Jump to content

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Nio Zen

A user has created a new article Nio Zen that seems mostly to be original research. It cites a lot of texts, but without precision (no page numbers) and mostly with regard to peripheral points of information, not with regard to Nio Zen. One text that is cited, Baroni's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Zen Buddhism, does have an entry on Nio Zen, but none of it cites all that information about Pure Land Buddhism, Bodhi Darma, Shaolin monks, etc. that consume most of the article. All that smells of original research. It should be noted that the same editor has been going through Buddhism pages on Wikipedia and making additions that cite the Zenji Museum as a repository of important artworks. There is no proof of that, so I have removed them, but the Zenji Museum page (the museum, by the way, does not seem to exist in reality, since the page does not reveal its location other than a vague statement about downtown Toronto) is half about Nio Zen and its leader Zen Acharya, and seems to repeat many of the stances of the Nio Zen article (see also related pages here and here). I thus wonder whether all this original research is not also publicity for this person and his religion. I have also asked this of WikiProject Buddhism, but any help determining whether this belongs on Wikipedia or not would be appreciated. Michitaro (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've stubbed the article, as I didn't think there was much coherent content worth saving. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Quoting Conservapedia as a Self Source in an article about Conservapedia

This is a spillover issue from WP:RSN. We at least understand our RS positions over there. However an OR issue has been raised. The RS issue is whether a quote from an unreliable source, Conservapedia, hereafter C, can be used as a primary source about itself, SELFSOURCE. This is quoting C in an article about C. For that argument, go to WP:RSN.

The OR issue is twofold.

First, is this construction, Examples include: A, B, C WP:SYNTH? I say no. WP:SYNTH says A and B, therefore C. With this construction, Examples include: A, B, C, no inference is being drawn. It could just as well be Examples include: C and B. This is just a list and each element stands on its own; no syllogism is present and no inference is being drawn. It could be An example is A.

Second, can a Wikipedia editor use a primary source independently of some secondary source? For lack of a better term, Dmcq has called this trawling. I say yes. It is almost too basic to argue. Yes, a secondary source makes the point more notable but Wikipedia:Notability is a topic issue not a source issue. You really have to ask why it is necessary to place this burden on an editor.

WP:OR says: The term original research (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. But in this case the fact, the source, is the text; it exists; it's right there. The author/text relationship is not in dispute. C said A. Forbidding this as OR would be saying that unless/until some reliable secondary source says that C said A an article can't say that C said A.

Anyways that interpretation of OR seems strange and restrictive to me. It doesn't seem to follow from the definition of OR. I'd appreciate if others can weigh in.--Olsonist (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Some links for background. The article is Conservapedia. My discussion with Olsonist is on Talk:Conservapedia in the sections 'Noted the first paragraph need something' and 'Moral relativism' and at User talk:Dmcq#Moral relativism in Conservapedia. The site is Conservapedia main page and the articles on the site are Counterexamples to relativity and Moral relativism.
The particlular dispute is that the New Scientist article cites the Counterexamples to relativity article but not the moral relativism article. The counterexampels article says about relativity ' It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world'. The moral relativism article says ' While the idea of moral relativity exists independently of (and substantially predates) the scientific theory of relativity, moral relativists seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views'. The article says 'criticism of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism'.The poster wants to say something like 'Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas.' Basically I'm saying they should not be looking at the article Moral relativism in conservapedia as the secondary sources have not referenced it and I believe it is OR to go trawling through conservapedia for things. Basically we should foillow the secondary sources unless it can be shown they really are wrong. Also but secondarily I believe both the New Scientist article and the Counterexamples article show they believe the theory of relativity is actually an evil or grossly misguided theory that encourages moral relativism. Dmcq (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a diff to their change about this I reverted. Dmcq (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I am having a little difficulty understanding this debate... but I think the situation is as follows: A reliable source says Conservapedia is biased in a particular way (X). An editor here wishes to quote or cite an article at Conservapedia (Y) as an example of that bias. If this is what the debate is about, then I think there is an OR issue... because saying that Y actually is an example of the bias that source X is talking about is an a statement of analysis or interpretation. (Correct me if I am misunderstanding what the debate is about). Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well they actually want to say the bias is Y instead because of their interpretation of another article in Conservapedia rather than the one X was based on and to cite that other article. Or what's your take on it Olsonist? (Actually I'd dispute their reading of the other article but lets forget about that and just deal with the main point, assume I thought it was possibly okay and just disputing inclusion on OR grounds searching for things in Conservapedia). Dmcq (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Blueboar and Dmcq. This is kind of a hard problem, which makes it interesting too. It's either nothing or it's a pervasive problem.
I think that problem sounds more like SYNTH since the RS didn't use example Y and the citation is making it sound like the RS did. It doesn't matter that the RS is true and that example Y is true; SYNTH isn't allowed. That's my problem with the New Scientist citation in the lead paragraph. It's 99.9% about the Theory of Relativity and the Counterexamples to Relativity article and it only glancingly mentions at the end (does not directly support) the Moral Relativity claim: The theory in no way encourages relativism, regardless of what Conservapedia may think. Good article, good secondary source, bad citation.
This is a different problem but let's look at Binksternet's objection back at WP:RSN: The original research is the selection of which articles show Conservapedia's ideology.
So the problem we have is: C publishes X; there is no secondary RS commenting on this; editor E uses X as a self source. Dmcq calls this trawling, a good a term as any. Some secondary RS didn't find X; E found X, trawling through C's publications. E was researching C, finds X and that researching C is the OR.
Let's start with the definition or WP:OR: The term original research (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
C publishes X. That's a textual fact. The OR requirement is that the claim C said X be verifiable, and it can be verified. The act of finding X, the selection of X, is irrelevant. Done.
BTW, the reliability of C and X don't matter, per se. Only the reliability of publication of X matters. Ted Kaczynski, unreliable source. Unabomber Manifesto, unreliable source. Quoting Unabomber Manifesto as a source of what Kaczynski said, verifiable primary source. --Olsonist (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It is better to make things straightforward and concrete for a noticeboard. All this X Y and Z stuff just confuses things and I believe that's why there isn't a decent answer here. Dmcq (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
On the actual business about relativity supporting moral relativity, the article doesn't say that, it says the Conservapedia criticise it for doing that. There is no implication that relativity actually does support moral relativism, it's just what they say. Dmcq (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article is factually wrong on that point. The Wikipedia article says that Conservapedia [criticizes] the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism. Instead their Counterexamples to Relativity article actually says [The Theory of Relativity] is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world. Conservapedia itself is not criticizing the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism; it's accusing liberals of using the Theory to promote relativism. --Olsonist (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The 'its' refers to the theory of relativity, its encouragement of relativism, its tendency to mislead people. The 'its' does not refer to liberals using it to do these things. And that's how the New Scientist Article seems to take it too with its 'Does relativity really steer people away from God?' Conservapedia also attacks the theory itself listing what they say are 31 counterexamples. Dmcq (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That is pretty oblique and indirect but I'll grant you that it is there. So I'll withdraw my objection to the New Scientist citation. I'd feel more comfortable if it were more direct but it works as a reliable secondary source. We still have a problem with trawling. --Olsonist (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Well I certainly get the impression from the Conservapedia article that they feel there is something inherently evil about the theory of relativity. Yes I would like a better answer to the main question about searching around the Conservapedia articles for tidbits, it just doesn't seem right to me. Dmcq (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You feel funny about it because it is searching; heck, it is research; it's just not original research since Conservapedia or Ted Kazynski or whoever already said what was said. Or at least so says I. Hopefully we can get some other people to weigh in.--Olsonist (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I've tried a bare bones rephrase below Dmcq (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Works for me.--Olsonist (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it okay to cite things found on a website?

If an item is found on a website without a secondary source pointing to it and it satisfies WP:SELFCITE but would not not normally satisfy WP:RS nor is it a straightforward top level 'about' or 'main' type link, is it okay to cite that when describing the site? How about to support an opinion in a secondary source that points to another page but not that one? Dmcq (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it OK? That is a rather broad question, and can not be answered in the abstract. The answer is "sometimes yes and sometimes no; We would need to see the specifics"... also, remember that there are lots of other policies and guidelines besides NOR that come into play when deciding whether we should include something (for example quoting the website in the first place could well be a WP:Undue weight situation). Now, if you limit your first question to: "Does citing a page you are quoting violate WP:NOR?" Probably not... Assuming you are strictly describing what the website says, and assuming you are not interpreting or analysing it, nor drawing any conclusions based upon it.
As for your second question (What about to support an opinion in a secondary source that points to another page but not that one). No, that would not be OK... you are reaching a conclusion (that the quoted page supports the opinion in the secondary source) not contained in the secondary source... and using a source for a conclusionary statement like that would be Original Research by a Wikipedia editor. Blueboar (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Does footnoting a sentence with a secondary source and a primary source necessarily mean that the primary source backs the secondary source?
Shouldn't it mean that both sources independently back the footnoted sentence? --Olsonist (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It's the 'opinion' part that's the problem. Without a secondary source we can't stick in an opinion anyway. That's why I said to support an opinion in a secondary source. Dmcq (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Tea party Movement

Page: Radical Right (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Disputed edit: [1] 23:09, 26 March 2012

    Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right. Opposition to the Obama administration is seen as motivated by fear and racism, focusing on issues such as immigration, terrorism, same sex marriage, abortion and an African-American president. Chip Berlet has described it as "the type of right-wing populist movement seen throughout U.S. history".

  • Talk page discussion: [2]
  • External source: Courser, Zachary. "The Tea 'Party' as a Conservative Social Movement". Published online, Springer Science Media, LLC 2011

    What little recent academic analyses the Tea Party has received thus far has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements. The comparison is not flattering, as social movements that originate from the right have almost invariably been portrayed as intolerant, resentful, ignorant, and paranoid ([Bell, D. (Ed.). 1963. The radical right. New York: Criterion Books]; [Lipset, Seymour Martin. "The sources of the "Radical Right". In Daniel Bell (Ed.), The radical right]; [Hofstadter, Richard. "The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt". In Daniel Bell (Ed.), The radical right, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, 1965).... However tempting it may be to lump the Tea Party together with characterizations of earlier social movements of the “radical right,” a careful and objective comparison evinces few similarities. Moreover, the comparison with previous populist movements hides more than it reveals about the political nature of the Tea Party and the current state of American politics."

Comments:
It is clear that the author is claiming that recent scholarship places the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right, as originally defined in Daniel Bell's book The Radical Right, although he himself opposes that categorization. The fact that different writers disagree over terminology is irrelevant. The Wikipedia article "Radical Right" clearly explains the differences in the use of terminology and it is about a general topic, not a specific term.

TFD (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Unfortunately, this grossly misrepresents the issues.

[3] shows the material TFD is trying to add. With the misleading edit summary of The source, which is fairly brief, uses term 12 times, as well as synonyms

The problem is that the only mention in the article (noting that the cite does not even give any page number etc. at all) is:

However tempting it may be to lump the Tea Party together with characterizations of earlier social movements of the “radical right,” a careful and objective comparison evinces few similarities.

