not previously edited the Missoula article at all, though I could be mistaken. I must point out that I do not "bully" anyone. I am merely a wikipedia editor who is concerned about quality and at times am blunt and undiplomatic. Some people don't like their work criticized and subjected to scrutiny and take it badly. However, I only point out the facts and correct errors. As it says on every edit window page "If you do not want your writing to be edited ... then do not submit it here." I have little sympathy for bullies who complain that they are being bullied when others call them on their behavior. Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana

User:Cpiral, while very pleasant to interact with, has a set of original theories and conclusions about the etymology and ultimate meaning of nirvana which she/he insists on retaining in the first paragraphs of the article. When challenged, I get a vague answer about how all etymologies are dubious and theirs is as good as any. This of course fails WP:V and WP:FRINGE, as well as WP:NOR. (There's also this long sentence which another editor inappropriately described as "insane", saying that etymology was invented in the same place as the concept of nirvana and thus is somehow intertwined with it?!!??!?) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See the talk page. Also note the recent upheavals there with no discussion. — CpiralCpiral 21:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Decision needed at RfC about use of median

Please see the RfC at Talk:Usage_share_of_operating_systems#rfc_2263541 and give your thoughts. There is a disagreement about whether calculating the median of usage counts from a number of sources counts as a routine calculation as per WP:CALC. Personally I think WP:CALC should be changed if this is reasonable. Dmcq (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

K Foundation Burn a Million Quid

The event described by the article is the burning of £1 million in banknotes in a boathouse on the Ardfin Estate, Isle of Jura in 1994. The estate (and therefore the boathouse) has now been acquired by a multi-millionaire hedge-fund trader (citation given). Is this OR?

The cite is about the new owner and has no reference to the K foundation or burn a million - basically it says the the claimed new owner is rich - it does not say he is the new owner, it does not say anything about the K foundation or burning anything. The editor thinks it ironic that a rich man buys an estate in Scotland from another rich man just because the estate was used by the K foundation but provides no sources where this has been commented on. noq (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Some confusion here, I think. The Wikipedia article on the new owner does state that he is the new owner, and provides a reliable external link for this: . I did not suggest a motivation for the new owner's acquisition of the estate, neither did I refer to the wealth of the previous owner. I can see that this issue may be regarded as irrelevant, but I'm struggling see how it can be original research. Dhmellor (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Coffey is the new owner of the estate. One question is whether drawing the conclusion that Coffey giving up his £160,000,000 "golden handcuffs" deal with GLG with the apparent intention of making even more money and then buying Ardfin has an ironic quality is OR, or not. I think my answer is that, unless someone finds a published source that links the two events, technically speaking it must be. On the other hand the edit in question states the facts of the purchase and allows the reader to draw their own conclusion. This then is not for me a question of OR, but of relevance, which would not be a subject for discussion here. Ben MacDui 19:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To help this discussion along I will quote the disputed edit you mentioned above and add tags where I think OR or synthetic statements have been added so as to advance a synthetic observation:

Sixteen years after the burning, the Ardfin Estate, Jura, where the boathouse still stands, was acquired by Greg Coffey, a UK-based Australian hedge-fund manager. The 2011 Sunday Times Rich List shows Coffey to have a personal wealth of around £250 million.

Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the following statements: Sixteen years after the burning + the Ardfin Estate, Jura, where the boathouse still stands+ ...shows Coffey to have a personal wealth of around £250 million do not exist in a single citation but have been added together to advance a synthetic observation. Classic case of WP:SYNTH. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dr K - that link to WP:SYNTH is helpful, and I can now see how my edit could be read as 'synthesis of published material to advance a new position', although 'advancing a new position' was certainly not my intention. My intention was to do no more than juxtapose two unrelated but verifiable facts (the burning of the money, and the new ownership of the estate), not in order to 'advance' any 'position', but simply in order to point out that the site of one of the UK's most celebrated acts of anti-materialism is now owned by one of the most successful materialists of our time! I offer no opinion on that, although I do find it quite poetic. But I guess WP is no place for poetry! Regards Dhmellor (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dhmellor. I think that you understood my point. You are also right that poetry, even if interesting, if it is synthetic should not be added to the article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced this is, or at least would be SYNTH, with appropriate citations:

"Sixteen years after the burning" - this does not need a citation as it is simple arithmetic per WP:CALC (assuming sources confirm the two dates involved).

"the Ardfin Estate, Jura, where the boathouse still stands" I agree this should be cited. It may or may not be easy to do so from sale docs, photographs etc.

"shows Coffey to have a personal wealth of around £250 million" is verifiable - although I think his rejection of the golden handcuff is if anything more relevant.

If all three statements are cited and no unsourced inference is drawn, I can't see the problem myself. Ben MacDui 10:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Justified or verified by simple arithmetic or by RS, the mere fact that you are adding these isolated facts together by yourself, as if in a synthetic showcase which is created solely by yourself and not by a reliably sourced critic, is synthesis and original research trying to coerce the reader into a conclusion. At best they are a bunch of unrelated trivia which have no place in the article. Who really cares if the buyer is a millionaire if it were not for the synthetic observation that "this is ironic". Only if a critic of the K-Foundation made this observation by themselves we can publish it. Aggregating unrelated and irrelevant for the article facts and presenting them to the reader is not better than creating WP:SYNTH traps or at best adding unrelated trivia to the article. BTW your proposal to use sources ...from sale docs, photographs etc is wrong because these are not even reliable sources. They are WP:PRIMARY sources and are not acceptable. Using primary sources to advance original research is an even worse form of original research. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sale documents and photographs need not be WP:PRIMARY sources - this is simply a conclusion you have leapt to. Access to a sales brochure provided by a selling agent for example. Here is an example which may not absolutely confirm but certainly provides evidence for the continuing existence of the boat house. Furthermore, whilst I am by no means an OR expert, the idea that adding facts from varying sources, without adding any unverified opinion is somehow a breach of policy strikes me as being pedantic at best. Where we may be agreed is that relevance is an issue - but that isn't an issue for this noticeboard. Ben MacDui 19:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are we hiding from each other? User Dhmellor added this because in their own words: But the point is that Mr Coffey is the polar opposite of the K Foundation: he's a hedge fund trader who deals entirely in money and presumably values it above anything else. That is deeply ironic. Drummond and Cauty must relish it, and I think we should too!. Pretending that these facts can be added by some kind of serendipity without referring to the original intention of Dhmellor is disingenuous IMO. The only reason these facts were added is because of their synthetic value. Without it they are irrelevant trivia. Either way they should not be included in the article. There is nothing pedantic about my analysis. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr K, what is the 'conclusion' that you believe the reader is being 'coerced' into reaching? Dhmellor (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know why you are asking. You are the one who spoke about adding some synthetic poetry to the article so presumably you know better than anyone what you were trying to make the reader see. But nevertheless I will in good faith try to answer your question, despite the fact that you had answered it yourself. The synthetic showcase is constructed so that the reader would be "helped" along by the synthetic edit to reach the conclusion that it is ironic for the place which became a symbol for money-defying antics by burning money to be owned by a wealthy money manager who made a career out of carefully making money. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I was not trying to make the reader see anything. At no point have I used the words 'irony' or 'ironic'. If you think it's ironic, that's you drawing your own conclusion - I am not responsible for that. Dhmellor (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I am not going to play this semantics game. Obviously I am not going to try and guess the specific terms which will come into the reader's mind. That would be silly of course as well as impossible. What I know is we create a nice little synthetic environment and let the reader come in and look at it. If the reader reacts to it or not is not the problem. The problem lies with us editors of Wikipedia. We should not be in the business of creating synthetic environments in articles. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Pan Am (TV series)