How one can claim that this is sufficient in any way to state in Wikipedia's voice that the Tea Party Movement is Radical Right is beyond me, when the author specifically says it is not "Radical Right". It is quite like using "John Doe is not a Gnarphisyt" in a source to then add in his BLP "John Doe is a Gnarphist." It is an abuse of the source utterly and completely to turn what the author states on its head - and then make the claim in Wikipedia's voice. And saying that "the author uses synonyms for radical right even though he has said it is not radical right means that we can say it is radical right" is Humpty-Dumptyism of the first water. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I was using the HTML version that does not have page numbers, but in the PDF version it is on p. 43.[4] of "SYMPOSIUM: THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL CONSERVATISM". The full article runs from p. 43-53. The edit does not "state in Wikipedia's voice that the Tea Party movement is Radical Right" - its says, "Recent scholarship tends to place the Tea Party Movement within the tradition of the radical right". Notice also the use of such terms as "is seen as" and "has described it as" and the use of a direct quote. Whether or not I should have explained the author's personal opinions is a matter of weight. We are supposed to give more weight to mainstream views which, according to the author, is that the Tea Party Movement is in the tradition of the radical right. If other views deserve to be included, we need sources explaining the degree of acceptance they have received. Incidentally your quotes and links are redundant - they are provided at the top of the discussion thread. TFD (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
And you did not even link to the HTML version - just left a blacklink entirely. Good idea - not. Especially when using topsy-turvy-day logic about what the source supports. When reversing what an author says, it rarely pays to insist otherwise where others can see the problem. And assigning the OPPOSITE meaning to an author does not mean you get to assign it extra weight. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Click on "The Tea 'Party as a Conservative Social Movement" above - it links directly to the HTML version. TFD (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
In order to avoid confusion, you probably should have labelled the link as "CLICK HERE". — goethean ॐ 14:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dorjee Sun

This may be more of a formality, but there's a critter named after Dorjee Sun which was mentioned in several publications (and in the article). However the species has not been described biologically (in the professional literature, in accordance with usual taxonomic rules), which is required to assign it a Latin name. No one disputes those facts, however there's no publication saying "it is not a legitimate name." I find myself in a rather peculiar position of asking an editor to produce a citation to demonstrate no citation exists. It is not a dispute in the sense that anyone disputes the facts, but I was curious how editors here might deal with this. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sexual Selection

A few years ago, I published a couple of alternatives to the current theories in sexual selection in peer-reviewed journals. I added a brief paragraph to the WP article on sexual selection describing those articles, but other editors have said it violates guidelines on originality, because at one point I used the world "original" to mean innovative, non-derivative. My understanding is that WP "originality" specifically means work that is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Please clarify for us. Thanks.--BooksXYZ (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem, from what I can gather from the article talk page, isn't that your theory is 'original research' by our definition (it has been published in peer-reviewed journals). The problem is that your theory has attracted almost no attention from the relevant scientific community. To include it in the article would thus be to apply undue weight to it. Wikipedia isn't a forum for the promotion of new and unaccepted theories. Our article on sexual selection will cover the topic as is currently justified by mainstream scientific assessments. This is an encyclopaedia, and we cannot possibly list every published paper on a topic in an article. Instead, we rely on secondary sources to give us guidance on the general scope of the topic, and only cite primary sources (which is what your articles are), if this is relevant - usually because they are seen as particularly significant in some way. Without evidence for this significance, inclusion of your articles is undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Andy, thanks. As I read it, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources but allows primary ones: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia..." [italics mine, obviously]. Once an article has been accepted and published in main stream peer-reviewed journals, then obviously it has attracted attention from the relevant scientific community, and it is no longer "unaccepted." It may, however, may still be controversial; to quote a writer I like, "Without Contraries is no progression." (Actually, I was surprised to see that quote on your page.) Is there a guideline that clarifies this? Also, see my comments on the other page.--BooksXYZ (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
"Once an article has been accepted and published in main stream peer-reviewed journals, then obviously it has attracted attention from the relevant scientific community". Er, no. A great deal of what gets published seems to be read by hardly anyone - the only way one say whether an article has 'attracted attention' is through evidence - which is almost always in the form of citations. For your theory to even rank as 'controversial' one would have to see evidence of a controversy. As for me quoting Blake on my talk page, I admire him as a poet, but I wouldn't trust an encyclopaedia written by him ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Andy, thanks for the comments, I gave a lot of thought to them. Two comments/questions: 1) If I understand you and the rule, the problem with the research isn't under the guideline against original research, right? 2) Is there some published WP guideline for deciding when peer-reviewed research should or shouldn't be included?
Thanks in advance for your input.--BooksXYZ (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Generally, once it's discussed in reliable, third party sources. The scientific journal would be considered a primary source, not a good basis for an article. Really, you need to wait until your papers are discussed by others in their own papers, or in more mainstream media. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

List of biggest box office bombs

As far as I can tell, this List of biggest box office bombs has been compiled through original research; the net loss required to be called a "box office bomb" is not clear, and seems to be an arbitrary cut-off defined by the editors. I see the desire for a short list of the biggest flops included in the article Box office bomb, but the "statistics" section at the end (which is based off of the Wikipedia list) appears to be purely original research. I've tried removing the BLP violations, but I suspect that the entire "statistics" section should be cut, most of the list trimmed, and the remaining short-list merged into Box office bomb. Do others agree, or have other thoughts? Mlm42 (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, some news organization are citing this Wikipedia list for their information. Due to the press generated around the John Carter film, I suspect this list will been quoted often in the near future. Mlm42 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


There is no original research in this article. All information provided is based on specific references, and all films of the list are considered as box office bombs according to the box office bomb definition of the article box office bomb. All compromises for the Net loses have also been well defined in the article. Regarding “statistics” it gets all its information from Wikipedia articles of the films found in the list and no other external sources are used. In other words the list itself is the source of this info. Therefore there is no original research either.Clicklander (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The article was almost entirely written by Clicklander. Could an experienced editor please comment or help out here? Mlm42 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe try asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Box office bombs? Vague, unencyclopedic title. "List of films by net loss" or something similar would be more appropriate. And since the article ignores foreign and independent films, the title should specify it is a list of US-only, major studio releases. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Geekologie

The following paragraph contains information which I believe constitutes original research on the part of the original poster of the information (not to mention it just looks trashy):

Weblog

Geekologie is updated multiple times a day with articles on gadgets, video games, consumer electronics and popular culture related to games and movies. The identity of the writer behind the weblog has never been identified, instead only referred to as "Geekologie Writer." typically referred to as "GW"[2][3] Despite this enigmatic persona, some clues have come to light about his identity. In his 10,000th post, GW links to another blog saying "Thanks to everyone who made this journey possible...one very, VERY special little lady..." embedding a link to http://cocoalikesthis.com/ in the words "special little lady".[6] That blog is written by an author who claims to "live in Hollywood, CA with j, who is the King of the Internets..." leading some to speculate that the GW name likely begins with the letter J.[7] This blog links to a twitter "following" page, where one of the 20 accounts being followed is "Jonathan Berisford". Online photos of Mr. Berisford match those previously published on geekologie.com. The LinkedIn profile for Jonathan Berisford lists Virginia Tech as "Education" (the GW has made numerous references to Virginia Tech) as well as listing the Twitter account as "geekologie". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.20.154 (talk • contribs)

I did a cleanup of the OR. The article had quite a bit of uncited personal observations. Not sure why: there's plenty of content from the existing reliable sources that could be summarized and added to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Manly Palmer Hall - am I wrong reverting some edits here?

I removed some material from Manly Palmer Hall which the editor said was the result of their own work.[5] Note that I seem to have left some similar material there, an error but only if I was right in removing what I removed. The editor who added it has asked me about my removal and I thought I should bring it here.

On my talk page, he sais "You recently removed some entries in which I quoted some materials from different editions of The Secret Teachings of All Ages, on grounds that it constituted personal research. With respect, this seemed odd because the materials I posted were largely quoted from the books themselves, and I identified each of them by Edition and Copy Number. My intentions in posting the information was to assist interested users in distinguishing features unique to two of the editions. In one case, I own a copy of the Edition from which information was quoted; and in the other case, I obtained the information (a copy of the pertinent page) directly from the Librarian of the Philosophical Research Society. In reading the rules, I understand the importance of sourcing, and in these instances the materials I posted were taken directly from, and attributed to, copies of the different Editions themselves. I'd appreciate it if you would be kind enough to reconsider the removals on the basis of the foregoing; however, I am not an expert at Wikipedia and only occasionally make specific contributions when I think the materials are of genuine interest, and I have published sources as evidence. Thank you." I'll tell him about this post. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR for his filibuster, but the whole edition and copy number deal is probably the most original research I've seen on this site ever. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Stereotypes of white people

Hi.

I removed some content added to the above article which I thought was OR and probably unverifiable (diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotypes_of_white_people&diff=485345536&oldid=484807424). Looking through the history, the addition of unsourced negative outlooks on white people has been a persistent problem with this article. I think it is likely the editor will come back and contest my revert, and I wanted to get people's opinion on the material in question. Here it is:

A common stereotype held by various African-American, Hispanic-American and Native American communities in U.S is that White people are generally clueless -- or, at least, don't care -- about personal hygiene. One of the most prominent stereotypes is that White people tend not to wash their hands very much, if at all. Another common stereotype is that White people do not wash or clean themselves and that even when they try to do so that they are incapable of properly doing so. A popular origin story for these stereotypes is that of the first impressions Native Americans had of Puritan refugees from England when they first came into contact with each other and that the natives had to teach those refugees basic hygiene techniques so that they would be able to clean themselves.

The stereotype of the fearful, cowardly White man and woman is also extremely prominent and held by many different minority communities in the Western World. Both White men and women are seen to be without backbone and frightened by the prospect of coming into contact with non-White person. White men are considered to have a chronic, almost obsessive fear of Black men because of their perceived sexual potency and prowess, physical strength and aggression, their ability to "steal our women" and certain bestial-like qualities. These stereotypes have a strong historical basis from racist propaganda spread during the 19th and early 20th century about Black people by racist organizations-- in particular, the Ku Klux Klan. White women are also considered to be "easy lays" (aka sexually promiscuous) and they will always go for "dark meat" over White men.

White people are also considered to be generally ignorant of the wider world and how people of other cultures and ethnicities live. A common related stereotype is that White people are not just ignorant of the wider world because of reason such as poor education and minimal exposure to other peoples but because they choose to be, usually out of a sense of fear, arrogance or racism. White people are generally considered to be "dumb" when it comes to social interaction on a level greater than their immediate circles and comfort zones (a most recent Internet meme portraying archetypcial examples of how young White women relate to friends of a minority ethnicity the world over) and that they have no real understanding of how the wider world works, especially for those who are economically and socially middle-class and above. They also considered to be incapable of properly raising children, with a significant minority endangering their children in various ways.

White people are considered to have a serious problem with sexual deviancy and psychopathy. Both White men and women are considered to have sexual desires and attitudes that are bizarre, fetishistic and oftentimes illegal and/or immoral. A widely held notion of this stereotype is that White men like to rape people of minority ethnicity, particularly African-American and Asian-American women. This has a historical basis in the treatment of African slaves on plantations by White slavemasters and highly racist and segregated era of the 19th and early 20th century in the United States, as well as the treatment of East Asian women overseas in Vietnam, China and Japan as well as in the U.S by White males. White males are considered to represent an alarmingly large proportions of men reported, charged and convicted of sexual crimes involving minors as well as a significant proportion of pedophiles in the U.S, Canada and the UK. Many of the most notorious and widely known cases of this kind were perpetrated and carried out by White males, such as Peter Woodcock, Wayne Garcey and Collin Hatch.

82.32.22.139 (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly unsourced original research and you're acting appropriately to delete it. Davidwhittle (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Shiatsu

This article seems to be 90% original research. I have also raised this topic on Fringe/n since the bulk of the OR deals with a pseudo-scientific medical treatment. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There's tons of books about it and Google scholar [6] comes up with over eight thousand hits of which I'm quite sure a number are about studies of its effacity or not if you want anything along those lines. There seems to be stuff which has not been cited, I don't see why it is counted as original research though. I would definitely put citation needed on any specific medical claims and then remove them if no citation can be found reasonably quickly. Dmcq (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Glenn Beck#Religious

Davidwhittle (talk · contribs) has asserted that the Religious influences section of the Glenn Beck article is original research, even though (as far as I can find) the section at no point says anything the cited sources do not outright say. He says that "The bulk of the section on Religious (Influences) is comprised of pointless speculation," and continues to assert that "Opinions of others about Beck's religious leadership (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant" even though I have explained that "The section mostly consists of secondary sources instead of primary sources. Sticking mostly with what Beck says would open up the door to original research. The "pointless" speculation is (for us) unoriginal research."