Is it synthesis to make a determination, based on primary sources (credits in a television episode) that a claim made in a secondary source (a newsblog article published months before the premiere of the television show) is unreliable? Please see Talk:Pan Am (TV series)#Nancy Hult Ganis as A developer or THE developer. Elizium23 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As a bit of a heads-up, there is an open, rather lengthy, RfC at that page about whether an executive producer is "a" developer or "the" developer of the series. Into that has crept a discussion about whether or not the same person is also a writer. There is a single source, from a newspaper dated the same day as the series premiere (ie it's not actually months before),[80] that mentions the person is a "writer-producer". However, there are no sources that corroborate this claim. Further, she is not credited in any episode press releases, or on screen as a writer, so the claim that she's a writer seems dubious. For that reason it has been suggested that the writer credit be left out of the article until corroborated by another source. As a previously uninvolved editor I commented to that affect in my response to the RfC, but there is one editor who claims that leaving the writer credit out is OR, hence Elizium23's request. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: If you're referring to me being the "editor who claims that leaving the writer credit out is OR", it would probably be best to completely and accurately represent what I've actually said: "As it stands now, there is a reliable secondary source that says Hult Ganis is a writer for the show. There is a primary source that DOESN'T SAY she is a writer for the show. Using one to prove the other is synthesis, is not allowed, and makes for original research". The diff can be seen here Lhb1239 (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You're still missing the point that has been explained by other editors. There is a single source on the whole of the internet that claims her to be a "writer-producer". There are multiple sources that mention other people to be writers but none that mention her. On-screen she is credited as executive producer and series developer but never a writer. Nobody is saying that "Nancy Hult Ganis is not a writer" should be added to the article. That would be OR. What is being suggested is that the claim she is a writer should be removed from the article until the claim can be corroborated as, based on the lack of available evidence supporting it, the claim that she is a writer is dubious. Even reliable sources get it wrong sometime. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If these alleged "multiple sources that mention other people to be writers but none that mention her" are reliable, secondary sources, then why haven't you brought them forth? Regardless, you're trying to use sources to prove a negative in order to bolster your original research that she isn't a writer in conjunction with your primary source that doesn't list her as a series writer when a reliable secondary source says she is. That's WP:SYNTH. Lhb1239 (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources have been mentioned on the talk page and the list of writers is included in the episode list in the article. You just don't accept the sources because they are primary sources (TV episodes and press releases) which, as has been explained to you, are acceptable sources. Once again I will say that nobody is trying to prove "that she isn't a writer", but there is doubt that she is. There is a big difference between the two. Obviously I can't bring forth the "none that mention her" references because, well, there are none that mention her as a writer, although you could start with any of the the press releases included by futoncritic.[81] This one, which is typical, says "Orman is also the writer" but, even though Hult Ganis is mentioned as EP, doesn't say she is a writer. There is simply a lack of evidence corroborating the newspaper's claim that she is a "writer-producer" and none that specifically say she is a writer. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a very reliable source saying the person is the developer and not mentioning anyone else as developer and there is no source saying there are other developers, only that she spearheaded development. It does not follow from that a person spearheaded development that anyone else was a developer. One shouldn't make inferences like that. Developer here does not include everyone who does fact checking or even writes a score or the words. You'd really need source saying there was more than one developer or giving the name of another developer to counteract the reliable source giving a single developer and no other in a space where such a title is prized and carefully scrutinized. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a mix up in understanding also in the query. Primary and secondary does not determine reliability, it determines noteworthiness. We shouldn't be using primary sources if what is in them is not made noteworthy in some way and sometimes there is a problem with personal perspective but they are not inherently less reliable than secondary sources. Dmcq (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Can new formula be put in to a scientific article?

There is a disagreement at Talk:Planck's_law#statements_hopefully_more_consensual and more generally in that whole talk page and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Help_needed_at_Planck.27s_law. The basic problem seems to be the introduction of formulae which have been derived by an editor rather than from citations. The editor cites WP:Scientific citation guidelines#Examples, derivations and restatements for putting in new versions of a formula. I believe that guideline only covers examples, intermediary parts of derivations and illustrations, not final results which should always be verifiable. Small changes of notation for consistency are allowed but only WP:CALC covers actual new results.

In the article Planck's law#Common forms you can see a table where the last entry is dependent on angular wavenumber k (in fact a few of these entries are like this but this is a particular sore point for other reasons). No citation has been found for this 'Common form'. Is it justified to stick in things like this? Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the main issue is going to be NPOV: is there a good reason for including these "common forms" if they are not mentioned very often in references? In any case, I will follow up on the article's talk page, because for NOR purposes the details of exactly what is being done are very important. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

These are not new formulas, these are well-known form of Planck's law (and yes, they are sourced, see arXiv:0901.1863, equation 40 which Dmcq somehow refuses to read). Dmcq believes that making variable substitutions (such as replacing ν by ω = 2πν) consists of original research, when it clearly does not. Converting formulas from ν to ω = 2πν is no different than converting them from miles to meters. Substitute and multiply by |dν/dω|, a method which is both uncontroversial, and yes, sourced ([82], bottom of page).

As for the reason why, there are two common frameworks in physics. People who work with Planck's constant h and its associated quantities (frequency ν, wavelength λ, wavenumber ν = 1/λ, and people who work with the reduced Plank constant (ħ = h/2π) and its associated quantities (angular frequency ω = 2πν, angular wavelength ƛ = λ/2π, angular wavenumber k = 2π/λ). Both should be present, but some editors on that page are hellbent on creating the biggest war because if the angular wavenumber (k) form is present, then the Boltzmann constant needs to be written k_B to avoid confusion, and they really don't like that subscript. That's how ridiculous the fight is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see that a version of the formula has now been found in issue 5 in the Journal of the Calcutta Mathematical Society. The version there is compared to other forms rather than used for itself. It does not use k_B even though the formula is the only justification for all the hassle there about k_B. It hardly counts as a common form.