Am I wrong here? The most I could see is perhaps retitling the section. All the material given appears to be supported by the sources, and does not combine sources to reach any novel conclusions. I'm inclined to believe this editor does not understand what OR and may be editing with an agenda, based on this tagbombing series of edits and this edit refering to the LDS Church as "The Church." Ian.thomson (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, since you ask, you're wrong because you're not addressing the basic problem. You should be more careful when you paraphrase my arguments, because you did a poor job of representing them. First, I did not assert that the "section" is original research - only the latter parts that talk about Beck's "religious leadership" and difficulty in getting Evangelicals to go along with it and meeting with Graham. The first couple of paragraphs isn't under discussion, because it's fair to point to Beck's Mormonism as being an influence. But the whole argument made in the later half of the section is a meandering, pointless collection of matters seemingly unrelated to religious influences on Beck. How have those things influenced Beck? What encyclopedic reason is there for including the whole thing, including the meeting with Graham, when there is no reference to how it influenced Beck? And re-titling the section won't help, because it's part of a larger section titled "influences." Yes, everything there is sourced, but the combined effect is to leave one wondering what influence on Beck is being asserted by the collection of opinions about Becks Mormonism and its affect on HIS ability to influence others (which are WP:COATRACK issues having nothing to do with Religious Influences on Beck). It seems to me that the attempt is to simply connect Beck to anything religious ever mentioned, with no thematic aim except by inference - which constitutes either WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:NOR.
And your attempt to assert an agenda-driven presence for me that does not exist could be construed as a personal attack, especially given the quantity of inaccurate and biased material present here and elsewhere about Mormons and the fact that I make no attempt to conceal my extensive expertise on Mormon issues on my user page. You seem to presume that a Mormon can't be trusted to make honest edits to correct problems with NPOV that a Mormon can most easily recognize. Where's your presumption of good faith? Davidwhittle (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Here you insert OR and synthesis tags for the entire section, here you reinsert them, and here you say "Beck is a religious leader? Most of the Religious section is a synthesis of original research attempting to prove that absurdity". If you only meant that the last section is questionable, you should not have said that all or most of the section is original research, which you did indeed do. As far as I've found, each statement is directly supported by its sources, and you admit this is so. Any implications you are imagining are your problem, not original research contained in the article. Again, retitling would help, just retitle "Ideological influences" section to "Ideology."
Actually read WP:SYN, synthesis is taking multiple sources and reaching a point that they do not advocate. Discussing a variety of issues under the theme of religion does not qualify as synthesis.
Second, I never attacked you, I presented edits that show some issue in editing. There are plenty of other Mormon editors who do not engage in the sort of behavior you have, and I leave them alone; likewise there are plenty of non-Mormon editors who behave similar to you and in time I reported them. It's odd that you're not making any similar objections about the Political and Historical section of the Ideological influences section either, which kinda indicates that this is a religious issue, not one of article content. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
What behavior are you talking about? Trying to improve Wikipedia is considered bad behavior? And how do you draw attention to only one portion of the article, except in Talk, which I clearly did. Your failure to read or understand my assertions does not constitute bad behavior on my part. And we need additional opinions, because you're simply not understanding my clearly written points. The reason I'm not making objections to any other part of the article is because I can't boil the ocean. I focus on the things I know enough about to defend. And of course it's a religious issue because that's the section title - you're clearly out of line to continue your attempt to question and cast aspersions on my motives in direct violation of WP:AGF. Davidwhittle (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
As I showed in an earlier post, you give the LDS church primacy in one article, and tagbomb another article that clashes with LDS views. Assuming good faith means I wait until evidence is presented before raising the issue of potential bias. WP:AGF is not a shield against all correction.
You did not draw attention to one portion in talk, you started with "Religious section is a mess," "The bulk of the section on Religious (Influences) is comprised of pointless speculation. Just because something can be sourced doesn't make it encyclopedic. This section should be reduced to a paragraph or two at most." and have only worked your way down to this because you have been proven wrong about OR in the section. If you meant this one section originally, you should have said so, but you didn't until your attempts to tag the whole section was discounted. I have retitled the "Ideological influences" section with the more general "Ideology," which eliminates any issue of direction.
If WP:AGF meant that we are never allowed to point out problems with other editors' actions, WP:RFCU and WP:AIV would always be empty. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Radical Right

Page: Radical Right (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article section:' Radical Right#Tea Party

In a recent paper, Richard Courser begins, "What little recent academic analyses the Tea Party has received thus far has attempted to place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements. The comparison is not flattering, as social movements that originate from the right have almost invariably been portrayed as intolerant, resentful, ignorant, and paranoid (Bell 1963; Lipset 1955; Hofstadter 1955, 1965)".[7] He identifies the sources in brackets as Daniel Bell's 1963 book. The radical right, two 1955 articles by Seymour Martin Lipset and Richard Hofstadter included in that book and Hofstadter's 1965 collection of essays which includes his 1955 article. Much of the paper is devoted to discussing these writings.

Is it synthesis to conclude that Courser is referring to the writing by Bell, Lipset and Hofstadter when he says "past scholarly work"?

TFD (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


Already being discussed at the article, and has already been discussed on three other noticeboards AFAICT. All with results TFD does not like. Namely - that the article by Courser should use what Courser writes, and saying he must mean the Tea Party movement is "radical right" because Courser refers to books from the 60s with "Radical Right" in their title does not change the requirement to use what the author writes about the TPM in the 2010s. Read the article talk page, but this part is simply forumshopping. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with Collect, and in the interests of other editors will respond at User talk:Collect#NORN TFD (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As you have at each and every discussion on this. You are consistent in the belief that Courser, since he refers to books with "Radical Right" in their titles is automatically associating the TPM with the "Radical Right." Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with Collect, and in the interests of other editors will respond at User talk:Collect#NORN. TFD (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Collect. To associate the Tea Party - a huge amorphous mass of individuals of all political stripes, united by little more than a belief in less government and less debt, which group by any account largely drove the outcome of the elections of 2010 - with the Radical Right is agenda-driven, especially when you struggle to find even one reference. Davidwhittle (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
There are numerous sources that describe the Tea Party as "radical right".
  1. "This article['s] aim is to show that the Tea Party is a genuine right-wing movement... which revives particular American traditions of conservatism and the radical right."[8] Minkenberg, Michael. "The Tea Party and American Populism Today: Between Protest, Patriotism and Paranoia". DMS
  2. "In the past two decades, European politics have witnessed the transformation of populist radical right parties from the margins to the mainstream.... not a political party, the rise of the Tea Party movement in the United States has created a surge of right-wing populism and has taken on many commonalities with European right-wing populist party agendas."[9] Aylward, Meagan Ashley. "The rise of the Tea Party movement and Western European right-wing populist parties: A comparative analysis". University of North Carolina, 2011
  3. "Now, after the rise of the radical right Tea Party movement..."[10] Anstead, Nick and Straw, Will. "Two years on, does Obama’s election win still hold lessons for Ed Miliband’s Labour party, in austerity Britain?". British Politics and Policy at London School of Economics, 03 Dec 2010)
  4. "...radical politics is often being practised most successfully by radical Right movements and parties. This is the case if one considers... the Tea Party in the US...."[11] Bruff, Ian. "Authoritarian Neoliberalism, the Occupy Movements, and IPE", Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies, Issue 5, 2012
Still more place it within the context of past scholarly work on conservative social movements. e.g., Sean Wilentz, Robert Altemeyer, Chip Berlet. TFD (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Mining again? First sourse abstract states: Its aim is to show that the Tea Party is a genuine right-wing movement with strong affinities to the Republican Party which revives particular American traditions of conservatism and the radical right. IOW, it does not state that the Tea Party is "Radical Right" even in its abstract. Second "source" states in its abstract: Many countries in Western Europe, such as France and Austria, have strong right-wing populist parties that have influenced their national governments by forming governing coalitions and agitating political agendas. Although not a political party, the rise of the Tea Party movement in the United States has created a surge of right-wing populism and has taken on many commonalities with European right-wing populist party agendas. No statement that te TPM is "Radical Right". Third "sourse" is Labour’s key challenge still remains to let go of its top-down, monolithic structures, in order to reach out to millions of new supporters and once again lead progressive politics in Britain. -- That is, a political manifesto of all things, and not a study of the TPM except to namecall it. Its text, moreover, states :The rise of the Tea Party movement clearly demonstrated that the US left has no monopoly on social-movement style party politics, and that opposition to state intervention has mobilized voters too. Thus it says (other than in the preamble, states that the TPM is a social-movement style movement. The Tea Party’s success must not be used as an argument against progressives adopting more open structures of political organizing – instead it double underlines how vital it is to move away from anachronistic organizational structures and cultures. reinforces the paper as a progressive manifesto, and not a scholarly view of the TPM. The fourth "source" risibly presented makes no specific claim that the TPM is radical right Unless, one thinks As things stand, the crisis has ambiguous implications for radical/progressive politics of the Left, not least because radical politics is often being practised most successfully by radical Right movements andparties. is a "scholarly indictment" of the TPM LOL! Sorry -- but you are beating a dead horse again. Collect (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with Collect, and in the interests of other editors will respond at User talk:Collect#NORN. TFD (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You brought this here, please respond here or remove this thread. Arkon (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) Of all things, TFD [12] accuses me of not responding! (However you have not addressed the question at the noticeboard) BTW, my UT page is not a place for him to cluter up with an issue he raised. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit says that source doesn't directly mention subject of article

At Jebusite this edit [13] says "While not directly mentioning the Jebusites genetic research has noted that Palestinians (specifically Palestinian Muslim Arabs) largely descend from converted Christians and Jews who have lived in the area since what the researchers state as prehistoric times (which would include in Canaanite times)." I'd reverted something similar earlier and asked the editor not to replace it but to go here if they thought this wasn't original research, but they chose to replace it again. Struggling a bit with this editor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

George Washington and religion

Please see George Washington and religion for a POV/OR dispute over whether George Washington was a deist. The debate centers on both WP:NPOV issues and WP:NOR issues. Third party opinions are needed. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

iPad (3rd Generation) source reliability and original research dispute

This issue is being appeal from this board which was escalated from this article upon the advice of an editor contributing in the the dispute resolution noticeboard.

The source in question are all sources claiming LTE is 4G and Apple itself claiming that LTE is 4G. I have a source directly refuting the idea of LTE being classified as 4G 1 and numerous other sources stating quoting from the International Telecommunications Union stating that LTE must be able to transfer over 1gbit/s to be considered 4G which LTE cannot do. The result of this is a contradiction between the 4G article and articles labelling the LTE protocol as 4G. The telecommunications union decides the fate of whether a protocol is 4G as they are the ones that set forth requirements and standardised protocol classifications. (2g, 3g, 4g). 4G in this case is used as a marketing term by companies that manufacture and market electronic products although this claim can be considered speculative because I don't have a source referencing this. I feel urged to file a case here as I am certain that this issue will be raised again as mobile carriers frequently market their HSDP+ and LTE networks as 4G despite not meeting the requirements so my main goal here is to set a precedent. The case is being appealed to this board because administrators on the other board claim that my references constitute as WP:OR which is true according to the original research guideline but that does not discredit my argument as references from reputable sources have been provided and a link between these sources can be establish to substantiate my claim in the article.

Sources in question

Disputed article

iPad (3rd generation) is the article that requires examining as it contradicts the 4G article in regards to the classification of LTE.

Previous discussions

Dispute resolution board and iPad (3rd generation) talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuMaNuMa (talk • contribs)

The bottom line is that your sources need to discuss whether the iPad is 4G or not. Combining sources that say LTE is not 4G with sources that say that the new iPad uses LTE is against our policy of no original research. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Your first 3 sources don't even mention the iPad and the 4th source doesn't say anything about the iPad not being 4G. Combining unrelated sources to reach a novel conclusion is WP:OR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
My point is that the first 3 sources are contradicting the apple source despite not explicitly mentioning the new iPad, shouldn't there be some sort of exemption to the rule? It's quite clear in the first 3 sources that I've provided that lte is not classified as 4G which direct refutes apple's claim that it is. These sources directly quote the international telecommunication union which regulates international wireless standards including 3G and 4G. Pretty much all I'm saying is that there is a conflict of sources and content, which renders three articles in relations to the iPad, LTE and 4G in general, conflictory. I would like to get a few more opinions and comments before settling this case. If I'm not mistaken, I think this is the first time someone has disputed LTE being classified as 4G so thus is would serve as a precedent for future 4G and LTE disputes. YuMaNuMa Contrib 16:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I remember reading something about the ITU accepting the use of 4G in businesses marketing LTE products (even though LTE could be described as so-called 3.9G technology), as LTE is the directly related lead-in technology to the full LTE-Advanced technology (LTE-A meeting the original ITU spec for 4G of 1Gbps). Sorry can't find it, and little time to, but I suggest you attempt to research further this point before claiming Apple is "wrong" to use it here. Companies marketing usage can be valid —even without meeting the official specification— if the ITU standards body have accepted it to be so. --Jimthing (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The argument JimThing has raised is valid and justifies the conclusion of this NOR case. Full results of the discussion and conclusion is located here. YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Porky's Five and Ten

Hi, just set out to become a new page patroller and have already encountered plenty of thorny questions, this article was created by copy pasting another cartoon article, not a problem, I just updated the no refs tag, but I think that the writer is literally watching the cartoon and writing the action step-by-step. This is a 7 minute short and there are paragraphs and paragraphs of plot, with a lot of wierd stuff thrown in about Greta Garbo and mustachioed fish. I don't know if this qualifies as OR, could someone take a look, maybe prune it down and have a quiet word with the enthusiastic editor? Thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Maurice Gibb pronunciation

Growing up as an American in the '70's, I was more than dimly aware of the popularity of the Bee Gees. I love 'em! I read the liner notes of the albums, but as a "thick" American with no exposure to international news outlets, I always thought that Maurice Gibb's name was pronounced "More-eece" (deferring to the French in regards to pronunciation). But it's pronounced as "Morris" in reality, and always has been. How do I introduce the correct pronunciation into the article when I can't find anything that is printed that actually makes this distinction? I would feel "weird" just putting a phonetic translation without something to reference it to, but I would also hate to see anyone else make the same mistake I always have. Any suggestions besides IAR? Doc talk 10:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the title as 'question' here has virtually zero information content.
I had a quick look and on youtube [14] near the beginning you can hear it being pronounced wrong by the presenter and being corrected. Youtube has problems in Wikipedia but for something like this it seems like a pretty reliable source to me. Dmcq (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

YouTube is actually the only source that I've seen that backs up the correct pronunciation (especially when it comes to interviews with the brothers), but we've got to be careful about copyright with that site. This seems to be the official channel, and I'll look for a clip there. Good call with the YouTube! Cheers :> Doc talk 10:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright is no problem if we're just citing it and the site has it legally. Dmcq (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire

This article seems to include a great deal of original research. I'm also skeptical of whether it satisfies WP:SCH since none of the links provided suggest any enduring notability or even a trivial mention in secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't see any evidence for above. Article seems cited and mostly secondary sources to me. isfutile:P (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No Article Yet

I have a general question about OR and primary sources, which has not yet been applied to an article. If this isn't a good place to ask, please let me know where would be better. Here is the situation. Facts about an event in the past (1955) have been written in several secondary sources, (Published reference books, magazine articles) although they all relate a first person account, and nothing recent (past 1972) has been published. There has never been a published claim that these facts are not true. Now, certain WP editors claim that the facts presented in these sources are not true and that the person who authored these accounts is lying. There is no actual proof of this however.

In the mean time, I have tracked down the original person who was interviewed for these secondary sources, and have a chance to interview them myself, to confirm the facts from the secondary sources. Because this interview would be used only to establish that this person did indeed do what they claimed in the secondary source, with no interpretation, is this type of this allowed? Is it OR to confirm what the secondary sources say? The interview, which I plan to record would be a primary source, so could it be used for just establishing if the event did or did not happen? There is no reason to think that the person is or was lying, but is this an acceptable means to calm doubting editors? (Whose qualms seem to be mostly based on personal bias, but regardless, it would be nice to know.) Because the event was witnessed by only 2 people in the world, it seems to me that this is an acceptable thing. Please let me know what others think. pschemp | talk 16:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I also need to add that the person I can interview is not the person who is the source the original articles. The two were traveling together, the event happened and the 1st is the source of the published information. The second, whom I will speak with was a witness, but not the source of the first person articles or interviews. pschemp | talk 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There are too many hypotheticals here to give a meaningful answer, but on the face of it, that seems to me to be WP:OR. It isn't Wikipedia editors job to ascertain whether things are 'true' or not by conducting interviews. I suppose to some extent it depends rather on what it is that is in question though. If somebody is claiming to have seen a unicorn, one would clearly be more concerned with such issues than one would if it was over some minor detail. I think you'll have to be more explicit in regard to what exactly you are trying to verify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Simple answer: Yes, your interview is OR...
More complex answer: a certain degree of OR is allowed on talk pages, especially when it relates to a discussion as to whether a give source should be considered reliable or not. You can not add any information you obtained from the interview to the article itself... but you can certainly discuss the interview on the talk page to either question or confirm something that was said in a published source, and to reach a consensus on whether what was said in the published source should be included in the article or not. The outcome of that discussion (ie what the consensus will be) depends on the specifics (and as Andy has already noted, for us to say anything more, we would need to know those specifics). Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, the detail in question is a location, a minor detail and not an extraordinary or difficult to believe claim. In the secondary literature, the people who have witnessed the event said that it took place in a certain location. An editor who is unhappy with the political implications of the event taking place at the location simply insists that the witnesses were wrong or are lying, but there is no real reason to doubt that detail, and no research or citations to back the assertion of untruth. So if I'm reading your answers correctly, the interview could be used to help establish reliability of the published literature? Also, is it really OR if I just get the witnesses to restate what they already said in other published sources? It wouldn't be a new fact. Last, if as Andy has said it isn't editors' job to ascertain what is true, is the opposite correct, that it isn't our job to ascertain what is untrue (assuming no sources in the world also claim untruth)? pschemp | talk 14:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for snooping, but it's much easier to deal in specifics rather than generalities. If the article in question is Turkish Van, then the editor who argues that the reliable secondary sources reporting that Lushington acquired the cats in the Lake Van area of Turkey [15] are actually wrong or erroneous needs to cite some equally reliable secondary sources that explicitly support that position. You don't need to conduct interviews with witnesses to resolve this issue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
This is about cats? How can there be 'political implications' regarding cats? Cats don't involve themselves in politics - they have more sense... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
You'll have to ask Meowy about that. Claiming that Turkish Vans come from the Lake Van Area of Turkey threatens her Turkishness somehow. She's ranted for years about this. pschemp | talk 19:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The cats are innocent victims of the schemes of humans. This is about one person (Lushington, a cat breeder in the 1960s) seeming to say two different things. In third-party sources, mostly amateurish cat-fancier literature from the 1980s, the cats come from the Lake Van region, but in earlier sources, from the 1960s, in particular those written by Lushington (and before she started to call them "Turkish Vans") she is very vague as to their origin and her words imply that she got the cats from everywhere in Turkey but Van (and, significantly, she NEVER actually states that she got them from Van). But really, pschemp, are you actually saying that the only reason to find out the facts about something is if those facts can be used in Wikipedia? You should be wanting to ask this person the questions to gain knowledge for knowledge's sake, even if the resulting information is OR and cannot be used. Meowy 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
And if a person wrote that she got cats from the forests of Antartica, such an obviously dubious claim is questionable regardless of the source, and regardless if there are no sources that also question it. There are no forests in Antartica, and no lobsters or gum trees anywhere near Van! Meowy 15:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't agree that someone saying they saw a cat "curled up in a disused lobster pot" is an "obviously dubious claim" as there are many possible explanations and interpretations for it. The pot could have conceivably been a decorative antique, for example. Or better yet, the cat curled up in the pot was reportedly observed off an island on the south coast of Turkey. In any case, we can only report what reliable third party sources say about the subject. If they say she got the cats while traveling in Turkey, that's what we report. (And I see that's what the article presently says). We really can't add our own investigative analysis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The dubious claims are not that she got the cats while travelling in Turkey (that fact is accepted), but that other, later, sources claim she got them in Van, thus justifying the "Turkish Van" name. Lushington never says in any of the early sources that she got any of them in Van. I suspect the OR research that pschemp wants to do is to explain that awkward fact by talking to the woman Lushington travelled with on her first trip to Turkey. I hope she will do it, and do it with an open mind. However, pschemp is a "Turkish Van" owner, and I can't help thinking that she will have a vested interest in trying to avoid the awkward fact that thay are probably all just descended from assorted long-haired Turkish street cats that were found anywhere in Turkey but Van. Meowy 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I mistakenly thought this dispute concerned something that was *in* the present article. Now I understand: it's about a theoretical addition of content based on a theoretical interview. Never mind. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It does concern what is in the article, I don't want to add any more than is already there. The printed sources, cited in the article, all say the Ms. Lushington and Ms. Halliday stated that they got the cats in the Lake Van region, then returned on subsequent trips to get more cats form that region. Meowy doesn't like the political implications of this, for various incoherent reasons. However, Ms. Halliday is still alive, and I did talk with her, and she did restate that the cats all came from the Lake Van area. Nothing new here. However, Meowy insists on claiming that these women are lying...with no references to back it up. Perhaps Meowy would like to call up the woman and accuse her of lying to her face? (That seems to really be OR in my opinion.) SO my question stands. Is it OR if the primary source restates what the secondary source already said? (And I don't own a Van currently, I'm only interested in keeping random Turkish nationalism OUT of this article.) pschemp | talk 19:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, your phone call is still Original Research. What do the majority of secondary sources say about the subject? Do they say she got the cats "while traveling in Turkey" or "while traveling in the Lake Van area of Turkey"? Therein lies the answer to what should be in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Where does Lushington say she got the cats in the "Lake Van region"? The two 1960s articles, as I have explained on the talk page, indicate locations other than Lake Van. Turkish Van breeders, have a vested interest in maintaing the vagueness. I want to know the exact locations where these cats were obtained (not some vague "lake Van area") and I would want a description of the locations as proof that Halliday and Lushington actually were there, or some photographic evidence if any exists. That is the barest minimum any concientious investigator would ask for (and wanting such information has nothing to do with accuations of lying). Given that Pschemp has never been to that part of the world, she is not qualified to ask such questions or assess the answers. I would be willing to ask Ms Halliday these things if, with her permission, pschamp would pass on the contact information. Even though it would all be OR as far as Wikipedia is concerned, this is information that should be properly clarified while one of the eyewitnesses is still around. Meowy 17:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I find this all rather perplexing. The 1965 Lushington article linked by LuckyLouis states quite clearly that she had not been to Van when she acquired her cats: "In April 1963 I told the story of my Van cats from Turkey, and I described both how I came to own and love them, and some of their eccentricities and fascinating characteristics. Now at last I have been to Van, in Eastern Turkey, and seen with my own eyes the ancient city of Van and the glorious Lake Van." In the 1963 article she says "I first came across the Van cat about seven years ago, while I was travelling through Turkey. I was given a female in south-eastern Turkey and a male by the manager of the hotel in which I stayed in Istanbul." So there's nothing "vague" about this at all. It's absolutely clear. She was given a male and a female of a type of cat identified as "Van" cats, but only later visited Van. What's the problem? Maybe she's telling a pack of lies. Maybe it's the God's own truth, but it's fairly clear and consistent. All we need to do is report what she says. If there are other sources that contradict her, shove them in too. Here's the link to the original '63 article [16] (there's some garbling of the online text due to OCR problems, but the original scanned photographs of the pages can be read). Paul B (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced Category:Russian monarchists to biographies

I would like to ask others to comment on adding an unsourced category to several biographies when not supported by anything in the article's text.