I see you use as a reason that the forms 'should be presented' rather than that they are used. My major point is that Wikipedia is not about 'should be'. It is about 'what is presented. Verifiability and original research are about preventing people shoving stuff into Wikipedia that they feel 'should be' in it. Headbomb worked out this formula and then scrabbled around finding this journal with something similar to say it was a common form. Have a look at formula 40 in the paper referred to and see if you think it is being presented as a common form or something the author made up in order to discuss possible variants in aid of doing some analysis of the forms. Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Should be" refers to how the article "should be", not how people "ought to write things". It's no more "original research" two say both paradigms should be presented, than to claim an article "should" contain a section about history, or that the external link section "should" contain certain links. You're reaching for straws when you willfully misinterpret statements on the state of the article to be WP:ADVOCACY or a push for WP:OR. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Provide some citation showing what you put in was a common form, some instance where it is used without just being generated to fill in a table of forms for analysis like that 2009 paper. I believe should be exactly describes how you write it, you made up that formula and got it wrong and stuck it in and insisted on changing the rest of the article to accommodate your form. You later found this obscure citation to a form which is close enough but where it was just made up to try out different forms and you call it a common form. Never mind the original in the paper did not have the form that required changing the rest of the article. This is not a common form. Perhaps you want a section of unusual or less used forms? If so why have you removed another form that is actually considered common by others? Dmcq (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

p.s. the 'paradigm' Headbomb alludes to is that the reduced Planck's constant ​ℏ is often used in atomic physics instead of the original h normally used in Planck's law. Headbomb felt forms using the reduced Planck's constant should be included as common forms whatever about actual usage. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's my 3-2-4-2 summary of the above (the four numbers in the next sentence).

Within the past 3 weeks, 2 editors at this article have invented 4 new names for constant multiples of the 2 Planck's law functions.

The 3 weeks are since October 13.

The 2 editors are

• Chjoaygame (who invented the first new name, B_ν̃).
• Headbomb (who began by reverting $B_{\nu }$ and $B_{\lambda }$ to the article's older names I and I' before turning 180 degrees and inventing the other three names).

The 4 invented names are B_ν̃, B_ω, B_y, and B_k. B_y is a multiple of B_λ while the other three are multiples of B_ν. In all four cases the coefficient of the multiple is m⁴ where m is tabulated below.

The 2 Planck's law functions are $B_{\nu }(T)$ and $B_{\lambda }(T)$ (top 2 rows of left column below).

Headbomb tabulated the 2 Planck's law functions and their 4 multiples as a 3x2 table with associated multipliers m correspondingly tabulated as

Bν : $\;1$	Bω : ${\frac {1}{2\pi }}$
Bλ : $\;1$	By : ${\frac {1}{2\pi }}$
Bν̃ : $\;c$	Bk : ${\frac {c}{2\pi }}$

The second row is for wavelength λ, the top and bottom rows are for frequency ν. Multiplication of the input to Planck's law (in either form) by a multiplier m works the same for all six entries: multiply the output by m⁴.

Rather than simply tabulating each of these multipliers m however, the table instead gives six copies of Planck's law each multiplied by $m^{4}$, without however clueing the reader into the fact that this is how the multiples were derived. This gives the unsuspecting reader the misleading impression that something much deeper is going on.

Regarding the four new names of the form B_x, not even one source exists.

Regarding the associated forms of Planck's law for each new name, all are obtained by multiplying one of the two standard forms by $m^{4}$. While the forms for the two basic functions pervade the literature, the situation for sources for the other four forms is as follows.

• 31: Bottom left, ν̃: p.43 of a climate book by Paltridge et al, and p.117 of a book by Caniou on practical engineering aspects of passive far infrared detectors.
• 12: Top right, ω: p.I-42-8 of Feynmann's Lectures on Physics. A few others are said to exist, so far without page numbers AFAIK.
• 22: Middle right, y: no known source.
• 32: Bottom right, k: p.36 of an article by Kramm et al in the Journal of the Calcutta Mathematical Society, of which Kramm is an editor. (That form however uses n_p, not k. There is no known exact source.)

Other Wikipedia articles have declined to source vocal climate skeptics. I'm not sure whether this is appropriate for Wikipedia, but if this article were to follow that practice it would disqualify the Kramm and Paltridge sources, both of whom are highly vocal climate skeptics. But whether it did or not, the only form sourced from a reputable physics textbook would appear to be 12 at top right, whence it would be reasonable to give that form if this were felt appropriate.

None of this material was in the article prior to October 13, the day Chjoaygame and Headbomb began adding this material to the article. A glance at the history of the article between October 13 and now will give an idea of how Headbomb in particular has dominated editing of the article. There is other original research that he's introduced, such as his attempted application of the chain rule for differentiation, which is a formula that isn't even correct (it gives very wrong results) and hence can be dealt with back at the article without having to consider it original research. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I am accused of inventing a "new name". By this the accuser refers to my use of the mathematical notation $B_{\tilde {\nu }}$ for what I have called the "spectroscopists' wavenumber" version of Planck's law. I would say that I simply conformed to the mathematical notation of the "In spectroscopy" section of the Wikipedia article on wavenumber. The formula that I put into the article on Planck's law is just the same formula as in my cited reliable source, but written in Wikipedia mathematical notation instead of the mathematical notation of the source. I would argue that I did not alter or re-calculate the source formula, I just re-wrote it in our current and sometimes varying Wikipedia notation. I did nothing in the way of calculation.

On the other hand, the formula that overwrote mine was for a different argument variable, the angular wavenumber. As it happens, the angular wavenumber $k\,$ is related to the spectroscopists' wavenumber ${\tilde {\nu }}$ by the mathematically symbolic formula $k=2\pi {\tilde {\nu }}$ . The question for me here is whether the generation of this overwriting formula was WP:OR. The record shows very clearly that it was first generated, by the editor who put it in, by his own mathematical manipulation. Later he found what he deemed a reliable source for it. That source showed a formula that differed from the posted formula in that the cited source formula used the substantially different reduced Planck constant $\hbar \,$ instead of the posted Planck constant $h\,$ , as well as using the substantially different argument variable $k\,$ instead of the argument variable ${\tilde {\nu }}$ of the previously reliably sourced and posted formula. It seems on the face of it that the new formula was not strictly exactly sourced at all, let alone reliably sourced. As it happened, as may be seen from the record, the overwriting editor posted two mistaken versions of his new formula before getting it right; during this correction process no other editor intervened or commented on the two errors. The counter-argument to my reading of this is that the then posted formula for $k\,$ with the constant $h\,$ falls under the heading of

start of quotation from Wikipedia article Wikipedia:No original research

Routine calculations

This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided there is consensus among editors that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources. See also Category:Conversion templates.

end of quotation from Wikipedia article Wikipedia:No original research

As I see it, there was no consensus here that "the arithmetic" did anything. As I see it, this was not an arithmetical calculation; it was an algebraic manipulation, performed by a competent editor, posted wrongly twice before he posted an algebraically correct but strictly unsourced formula. I would say that the mistakes in the corrected versions are relevant to the question of whether this was a routine calculation.

As I see it, the question here is whether the posted $k\,$ formula was obtained by routine calculation or not.

As I see it, this is a policy issue. The key issue here I think is not as to point of view, but as to the meaning of the words "routine calculations".Chjoaygame (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY

The Parity section of the WP:FRINGE guidelines is a favorite of fringe apologists, who interpret it as carte blanche to use just about any sourcing they please to support OR and SYNTH in articles on fringe topics. It is also misused to present a fringe topic from the in-universe persepective fringe topic in articles on the topic.

I've started a discussion of the talk page of the WP:FRINGE guidelines. This isn't a formal RfC, but a request for open-ended input on the question whether the Parity section needs to be re-worded for clarity. To keep the discussion centralized, please comment on the talk page of the article, here: [[83]]. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Killed on British Roads.png

I am concerned that the chart at File:Killed on British Roads.png contravenes the WP:NOR policy on 2 counts:

1. That it asserts a relationship between road deaths and many items of "related legislation" (and other events) for which no supporting sources are provided.
2. That it combines material from multiple sources (largely uncited) to imply (by them being placed on this graph with this title) the unreferenced conclusion that they are significant causal factors affecting the trend of the graph.

I have no problem with the graph line itself, the numbers are referenced to a primary source; the problem I have is with all the added, unreferenced labels and the implied conclusion of a causal relationship. I welcome views and opinions on this please. -- de Facto (talk). 08:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree it needs more explanation - e.g. it's not clear from the graph whether a 30mph speed limit was introduced or abolished in the late 30s. Not sure I agree that inclusion of the labels per se constitues OR as it does not claim any causal links, merely states (I presume) historical facts. Any implied conclusion of a causal relationship is surely in the eye of the reader. The simple line does not distinguish between pedestrians and other motorists killed, which muddies any hypothetical links. Pterre (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you agree that the inclusion of some events and the exclusion of others needs a rationale - and that that rationale needs to be other than the whim of the editor? That certain events are included implies that they carry a certain weight - how should that weight be asserted and judged?

-- de Facto (talk). 09:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Any chart of this nature has to include some events and exclude others by its very nature and one chart certainly can't include everything. What to include is a matter of judgement by the author and in this case the choice of labels involved significant discussion on the talk page, but it is still my take at the end of the day. Others are welcome to create their own works highlighting other events as long as they don't go against WP:balance or WP:SYNTH. PeterEastern (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(editconflict)

DeFacto: It remains my opinion that there is no stated link - it is left to the reader to infer a relationship if there is one. On the face of it the labels provided might seem to be all the relevant ones. Can you suggest which events you feel are being excluded? Pterre (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That these events are placed on the graph, I think, implies a link (otherwise why are they placed there), and I'm of the opinion the reason for this selection, over any other, needs a reliably sourced rationale and not be left to unreferenced cherry-picking and the POV or agenda of the author.