Specifically, User:GreatOrangePumpkin has been adding Category:Russian monarchists to such articles as Dmitri Mendeleev and others. Here is what's going on:

Dmitri Mendeleev:

(edit summary: unsourced)

(edit summary: see http://books.google.de/books?id=GHDlXwAACAAJ&dq=Mendeleev+monarchist&hl=de&sa=X&ei=lF-MT4D8GI_htQbL08zrCw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA for example)

(edit summary: rv, that's a paper copy of Wikipedia articles (really - see the description in your link))

(edit summary: it was just an example. Please search on Gbooks for beginners)

(edit summary: rv, it's your job to provide a source for a claim you make -- WP:BURDEN)

(edit summary: Undid revision 488061537 by Zloyvolsheb (talk) please use google, thanks.)

The only Google Books result describing Dmitri Mendeleev as a "monarchist" is just a paper copy of Wikipedia (see search results). It seems the burden of proving a claim falls on the person making it, so that "Google it" is not a proper answer (WP:BURDEN). If GOP is so sure that the source exists, why can't he add it to the article?

I do not want to fruitlessly edit war over this, and would appreciate if someone could aid in the process of dispute resolution. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is an apparently controversial issue. It's not obvious that someone who is known for all sorts of chemistry discoveries and conversely whose article makes zero mention of any sort of monarchist-related activities would be included here. This categorization is a strong factual claim unsupported by the article or simple steps of logic from cited and known material, and therefore does require a cite. It's more problematic that an editor has refused to do so and plowed ahead more while brushing off WP:V policy. "You can find it on google" and then having his own result of that strongly disproven as WP:RS (a fact he does not dispute)--WP:BURDEN indeed. If that's really his best evidence, that's definitely not enough. Per your talk-page, "There are many articles which do not cite the categories," that is not the issue here (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)--uncovering unsourced and not-obvious content is a problem to be solved, not an excuse to make more problems like it. Conversely, here would be an opportunity to make your content stand out as being WP:V unlike those other claims. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Each biography that is so categorized must describe how the person is a Russian monarchist, with a cite. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

New evidence in Underground Railroad quilt code controversy

I have a dilemma in that I have original research, so much in fact that I wrote a book covering the material.( see "The Content of Their Character" Trafford Publishing 2009) I must admit that I have this book as an item to promote and this is not generally acceptable for Wikipedia, but there is no other way for this original research material to be presented systematically. Beside that there is no one else to present it accurately. The controversial Underground Railroad Quilt code is a thorny subject for historians. A bit of notoriety developed in 1999 when authors Raymond Dobard and Jaqueline Tobin wrote a book about the subject "Hidden in Plain View". This started a vehement response from established academics who considered their work amateurish and woefully undocumented.

That sets the stage for my dilemma, as I try to present valid arguments in favor of a code with the field having been marred some what by what these authors have instigated. I have material that has no association with that book but nonetheless reveals quite a bit of the documented history of a family of fugitive slaves that lived beyond the Civil war era to settle in a predominantly Black village in Ohio. They created a quilt in 1877 which has been erroneously labeled a "crazy quilt" which was a popular fad at the time. I have consulted numerous textile experts and historians while writing this book. There is a point of departure of this quilt from the norm of crazy quilts that can be readily defined. The book demonstrates the coding method that is present on this quilt and reveals a very systematic method of construction. The code can only be held in relation to the Underground Railroad by consideration of the fact that the makers of the quilt where documented in 1861 as fugitive slaves and if anyone would have knowledge of such an Underground Railroad code, it would be these folks. Having been made long after the Civil war and slavery, the quilt served not as a slave device but possibly served some communal function to Blacks attempting to survive in the Reconstruction era. More research is needed to establish this function. I have produced a brief video on the subject here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSnGimgonAQ The provenance of the quilt been established. It still exists in fine condition and is available for museum display. The code is there for those who wish to investigate the phenomenon.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.206.195 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 April 2012

Since the work is published outside of Wikipedia, it would technically be an issue of reliability rather than one of originality. However, Trafford Publishing is not generally considered reliable, so the material would most likely be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It is original research and you need to get it published in reliable sources before it can be included here. TFD (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree that the research must be published before it is brought into Wikipedia. The WP:NOR policy applies here. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

An editor wants to include in the Eurabia article a sentence stating that use of the word "Eurabia" increased as a result of Anders Behring Breivik using it in his manifesto. He wants to cite Google Trends as proof/source. I've argued that that is original research. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Google Trends is no good for this. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that would be OR. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit of a narrow question to ask, though. Google trends is not a reliable source and the specific wording proposed should not be used, but it is not the only source linking Breivik to the concept "Eurabia".
Look what happens to come up top in a Google search, BTW: [23]. Formerip (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit of a narrow question because it's about a specific sentence/claim that editors want to include in the article. Jayjg (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ranch to Market Road 187

Is this sort of thing original research? [24]
Source A talks about the making of a film, mentioning some locations. It has mention of a road that appeared in the film.
Source B is Google maps which can show locations. It has no mention of any film.
These two sources were used to say that the road is used in the film. "It is not WP:OR to cross reference a filming location (the exterior of the garage and restaurant in this case) with its address on Google Maps to derive that the filming location is on Main Street, which also happens to be RM 187" [25]
The opposing veiw tagged both sources (originally just source A) with failed verification as neither stated what was claimed and called the section original research. "That sort of cross referencing is original synthesis. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."" [26]
Is it okay to expect readers to do their own research to verify what is written? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Rankings of universities in the United Kingdom

Hello again! I'm back with another data question. Simply this time, would it be OR to include the table below in the article Rankings of universities in the United Kingdom?

RANK (1-5) AVERAGE UNIVERSITY RANK (6-10) AVERAGE UNIVERSITY RANK (11-15) AVERAGE UNIVERSITY
1 1.3 University of Cambridge 6 6.3 University College London =10 10.8 University of Lancaster
2 2.0 University of Oxford 7 7.0 University of Warwick 12 13.3 University of York
3 3.3 London School of Economics 8 8.0 Imperial College London 13 13.5 Loughborough University
=4 5.5 Durham University 9 10.3 University of Bath 14 14.8 University of Bristol
=4 5.5 University of St Andrews =10 10.8 University of Exeter 15 16.3 University of Sussex

As you can see in the article, there are four different University ranking tables. All the table above does is take the average of the four rankings for each university and sort them by that average. The maths is very easy to check, you could look up, for example, to find that the University of Bath was ranked 10th, 14th, 5th and 12th in the four tables, (10+14+5+12)/4=10.3 to 1 decimal place. Any other issues I could imagine coming up: the top 15 is not an entirely arbitrary number, I was originally going to do the top 10 but as you can see there was a draw for 10th place. Doing 15 also keeps the three-column format of the rest of the tables. Doing many more would begin to bring in problems with universities being on only 3 of the 4 tables. The format for draws follows the same in the article, the universities are ordered in alphabetical order.

Anyway, I would like to think this falls under WP:CALC, but I just wanted to be sure. Full disclosure: I have actually reverted someone adding this table in the past, however they didn't give any evidence of the calculations as I did and they also didn't show the draws properly. I've been meaning to get back to this for some time, so here it is.--23230 talk 14:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's OR and synthesis because YOU have decided on the relative weights to assign to each ranking (in this case, all of equal weight), and YOU are making the assumption that the various rankings are measuring the same thing and are designed to serve the same purpose. Nice work, though, and most probably close to the truth. Sorry, but this is a little more than covered by WP:CALC. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a Wikipedia editor independently deciding that these ranking systems are all directly comparable and of equal weight such that they can simply be averaged in a meaningful way is original research. It's also poor (social) science but that's beside the point. ElKevbo (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Since the article carries the following: "Sir Alan Wilson, former Vice Chancellor of the University of Leeds argues that the final average has little significance and is like trying to ‘combine apples and oranges.", we would do well to leave such combination attempts to others. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It is OR and while it is right to show the different lists, it is OR to compare them in any way, except to report comparisons made in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Social liberal parties

Social liberalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has added a number of political parties to Social liberalism#Active social liberal parties and organizations without any sources, or by providing a link to their websites. When I removed these entries he restored them with the notation "Added all parties. General message: based on my research, all the parties I added are social liberal partes, or at least mostly. Please stop deleting my entries."[27]

When I set up a discussion thread, complaining about sourcing and also that at least some of the entries were not social liberal parties, he replied, "The articles on the parties I’ve added, together with the weblinks I’ve provided, provide evidence that the parties I’ve added are socially liberal."[28] However, as the article history shows, the editor has removed some of the parties he added, as he revises his opinion.

This appears to me to be a clear case of original research. Could other editors please comment.

TFD (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ken Livingstone

Ken Livingstone's article discusses that he worked for a TV channel called Press TV. This is mentioned in this BBC source, which I also used as a source to state, "The network is pro-Palestinian, anti-sanctions against Iran, and critical of Western foreign policy." Is it OR or SYN to include this description in the article.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Unless there has been some particular event that makes it specifically relevant, then it would be. Although the source mentions Livingstone, it is only doing so as background. Acid test: how significant to his life story are the specific editorial policies of Press TV and how is this shown by sources? Formerip (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
There is implied synthesis: Livingstone worked for Press, Press holds certain views, therefore Livingstone holds these views. TFD (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not invented here

Craptastic amount of wp:synthesis in the academia section. Given that the material was unsourced at one point [29], you can guess how well the sources added actually support any of that, let alone the material as a whole. (Yes, I used to have an account here, but gave up in disgust. But this article is a record even by BSopedia standards.)