Pterre, your question actually emphasises the need for a source - as you can't verify the choice of events yourself. There are many, many events which influence road death trends which are not on the graph and many events on the graph which only have localised or minimal one-off effect, if any, and which don't alter trends. Of the former we could mention: motoring cost trends, particularly of fuel prices (currently reducing traffic volumes); congestion levels; weather (bad winters=more crashes); continuous improvements of vehicle engineering standards (collapsible steering columns, crumple-zones, side-impact tolerance, glass strength, passenger cells, ABS, brake-assist, tyre technology, lights technology, ...); introduction of road engineering measures (anti-slip surfaces, barriers, cats-eyes, white-lines, layout, junction design, ...); the fact that children don't play outside as much they used to, so don't get run-over in anything like the numbers they used to; increased segregation of traffic modes; I could go on. Why have the ones on the chart been singled-out for inclusion?

-- de Facto (talk). 12:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed up to a point. The majority of these however will have a gradual effect (if any) as new cars are sold (for example), while legislation is more likely to have an immediate, obvious effect (if any). In this respect the graph itself is somewhat misleading: it takes annual summary data and plots as a line graph. Strictly this should be shown as a histogram. Pterre (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether they have a gradual long-term effect (change the trend over a number of years) or a step effect (create a one-off change) isn't the issue here though: the issue is what is the rationale for choice; should they be cherry-picked on the unsupported whim of the author, or should there be a supported rationale. If the former, should there even be support for their relevance (that they have an effect on road deaths at all)? Your experience reading the graph, and the question you posed, suggests to me that the contents of the current chart are not verifiable by the reader.

-- de Facto (talk). 14:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Pterre - I agree that it should strictly be a histogram, however it seemed much more legible as a line graph so I chose to take that approach. I will now leave you to continue your discussion with DeFacto. PeterEastern (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As the author of the chart I am happy to clarify that 30 mph speed limits were introduced in 1934, I would however note that it follows a label saying 'all speed limits abolished' so this would seem to be a minor point. My understanding is that I DeFacto's main objection is not that the individual facts are wrong but that it is OR to imply a relationship between these facts and the level of road casualties by placing them on the same chart. For your information DeFacto has a long history of arguing that there is no relationship between speed and safety (correction - unproven relationship between posted speed limits and actual speeds) in a way that many other contributors consider to be WP:Fringe. Rather than discuss it all again, the following provide a small insight into the extensive discussions that have taken place with various people on the subject: [84], [85], [86] and [87]. PeterEastern (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an attempt to hijack the discussion away from the main issue, which I'm sure competent and honourable editors will not allow to sway their judgement. However, for the record I must point out that I have never argued that there is "no relationship between speed and safety". What I have done is present the view (supported by many sources) that there isn't necessarily a relationship between posted speed-limits and traffic speed and that the introduction of a new lower unenforced-speed-limit doesn't necessarily deliver a lower traffic speed (actually, it can even increase them).

-- de Facto (talk). 10:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, you may never have ever claimed that 'no relationship between speed and safety'; that was an exaggeration on my part for which I apologise. I don't however feel that I was hijacking the discussion by providing references to various speed limit related discussions in which you have been involved with in the past. That said, the question in hand seems to be about whether the chart is WP:SYNTH by implying a relationship between two unconnected facts? Is that your issue? If so then it should be reasonably straightforward to get views on the matter. PeterEastern (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter, thanks for the retraction, but you are still misrepresenting the view I have presented (that there isn't necessarily a relationship between posted speed-limits and traffic speed) as an "unproven relationship between posted speed limits and actual speeds". Also it isn't a "fringe" theory, it is presented in the appropriate articles as being supported by research carried out by the TRL (summary of example report) and supported in this report from the Federal Highway Administration. -- de Facto (talk). 12:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any views on this one please? We need some strongly reasoned guidance to decide how to proceed? -- de Facto (talk). 07:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think it does violate SYNTH, since it appears to juxtapose sourced items that are not directly related by a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there not ample well sourced evidence available in the relevant articles in Wikipedia for the relationship between the legislation items and the aim of reducing road casualties? As such I don't believe that it is SYNTH. I could add suitable references to the description section for the chart if that would help? For example:

• Speed limit article, lead section '..Speed limits are usually set to attempt to cap road traffic speed; there are several reasons for wanting to do this. It is often done with an intention to improve road traffic safety and reduce the number of road traffic casualties from traffic collisions. In their World report on road traffic injury prevention report, the World Health Organization (WHO) identify speed control as one of various interventions likely to contribute to a reduction in road casualties. (The WHO estimated that some 1.2 million people were killed and 50 million injured on the roads around the world in 2004.)'
• Speed limit enforcement article: 'Speed limit enforcement is the action taken by appropriately empowered authorities to check that road vehicles are complying with the speed limit in force on roads and highways.'
• Seatbelt article: 'Observational studies of car crash morbidity and mortality,[52][53][54] experiments using both crash test dummies and human cadavers indicate that wearing seat belts greatly reduces the risk of death and injury in the majority of car crashes.'
• There are similar references available for the other legislation, such as driving tests and motorbike helmets that I could also draw attention to if appropriate.