Some of the references point to Wikipedia itself: an absolute no-no anyway. History2007 (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the 188.28.*.* editor is edit warring against multiple others to keep that junk in. 86.104.57.242 (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of a Hebrew name

In the Benaiah article, an editor has concluded from this reference that the name can also mean "Son of Yahweh". Is that original synthesis? StAnselm (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is Original synthesis... The source clearly implies that the name could be translated as "Son of Yahweh" (It makes a point of noting that "Ben" can mean "Son" or "Son of").
That said, the source does stop short of explicitly stating that "Benaiah" can be translated as "Son of Yahweh" ... and, more importantly, notes several scholars usually translate the name as "Built by Yahweh". Thus, for us to highlight what is an implied possible translation over what the source acknowledges as actual scholarly translation would give the implied translation undue weight, and arguably misrepresents the source. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not know the topic well enough to comment on the substance. But how about these two book sources which are probably more reliable than a website. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Except that none of them translate Benaiah as "Son of Yahweh". Leithart and Mann refer to David's successor being the "Son of Yahweh", while Klein and Block note that Pelatiah, son of Benaiah, is the "son of 'Yahweh has built up'". So it looks like we've still got original research. The source I cited initially makes the connection to "Ben" meaning "son", but that seems to be more in the realm of literary allusiveness than actual meaning. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Those sources trump the website. History2007 (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I would hold that the reading from the first source is synthesis, but the proposition itself might well be defended from other sources. The first good one I found affirms "son of the Lord" (i.e., LORD), and IMHO it is not synthesis to gloss that source as "son of Yahweh"; two or three sources on this point should be sufficient to carry "son of Yahweh" as one valid gloss of Benaiah. JJB 22:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem is really in the lack of vowels in Hebrew and the fact that "Ben" and "Bena" (added vowel) are quite likly related (one could easily see a "son" as being something "one has built" and vice versa). See [30] which is where the source discusses this. Collect (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Again without commenting on the substance of the discussion, let me mention three items please:
  • Calmet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible goes back to 1830, and is probably not a good idea.
  • How do we establish that abarim-publications is a WP:RS site?
  • I think we may need a program that will just check the old sources, and issue a report about them. In many cases people may look up an impressive looking book title, and not realize it is pretty old. We now have Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies and when I get to it next week, I will try to find ISBN lists to do a program that reports those. This should be a variant of that probably.
This thread gave me the idea to auto-report old sources per project, so was useful in any case. History2007 (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I kinda thought that, on this board and on this point, there would be no bias against 19th-century refs unless there was a (nonoriginal) reliable source saying otherwise; but other sources will support the same point. As for Abarim, the "Author" link, from the first page listed here, probably discounts RS status pretty easily without going to WP:RSN. There are many many Hebrew-name websites out there with plenty OR on them (I'd love to start one myself). Patrick Hanks's Oxford Dictionary of First Names has been put forward as a better modern RS. I do believe I've seen the etyma for "son" and "built" linked in an RS before. JJB 14:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually I do not have any opinion about that source itself. But in general, I am not happy with pre-WWI sources at all. Things change, research takes place, new publications come around, etc. Why not use a source from later? If nothing else says that, something does not fit. And that does not just apply to this source or this topic, but to any other as well, in my view. History2007 (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

NGO Monitor

In the article I'm currently working on ([NGO Monitor]), the organisation in question reports that one of their major donors is the Jewish Agency For Israel (JAFI). Pretty much every major news organisation I can find describes JAFI as a 'quasi-governmental body' (NYT, BBC, Guardian, JPost etc). The simple version of the question is: can I say that JAFI is 'widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body' in describing them as one of NGOM's donors? The statement is obviously true but do I need to have a source that specifically calls JAFI a quasi-governmental in the context of a discussion of NGOM's funding?

Now for the more complex version: NGOM state on their website that they receive no financial support from any government. However, their biggest donor is JAFI, who are widely considered to be a quasi-governmental organisation. Can I put the information that their largest donor is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body next to their own claim that they receive no governmental support?

Now, one more possible complication: there is actually one source that does describe JAFI as a quasi-governmental body in the context of a discussion of NGOM's funding. This may or may not be considered a reliable source (online blog-based magazine run by established professional journalists with the article being written by an established journalist, although the site is own as a collective by the writers so arguably self-published ...) but how secure does a source have to be for a statement that is in any case true?

The way I see it is that the statement is factually true but might (?) be considered OR/SYNTH if no source directly links NGOM's funding with JAFI's status (although connecting the two points doesn't lead to a distinct third point as a conclusion). However, I would have thought that once that connection has been made it can no longer be claimed that the statement is OR/SYNTH and that the formal reliability of the source shouldn't matter too much because all it is being drawn on is for a statement that is indisputably true, whether or not one might have questions about its reliability when it comes to questionable facts. But I'm no policy wonk and would like to hear what others have to say. Thanks. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

I believe this article has many problems with original research, particularly WP:SYNTH. I'd like to focus on two paragraphs in Christ_myth_theory#Meaning_of_the_whole_term:

Sources that try to actually define the entire term "Christ Myth theory" and "Jesus Myth Theory" only add to the confusion. The 1988 edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defines Christ Myth Theory thus: "(the) view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes, and its basis is sought in the parallels, actual or legendary, to the Gospel records concerning Jesus", and then presents Lucian, G. A. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and P Graham as examples of this concept.[29] Lucian, however, never said that Jesus did not exist as a flesh and blood man, but rather mocked the story of Jesus and the belief of Christians;[30] Wells has stated, even in his pre-Jesus Legend works, that Paul's Jesus was mythical in the legendary sense of the word (ie historical myth);[31] and Russell and Graham both "left open the question of whether there was such a figure as Jesus of Nazareth as the Gospels portray Him."[29] Furthermore both Greek and Norse myth stories have a huge range of theories regarding their origins including distortions of actual historical events[32][33] As late as 1919 it was stated "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods"[34] and these three with Mithras are the cults Bromiley says that Jesus' death and resurrection story suggests to some minds as being a variant of. As a result you get a definition that doesn't really define the term in a clear and meaningful way.

This passage is based on an editor's opinion that the definition of the Christ myth theory is ambiguous and problematic. The first sentence is pure opinion—there is no secondary sources that states that the definition of the term is confused. Then the passage quotes the entry on "Jesus Christ" from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and analyses the quote, with a bunch of citations. None of these citations comment on the entry in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and none of them says that the definition in the encyclopedia is unclear. This is, then, a use of published sources to advance an editor's own position—a clear instance of WP:SYNTH.

There are some other problems as well. Even though the text attributes the definition to Bromiley, he is probably not the author of the entry in question, he was the editor-in-chief of the encyclopedia. And despite what is claimed, there is no reason to think that the definition of Christ myth theory is unclear, either in the quoted entry or in any other secondary source. But the main policy issue is that an editor is trying to put his own opinion into this Wikipedia article through WP:SYNTH. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not touching this one with a 10 foot pole. This whole article is a hornet's nest. I was involved in it a long time ago, and there's really no gentle way to deal with it. Be prepared for an ugly debate if you wade into this area. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I had a look and I can't figure out why there is both this article Christ myth theory and the article Historicity of Jesus. The historicity article seems well written and the myth one seems a train wreck. The thing that seems especially interesting is that the historicity one refers to the myth one in a section in which the first half doesn't really deal with the person being mythical at all but to a sect which believed he wasn't a living human but a spirit, and the second half refers to the modern meaning of where he was purely mythological, I'd have thought the two were completely different things. That really should be two sections in the historicity article. There is also another article Jesus Christ in comparative mythology which tends more to the first meaning in the historicity article but also has bits of the second. Yes I do agree the article is a big mess because it is trying to cover at east two completely different things at once. I think the best first step would be to distinguish between the two main ideas in the historicity article which is the top level one. Dmcq (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I tagged the Josephus section for neutrality which was promptly removed. I did go back and reread WP:NPOV and I should have introduced the idea the section isn't neutral in the talk page before tagging it. I still feel very strongly the section is not neutral and specifically does not address the majority of biblical scholars who feel two statements Josephus made are authentic and the one about 'Jesus who is called the Christ' is at its basis authentic. In fact a significant amount of the article is synthesis with the bent Jesus was not a historical figure. This was an extreme fringe theory for nearly two thousand years. It's only been the last two hundred years the 'Jesus is Myth' theories have arisen. Now the article is about Jesus as Myth so we need to address what those who espouse that idea said. That should be what they said and not interwoven with editor's opinions and synthesis of what those authors said or even what others said those authors said or meant. The former is perfectly necessary for the article and the latter should be expunged. Also there are entire sections early on which seem to me to be synthesis of what Jesus as Myth means, etc. The article needs a great deal of work and we need a balance of opinions with proper weight to be heard and not censored by others. This article is not about whether Jesus is myth or fact but appropriately referenced mention of those who say Jesus is Myth.Jobberone (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
As I have said before a trip through Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition will show that there is no WP:SYN going on but rather a honest attempt at presenting a NPOV of what ideas have had the label Christ myth theory and any its supposed synonyms.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Break 1

I agree that the article has extensive problems, but I was hoping that posting here would result in a discussion focused on one specific problem. What do people think of the passage I posted above? Is it ok to have Wikipedia say things like "As a result you get a definition that doesn't really define the term in a clear and meaningful way" without that opinion appearing in any secondary source? This looks like obvious original research to me; what do others think? Jobberone indicates that there's synthesis in the article, but doesn't address my question specifically.

And Dmcq, the "Jesus was a purely spiritual being" idea is part of the Christ myth theory. Maybe some context would help—in the 19th century, people started applying historical method to the Gospels and other early Christian writings to try to figure out what the actual history was behind our stories about Jesus. In general, scholars found that the sources give us information about a human being who lived in the early part of the 1st century CE and whose preaching led to the formation of Christianity, even though they disagreed vehemently about many details of Jesus' life. The Christ myth theory grew out of this attempt to find the real history behind the Gospels. It says that you can't use these sources to find out about the life of a human being because there was no historical Jesus at the root of it all. Christ-myth theorists' explanations of the real origins of Christianity differ, but an explanation common to many mythicists is that Christianity developed from a Jewish sect that worshipped a savior-god called Joshua (the same name as Jesus—Joshua is a more direct transliteration whereas Jesus is filtered through Greek). This Joshua was not initially thought of as a human being, but as a purely spiritual being, essentially a god, but over time he was given human characteristics, so that eventually the Gospels portray him as a human being (though a special kind of human being). So the idea that Jesus was originally understood as a purely spiritual being is an alternative account of Christianity's origins that arises from the initial step of saying that there was no historical Jesus at Christianity's beginnings. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe this 'purely spiritual' thing was some heresy that was squashed by the declaration that Jesus was both true God and true man. It wasn't some idea that people couldn't see the person or anything like that. That is not the same as myth in the modern sense at all. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly, Dmcq—the idea that Christianity arose from a pre-Christian Jewish cult of Joshua is a modern theory which I believe was first advocated by John M. Robertson in the first decade of the 20th century, but the idea was followed by a number of Christ-myth theorists after that, like Arthur Drews. It seems to me that you're thinking of docetism, a heresy from the 1st-2nd century CE, but that's distinct from the Christ-myth theory.
Also, it's important not to get tripped up by the meaning of "myth" here, since it can mean so many different things. When Christ-myth theorists use the word they mean something like "made up" or "invented". --Akhilleus (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes that's the heresy. What I was saying is that the Historicity article in the section 'Jesus as myth' mixes that in with the modern idea and they just shouldn't be mixed together. Fixing that would be a good step towards setting the background for the modern Christ myth theory which is what that article should just deal with. It shouldn't touch upon that heresy at all or any other historical business like it though what Celsus wrote is probably okay for the article. Why exactly there is a Christ myth theory article separate from the historicity article is what I just don't get, the only good reason for such separate existence is if it deals with a very well outlined subset of the historicity article. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Christ Myth theory is - or rather should be - about the tradition of thought which claims that Jesus is a mythological figure, one whose life story should be interpreted in the same way that others myths are analysed. In a sense it starts from the assumption of his non-historicity. It's rather similar to the way that Marlovian theory starts from the assumption that the author William Shakespeare is a "myth". The article describes the various claims that have been made about Marlowe and ther arguments for them. The Shakespeare authorship question page, in contrast, deals with the arguments about the "historicity" of Shakespeare, only touching briefly on specific claims made for alternative authors. The Historicity page has essentially the same role as the SAQ page - to detail the historical arguments about Jesus. The CMT page has the same role as "Marlovian theory" - to explore the history of arguments that take the non-historical position. Of course there will always be some overlap - as with the SAQ articles - but they are nevertheless clearly distinct topics, I think. Paul B (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that comparison just doesn't work for me. The theory that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's work is a specific topic and a specific section of the authenticity question. In the case of the Christ myth theory there just is no such definite idea, it is all over the place with different ideas. I don't see that as a specific topic under historicity - it is as far as I can see just a slanted version of the historicity article. Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Dmcq, I think the reason that it seems like "there just is no such definite idea, it is all over the place with different ideas" is because the article is poorly written (and in fact the opening sections have been written with the goal of making the subject seem confusing). There's a reasonably large body of secondary sources about the Christ myth theory that treat it as a definite and clearly defined trend within the study of the historical Jesus—a recent example is Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The reason why this should be a separate article, not just part of the historical Jesus article, is because it's such a minority view that it doesn't merit more than a few sentences in an article dealing with the mainstream views (in accordance with WP:UNDUE) but there's enough sources to write a lot more than a few sentences. Essentially, the number of sources justifies a full article. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the above. The historical Jesus and christ myth theory articles refer to two (of many) rival theories concerning the historicity of Jesus. Both approaches use historical methods but lead their proponents to different conclusions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion Bruce Grubb should be topic banned from Jesus-related articles, and especially from "Christ Myth theory". I used to contribute to this, but was essentially driven away by Bruce Grubb's relentless POV pushing. I wish to apologise to Akhilleus for leaving him to struggle against the tide of sophistry almost alone. Essentially Bruce has been pushing this claim that there is no clear meaning to Christ Myth theory for a long time. He drags quotations from sources out of context, sythesises arguments from multiple sources and essentially uses the full armoury of WP:OR to push this view, which simply undermines any attempt to give a serious and clear account of what is undeniably a distinct intellectual tradition. Of course there will always be some variation in usage between different writers. That goes for almost any term used in historical literature. There is also a genuine ambiguity about the limits of the concept of the "Christ myth", which is an inevitable consequence of the theory itself. One can never draw an absolutely clear line between a minimalist model of "historical Jesus" and the concept of a purely "mythical" figure. There will always be an area where one position "shades" into the other. But that does not alter the fact that concept has a clear identity and the scholarly literature that discusses it is generally consistent about the meaning. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Akhilleus first comment. I just happen to think there is synthesis thruout the article. However, I was censored immediately so I withdrew not wanting to fight it. If there is enough opposition to the article as its written then I will be happy to participate. I do think we should be faithful to the purpose of the article which is to bring an encyclopedic rending of the Jesus as Myth story. The article can be salvaged.Jobberone (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Break 2