PeterEastern (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter, there are two problems as I see it. 1) You are confusing the intention with the result - being able to show that those interventions were intended to reduce fatalities is not the same thing as showing that they actually did influence the trend. 2) Your inclusion of just some of the huge and complex array of possible causal factors of the change in fatality trend on the roads is just that: your personal synthesis of what the significant causes are (and by impication of exclusion, what are not significant causes). -- de Facto (talk). 09:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I will await the view of others here, but I believe that it is sufficient to show that it was the 'intention' of those who introduced the legislation to reduce road deaths to justify the policy introduction on my chart. Needless to say, there is plenty of evidence that these interventions are indeed effective at reducing road deaths and injuries. Anyone interested in looking at the evidence in more detail may wish to refer to the World report on road traffic injury prevention (published by the World Health Organisation in 2004) which covers the issue in considerable detail. PeterEastern (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen nothing in that WHO report supporting a causal relationship between the UK events you've chosen to add to the chart and the UK road fatality trend - or for that matter justification for the exclusion of the events that you have chosen to exclude. -- de Facto (talk). 10:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There may be an explanation that I have missed, but if there is no reliable source asserting that there is evidence that events in the chart had a causal connection with the changes in the death toll, the chart is synthesis. If someone produced a similar chart including events like the 1965 funeral of Winston Churchill, the original research would be more obvious. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There is in fact considerable evidence that the legislation mentioned does have a causal relationship with the changes in death toll. To quote from the World Health Organisation report mentioned above:

• "As stated elsewhere in this report, a variety of effective means exist to reduce vehicle speeds – including the setting of speed limits according to road function, better road design, and the enforcement of limits by the police, radar and speed cameras"
• "The well-publicized use of such [speed limit enforcement] equipment in places where speed limits are not generally obeyed and where the consequent risk of a crash is high has led to substantial reductions in crashes"
• "Despite the progress made in many countries in curbing drink-driving, alcohol is still a significant and widespread factor in road crashes. The scientific literature and national road safety programmes agree that a package of effective measures is necessary to reduce alcohol-related crashes and injuries."
• "Mandatory seat-belt use has been one of road injury prevention’s greatest success stories and has saved many lives"
• "The introduction of performance standards for motorcycle safety helmets, legislation making helmet wearing compulsory – with penalties for non-use – and targeted information and enforcement campaigns."

PeterEastern (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

On reflection it will probably be helpful if I provide references in the description area for each claim in the chart outlining: 1) that the event took place at that time. 2) That the primary motivator for the legislation was to reduce road casualties 3) That it is generally held now that such interventions do indeed lead to a reduction in road casualties. It will take me 24 hours to complete this work. I will put a note on this page when I have completed this. PeterEastern (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I may be a bit ornery in my interpretation but the file seems to indicate to me that the various measures had very little effect and there must be something else happening. If they did have an effect one would expect a decrease shortly afterwards followed by a small upswing as people forget about it. Pure OR on my part. I think one would need much better resolution to deduce anything of worth about the various measures. Perhaps the only real message is that people became more concerned about the problem and the deaths went down when people got more concerned.

On the main point about OR though, I must admit being a bit concerned that this is putting things together and constitutes synthesis. We are allowed quite a bit of OR leeway in illustrations and they just need to look like what they illustrate but this seems to put rather a lot of things together, what exactly would it be illustrating in an article and would it be saying more than the section said? Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that I can demonstrate that the items of legislation I refer to were introduced with a view to reducing road casualties is it not justification to include them on a chart? Regarding the countless other changes that were going on in the same period then is it not necessary to be selective? Would it be better to be more scientifically selective and remove things like fog lights, driving tests and MOTs and limit the tagging strictly to legislation that related to speed limits and speed limit enforcement and then make that clearer in the title and description? Regarding your comments that 'the file seems to indicate to me that the various measures had very little effect', is that not something for the reader to determine? Road casualties went up when the 30mph limit was introduced (which seems to say that the change wasn't effective), we then had a war and casualties were lower afterwards (was that an effect of austerity and rationing possibly?) but then the went up and up (growing prosperity?). Then there were a series of major crashes in fog on the motorways and the 70mph speed limit was introduced and that coincided closely with the peacetime peak in casualties after which time casualties fell significantly. Was that a coincidence? Again is it not for the reader to determine? I am concerned that the logic being used here could preclude virtually every chart comparing events and trends in the real world where there isn't a blindingly simple cause and effect which would exclude virtually every interesting chart. PeterEastern (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that a reliable secondary source is needed to verify that no other factors are involved. Consider a more controversial issue like "gun control" in the US. What if someone produced a chart of death or crime rate in some area, and labeled it with events associated with attempts to restrict the availability of guns? Or, the labels might show events that may have made guns more available. Unless the chart is just reporting a table in a source, the chart is a collection of facts made by an editor—synthesis. It may be very accurate and generally excellent, but there has to be a way for Wikipedia to rule out stuff of lesser quality, and since we cannot arbitrate over whether a certain event was pertinent, we have to rely on NOR. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about the picture again, it think we can only say it is original research when used in a particular context. If the context was an article about the relation between the law and deaths on the road I think it probably would be admissible as it would look like what the article was talking about. unsigned comment by Dmcq