It appears to me from the discussion above that other editors share my concerns about original research in this article. However, the editor responsible for the problematic text is removing the {{synthesis}} tag from the article: [31] [32]. Can anyone suggest a course of action? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the article for 3 days. I am also sympathetic to some action being taken in regard to Bruce Grubb. I note that he hasn't taken part in this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, BruceGrubb might not have been aware of this discussion until I posted on the Talk:Christ myth theory page yesterday.
I was NOT aware of this discussion PERIOD. I should mention that administrator User:SlimVirgin created the Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition page to collect the LONG discussions on what the article was-should be about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if some kind of action were taken against BruceGrubb, because he has been inserting OR, misrepresenting sources (e.g. [33]), and POV-pushing on this article for years now. But I really have no idea how to solve the problem; I've posted to many noticeboards over the years trying to get some help, and the situation has not improved. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest one of us use their sandbox to write the article from scratch or attempt to rewrite it with other editors contributing. We could do the entire article or section by section. I do not propose that be me although you are welcome to use my sandbox. I welcome any other suggestions.Jobberone (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Akhilleus, if any action should be again any editor it should be against you. You have continued to push a version of Christ Myth theory not supported by all the material. You have repeatedly ignored comments by myself and other editors regarding problems with the material, you have claimed things about various editors IMHO bordering on slander by not following WP:AGF; you have ignored community consensus regarding certain matters as well the views of two of your fellow administrators (SlimVirgin and Elen of the Roads), ignored WP:NPA by commenting on the contributor rather than their content, ignored or dismissed source material when it did not reflect a certain view (saying that Schweitzer's comment "I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus." in his autobiography (Out of my life and thought) immaterial even though other sources documented that three of these authors were willing to accept the possible existence of a historical Jesus as part of their theories case in point), and host of other things I am likely forgetting.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Break 3

The article tries to address the problems User:Ludwigs2, User:Vesal, User:Peregrine_Fisher, User:Blueboar, User:jbolden1517, User:^^James^^, User:SlimVirgin, User:Crum375, User:Wdford had with the old version. In fact, Paul B and Bill the Cat 7 both agreed that the idea of the Gospel Jesus as a composite character "may legitimately fall under the umbrella of "Christ Myth Theory" though they never answered the question of would that include a 1st century teacher who was NOT crucified being in the mix.

Nevermind Anthony's relevant questions of 24 April 2010 were ignored:

"If the Christ myth theory means "Jesus did not exist", what does that mean?

  • there were no preachers in early 1st century Galilee-Judea doing or saying the kinds of things attributed to Jesus in the New Testament, and the NT Jesus is pure fiction.
  • there was/were preacher/s in early 1st century Galilee-Judea doing and saying some or all of the things attributed to Jesus in the New Testament but he/they are anonymous, and the New Testament character may be partly or wholly based on him/them.
  • there was a man named Jesus, brother of James, in 1st century Galilee-Judea, but we do not know what he said or did, so the New Testament Jesus Christ may be pure fiction."

This article has had numerous attempts at getting a consensus regarding its definition and all have been failures.

Then you have the many times this has come up: [[34]]

SlimVirgin set what the guidelines should be for the article:

1) It should start with a definition of the Christ myth theory from a reliable source, and more than one definition if they differ.

2) It should make clear whether it's a term used mainly by proponents or opponents. It should explain the history of the theory and the naming of the theory.

3) It should outline the different ways in which a person might be such a theorist (soft, hard), sourced to secondary sources to avoid OR.

So far I have been the only one to try and apply those guidelines.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Break 4

  • Bruce has popped up on my talkpage about this, but not linked here. I was briefly involved in trying to referee this article ages ago, and observed then that it is all over the place, from people who believe that there never ever was or could be anyone who lived who was remotely connected to anything recorded in the Gospels; to the theory that there were three Jesuses (Jesi??) - the son of the carpenter, the one who wrote his scripts, and his agent in Tin Pan Alley. My own opinion is as follows
  1. this mishmash is OR, if only because there is not one single notable "jesus is a myth" topic - there are hordes of the things. The coatrack inclusion here of every theory ever advanced makes it appear that there is such a thing, and that is by definition OR.
  2. the heresy needs an article of its own, that is just about the heresy. The heresy is a notable topic, with references and everything
  3. all the other theories either belong in the article about Jesus as a historical figure, or if notable enough deserve their own articles.
  4. In some cases, the particular theory is so bound up with one author or one book that I would put the theory in the author article or an article about the book.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In case this wasn't clear - in my opinion the entire first half of the lede of the article is OR, "Sources that try to ... equally reliable references" is clearly OR, and "It is unhelpful that breaking this spectrum down into categories tends to be dependent on the author in question" is OR. More significantly, since what is clear is that there isnt "a" christ myth theory, there are many of them, the article should focus on a run through the theories and their authors, not be containing sections such as that starting "There is no independent archaeological evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus Christ." This statement may well be true, but it is OR to place it in the article outside of a context of writers of theories about the non existence of christ. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There are certainly many different theories ('Jesus' was originally a mushroom; he was Julius Caesar; he was Caesarion; he was "the teacher of righteousness"; he was an "aryan sun myth"...), but they are all unified in the sense that they all say he wasn't the carpenter's son from the village of Nazareth described in the gospels who gathered a bunch of followers, had a message about the "kingdom of god", fell foul of the local authorities and got crucified. That is the central "Jesus myth theory", the notion that the basic narrative of the gospels about a bloke from Galilee is complete fiction. That there never was such a guy, and so we need to create a completely new explanation of how this fiction - or "myth" - was created. Sources fairly consistently refer to this as the "Jesus myth" or "Christ myth" model. Paul B (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could retitle the article to Non-existence of historical Jesus theories. That would be clearer, and might eliminate some problems. My main point was that the article should not be setting out to extablish the non existence of Jesus. That's OR. It should be reporting on Foo's theory and Bar's theory. The bald statement in the paragraph commencing "There is no independent archaeological...." is out of place, especially in the lede, no matter how many archaeologists you cite it to, because it's synthesis. It's saying "theories arise/are supported/continue to be popular because there is no archaeological evidence". Instead, the article should say "Foo and Bar give much significance to there being no archaelogical evidence..." or "Most christ myth theories depend at some level on there being no archaeological evidence" (ref Meep: Who was this Jesus guy anyway"). Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Drive-by: I happened to just edit religion and mythology about this (the changes to the root article discussed here had not caught up there), and I also happened to have NORN on my watchlist. The current lead of Christ myth theory doesn't seem now to disambiguate two meanings of myth, i.e., academic mythos, or popular misconception. An academic writer uses the article's title either to mean "the Christ story as all or largely false mythos, false sacred narrative", or "the existence of Jesus Christ as a misconception". If these two camps of writers can be easily disambiguated, I think the latter would remain well in this article, with a rescoping to Elen's clearer description (also supported by Paul's comment); albeit not necessarily a retitling because of using WP:COMMONNAME. Then the former camp (if any) would be moved to a subregion of basic Christian mythos somewhere. But this subfix probably doesn't do justice to other (unread) aspects of this thread. JJB 15:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME requires that it be called either "Jesus myth" or "Christ myth" (over the years it's switched back and forth between the two, along with a sub-debate about whether it should be "hypothesis" or "theory"). I think the two meanings of "myth" is really a red herring. In practice the model implies both meanings. It assumes that the story from the gospels derives from mythic or mythologised prototypes and that therefore the "real life" story of the Galilean carpenter dude is fiction. So it implies both meanings: myth = widely believed fiction and myth = symbolic narrative. JJB's suggestion was already tried out years ago when user:dbachmann came up with the idea that we should create a separate article on Jesus in "Christian mythos", which ended up being called Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. He hoped that would end the confusion and allow the Jesus Myth article to be about the non-existence of Jehoshua ben Joseph, aka Jesus Christ. It didn't. Essentially I agree with Elen that the article should not try to prove he did or didn't exist, though it should have a short section on the reasons why people came to the latter conclusion. It should be a potted history of the ideas of the various theorists who have come up with distinct JMT models, with historical context, supported by WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Break 5

Several things here

@Elen of the Roads, I suggest reading WP:NOTOR which clearly states "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation." No actual explanation was provided just that the authors that do break down the spectrum have their own takes on where the breakdowns are. For what it is worth I have remove or edited the problematic passages you pointed out above.

Furthermore changing the title to Non-existence of historical Jesus theories is no help as it doesn't address Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall's two ways that Jesus could be historical:

1) Jesus actually existed as human being rather than being a totally fictional creation like King Lear or Dr. Who

or

2) the Gospel accounts give a reasonable account of historical events, rather than being unverifiable legends such as those surrounding King Arthur.

Marshall warns "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about."

A) Volney, Frazer, Remsburg, Robertson, Mead, Ellegård, and Wells, all accepted the possibility of a historical Jesus being involved in the myth but have been put into some form of the Christ Myth theory category. Per Marshall this deep sixes them denying option 1 (Jesus was a flesh and blood man) leaving us to say they are denying option 2 (the Gospels are reasonable accurate as historical documents).

B) non historical doesn't really tells us anything. Shakespeare's Richard III is non historical in in terms of appearance and possibly actions as well but that doesn't mean there wasn't a real Richard III he was based on. Conversely as explained by Remsburg and others King Arthur Pendragon and Robin Hood Earl of Huntington are non historical mythical versions of possibly historical people.

In fact, as again noted in the article Archibald Robertson stated in 1946 "(John M.) Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one man having contributed something to the Gospel story." and that "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility (that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man). What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded".

Ok, by this criteria a first century Jesus who was born in Cana c12 BCE, never set foot in Nazareth, preached a few words of now lost wisdom in Galilee, and got himself run over by a chariot at the age of 50 would fit the bill as he didn't teach "as reported in the Gospels" and certainly wasn't "put to death in the circumstances there recorded".

@Paul B: As Remsburg noted in 1909 "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."

Even Drews admitted "If in spite of this any one thinks that besides the latter a Jesus also cannot be dispensed with, this can naturally not be opposed; but we know nothing of this Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow."