OK, I also think we are getting somewhere and I appreciate Johnuniq's clear summary of the issue. Gun control is a good example because it is also a emotive subject with complex causation that also attracts heated debates between different interest groups (for and against control) with each side of the debate thinking that the other have the wrong end of the stick. This chart was created initially for use in Reported Road Casualties Great Britain and had only a few tag. I then added tags in response to discussion on the talk page. It is currently also used in Road speed limits in the United Kingdom; I think we should also consider its potential use in Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom for the purpose of this debate. I wouldn't advocate its use elsewhere.

These articles are all related to road deaths and the law in the context of the UK in their different ways. It is true that neither the articles, nor the chart include details of every legal change in the period neither does the chart mention only those changes mentioned in the relevant articles, nor does the chart clearly state in the title what is the scope of the legal changes that are included. My view would be that some adjustment of tagging will be appropriate, but that the removal of all tagging would be a loss.

Curiously I now think that the chart should indeed be bare for use in the article for which I originally created it, but could reasonably carry tags for the relevant speed limit and speed limit enforcement changes that have occured in the other two articles (which relate specifically to speed limit regulations and the enforcement of the same) as long as it was compressive in its inclusion of significant changes within that scope as outlined in these two articles. Within this discussion we should not forget the line along the bottom showing the administration in government about which we should also get an agree view before closing the thread.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

However, as the speed limit articles are only about national default speed limit laws and policies and not about all road safety related "law" changes in general, the vast majority of the labels are still irrelevant and SYNTH, even in those articles. The casualty figures would need to be aggregated by speed limit to be relevant in speed limit related articles - a 70 mph speed limit introduced on motorways can't be related to casualties on town and city streets. The bare chart, with no labels and as a bar chart, rather than a line chart, may be relevant in the article that's just about road casualty statistics. -- de Facto (talk). 07:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

? The articles I refer to are about speed limits regulations in GB and their enforcement generally. The chart covers fatalities since records began and covers all fatalities on roads within GB. Re speed limits, first there was a discredited and widely ignored 20mph limit, then no limits, then a blanket 30mph limit in built-up areas with no limit elsewhere then a 70mph limit on all previously unregulated roads and a few years later a lower 60mph on single carriageway roads. Recently there has been loads of progress relating to enforcement technology and the introduction of some 20mph limits in towns. Virtually all of these regulations were brought in to try to tackle the level of injury on the road. PeterEastern (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The chart that we are discussing though contains numerous labels which are irrelevant to the speed limit related articles, and only fatalities, not "the level of injury", and only for selected years at one end of the scale. Are you discussing a different, yet to be produced, chart now? -- de Facto (talk). 08:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Constructing chart like this in which various data, perhaps all impeccably sourced, but which come from various unrelated sources, and absent any analysis by a known authority strike me as a particularly bad idea. In particular, legislative intent seems a poor criteria for making the jump, since legislators are notoriously poor at predicting the outcome of their actions. Johnuniq is correct that you need a secondary source to establish the relationships between the various data presented in order to avoid OR. There are other factors at play--better road design, high gas prices, better cars, ratio of large to small cars, the general mood of drivers--which make this a complex issues we are not qualified to address. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think we should take that as the conclusion. I will now make the necessary adjustments to the charts. Can I thank everyone for contributing to this process and for taking the time to understand the subject enough to come to a view. PeterEastern (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough Peter, thanks for that. And thanks to all who participated. -- de Facto (talk). 13:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now updated the file to remove the labels. It is still a line chart but the line is now dotted. I intend to now add the bars to indicate for which years we have hard data. Alternatively I will look to see if I can source a complete dataset for fatalities per year. I unintentionally remove the WW2 bar (but left the WW2 text). I was intending to add the WW2 bar back as I believe that it is not contentious that the war influenced road casualties. It is is contentious then I won't mention it. For the avoidance of doubt, is the chart now acceptable from a OR perspective (with or without the WW2 bar)? PeterEastern (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)