As I said back in 16:05, 22 January 2008 "Well to be fair the academic evidence on both sides is a mess. Most of it boils down to statements in popular books rather than peer reviewed journals resulting in a he said-she said situation. A related problem is the kind of excluded middle that seems to exist in the debate boiling down to either the Jesus of the Bible existed or he didn't. The problem with that is Jesus could be like King Arthur or Robin Hood who in part can linked to a historical people (Riothamus and Sire Johannes d'Eyvile respectively) but so much has been added in that the King Arthur or Robin Hood we know are composite characters with very little (if anything) left of the original historical people."

Even after some three years of pointing it out several editors still haven't grasped the basic concept that "saying the story of a person is a piece of mythology is NOT the same as saying the person themselves didn't exist." As I said way back in 20 January 2009 "The stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Paul Reveres' famous ride via Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, or the umteen dime novels of various 19th century people like Jessie James, Wild Bill Hickok who undeniable existed cases in point (George W. Chilcoat and Joan M. Gasperak (1984), Young Adult Literature: The Dime Novel or How to Vitalize American Literature Classes, National Council of Teachers of English clearly state that some of the early dime novels stories were in fact using real people and real events while not claiming to be real history) (sic)." I explained these problems in detail in Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_22#Bromiley and brought them up regarding Mythicist in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_41#The_Mythicist_Position.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm really tempted to just collapse Bruce's last WP:WALLOFTEXT post, which is cut-and-pasted together from stuff he's been posting to the article talk page for years now. Perhaps it's enough to say that the article does have a reasonably-ok section on the history of the Christ myth theory, starting with the "Volney and Dupuis" section, but the coherence and unity of the topic have been obscured by gigantic piles of WP:OR#SYNTH, of which Bruce's last post is a signature example. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Great, now Akhilleus is referencing a NONEXISTENT wikipedia article to back up his position. WP:TLDR warns that its usage "is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing." As I said before in Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Edit_warring_by_Ddwiki50 changes that the entire article article was one big CFORK go back to at least 2007. I and many other editors were pointing out the OR and SYN the old version of the article had back to at least 2008 in trying to say there was one Christ myth theory. As for copy and pasting this is to bring relevant point to editors here may not be aware of the actual arguments. Nevermind, that I am actually addressing two different point by two different editors in one post.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Bruce, let's think about this for a minute. Who's the most active editor on this article? You. (See the "top 50 editors" section here.) Who's been the most active editor recently? Also you. (See [35].) Who's responsible for most of the text of the lead, and the general shape of the article? Why, that would be you. So, you know, any OR/SYNTH in the article is basically your problem at this point.
And really, your idea that I'm "referencing a NONEXISTENT wikipedia article to back up his position" is very strange. Do you really think I didn't know that WP:WALLOFTEXT doesn't exist? It's an obvious joke. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that based your commenting on the contributor rather than their content that you don't know that WP:NPA exists. Do you dispute the fact that there is not one reference that connects the various sources we have together nor a source that explains why the sources that use the exact term "Christ myth theory" conflict with each other?
Do you deny that per Marshall's first definition of historical Jesus that Volney, Frazer, Remsburg, Robertson, Mead, Ellegård, and Wells don't fit the bill despite being called Christ Mythers at one time or other or being classified among those "who contested the historical existence of Jesus"?
Do you deny per WP:WEIGHT (Price, Stanton, Carrier, Eddy-Boyd vs Wells) that Wells Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth with their mythical Paul Jesus + historical Q Jesus = Gospel Jesus would qualify as Christ Myth books? Better yet do you have a source explaining how Welsh's "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory" doesn't support the positions of rice, Stanton, Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd regarding Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth?
Do you deny per the examples of "Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn" and George Washington chopping down the cherry tree that there are stories of people known to be historical that are "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"?
In short do you deny the factual evidence presented?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Most of that was OR/SYNTH too. I don't think it's a violation of WP:NPA to observe that the most active editor of an article is at fault if the article has problems with OR/SYNTH, especially when that editor defends his version of the article with more OR. Remember, the text that I quoted at the very beginning of this thread was composed by you, and it seems there's agreement that the text is problematic.
Of course, if you'd like an outside opinion about whether NPA has been violated, there are various methods of redress specified on that page. Do be sure to take into account posts like [36] and [37], though. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The link should be WP:TLDR. Paul B (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I read all of his posts, so it wouldn't be right to say "didn't read." If I didn't read them, I wouldn't know that they're mostly the same... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Well it seems that there really is a WP:WALLOFTEXT, it was just that the link was slightly off. So the Non-Existence of the Wall of Text hypothesis propounded by Bruce has been proven false by the latest editorial scholrship. Paul B (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Break 6

Your dodging the question present with claims of SYN and OR. Again read WP:NOTOR. If you are so sure of your position mind telling us why you are supporting suspected sockpuppets [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=487835306&oldid=487832192}}? Also the claim that this is a "modern" theory depends if the phrase "Jesus is a myth" means he was a historical myth ala King Arthur and Robin Hood or a philosophical myth (personification of an idea) The alter is certainly of modern origin but the former dates all the way back to Celsus (c180 CE)

Furthermore the Docetism connection was kicked around in Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_39#Docetism and since then I found a 1990 reference that states "Some skeptics argue that Jesus was a myth. Ancient scholars named this theory "docetism," apparently because, to them, Jesus never actually came into the world as a flesh- and-blood man but only seemed to be here.." Last time I checked 1990 was considered modern.

Stop removing huge sections of the article with no discussion with claims that are not bore out by the references being used in the article. This IMHO blatant POV pushing of yours is way past tiresome. Oh for what it is worth in the interests of NPOV I have added a 2009 reference to Robert Price who states that the term "Docetism" along with other terms has suffered a fate similar to brand names like Xerox, Jello, and Kleenex and been broadened "far beyond what historically descriptive usage would allow" In other words Docetism can have two meanings depending on it context.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bruce - Docetism has an article. As several have said above, THIS article needs to be about the various theories that the Jesus dude as described in the Gospels never existed. This encompases that he was three rabbis, a nightclub act, a huge misunderstanding, Caesarion, Paul Daniels, Jack Daniels, and just a story made up by two queens on the phone. Theories of a less radical nature - eg that some of his teachings were not original but came from X source or Y source, belong in other articles. Theories that he is a transliterated sun got belong in the Christ in Mythology article quoted above. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The docetism article on wiki shouldn't be a benchmark in any case, and Grubb's spoiled it by WP:Undue and confusion. Docetism assumes so many distinct positions and definitions, it being an umbrella term for a notable variety of ideas spun by individual thinkers, and evidence for them is so thin, one simply cannot draw docetism into the argument. It is not about the historical question of the existence of Jesus, as that question arose in modern criticism. It is a theological scepticism about the traditional claim of Christ's divinity. In many versions, the CXhrist of NT narrative is switched, at birth and death, with the body of another person, and there is no doubt by the sceptics there as to the historicity of either subject. I agree with Akhilleus on this. The concept of an historical person, the concept of myth in the sense it is used in 'the Christ myth', is modern, and to throw it back into the past is highly dubious. In areas where strong passions and POV fixations tend to abound, the only prophylactic against WP:OR is to humble oneself to being a transcription monkey. Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
So Price states that the term "Docetism" along with other terms has suffered a fate similar to brand names like Xerox, Jello, and Kleenex and been broadened "far beyond what historically descriptive usage would allow". So what? That's true of "Romanticism", "Medieval", "Liberal", "Punk"...or pretty much any cultural concept you can think of. That does not mean we can't use it usefully and meaningfully, and it still has nothing to do with the topic of the Christ myth theories that the article should address. Of course there are variations in usage. There always are within limits. But Bruce just produces pages and pages of aggressively argued and often barely intelligable obfuscation seemingly designed to create irretrievable confusion. Paul B (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Break 7

@Elen of the Roads: Ok you said "THIS article needs to be about the various theories that the Jesus dude as described in the Gospels never existed." and gave a really wild and extreme example. But this still leave those versions of the Christ Myth theory (Robertson, Welsh, post-Jesus Legend Wells) where the myth came first but a historical teach could have been later integrated into the stories. Again by WP:WEIGHT Wells' Mythical Paul Jesus + historical Q Jesus (who does some of the things related in the Gospels) = Gospel Jesus would be a Christ Myth theory. Using NPOV how do we address that?

Paul B: You didn't check the history of the Docetism article did you? "Earl Doherty and Timothy Freke have suggested docetism arose from christ mythicism" was added on 20:55, December 13, 2007 [[38]] and was changed to "Earl Doherty and Timothy Freke have suggested docetism arose from the nonexistence hypothesis. on 05:28, August 12, 2010 [[39]] long before I ever saw that article.

The connection between Docetism and the Christ myth theory has been in that article for two YEARS perhaps as long as FIVE years and only NOW you have a problem with it and claim that I spoiled it by making this connection?!? Just what kind of fools do you take the community for?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that one needs to distinguish clearly in Wikipedia between topics and terms. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Articles are supposed to be about topics. If a term is in itself very notable as a term we might have an article but we should not dump into a single article everything hat has been described in a term, that is the function of a dictionary. If one sticks Docetism and the idea that Jesus was a story made up by three rabbis together into one article then you are talking about listing all the uses of a term rather than about writing about a topic. We should disambiguate between topics. The floor function in maths and the floor of a room are different topics, they don't occupy the same article. Dmcq (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh please. Doherty and Freke are themselves fringe theory advocates looking for historical support lineage to bolster their own fringe views. Their view may be notable enough to mention but it remains the fringe of the fringe in terms of scholarly norms. Paul B (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Editors note that this discussion has been completely derailed by Bruce Grubb's walls of text, special pleading and WP:SYN. The actual issue regarding OR/SYN in the opening paragraph has been buried under this chaos. This is one reason why Bruce is a fundamentaly problematic contributor in this area. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that Category:Self-published authors appears on Earl Doherty's page. So why is he even the subject of a debate on scholarship? He is self-published by his own company that has only published 3 books to date. And Freke has no academic training to speak of. Has he been widely published in academic journals? No. Does he teach at a major university? No. But scholars who teach at prestigious schools disagree with him. Freke runs experiential seminars. Doherty and Freke are not scholars. Period. The only person not discussed here as a scholar seems to be Pee-wee Herman. But I am sure he will be suggested soon... That would be fun to see...History2007 (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban?

The problem is that as was pointed before this concept claim depends on WP:SYN where source A says X, source B says Y, source c says z and so it claimed that A says Z. Both the administrators User:SlimVirgin and User:Elen of the Roads that there is no clear and definitive Christ myth topic:

"It should start with a definition of the Christ myth theory from a reliable source, and more than one definition if they differ." User:SlimVirgin

"More significantly, since what is clear is that there isnt "a" christ myth theory, there are many of them, the article should focus on a run through the theories and their authors, not be containing sections such as that starting "There is no independent archaeological evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus Christ."" User:Elen of the Roads

These wall of text claims are IMHO Per WP:TLDR "a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing" to ignore the actual points raised in them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That was short enough that a link to TLDR doesn't apply, but you're still producing quotes that you've already brought out earlier in the thread—this kind of repetition is in WP:WALLS, not to mention WP:TE. Personally, I think quoting a two-year old comment made by an editor who isn't participating in this current discussion is not on. Selectively quoting only one post by someone who has participated in this discussion isn't a good idea either. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyone up for suggesting a topic ban for BruceGrubb, from this article and maybe the Docetism article. Where one editor consistently, over a very long time, drives others away and prevents development of the article, then that is grounds for requiring them to give it a break for a while. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Concur. Anything he touches is unreliable or unreadable.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Concur. Don't like it very much but in this instance perhaps it is the best route. The article is not going to improve with the status quo.Jobberone (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree, and as Elen of the Roads suggests the ban needs to include the Docetism article, and probably the Josephus on Jesus article, where BruceGrubb has given undue weight to fringe sources like Arthur Drews ([40], also notice that this edit says that "Christ" means "annotated one." I had no idea!).
Where do we go to suggest this? WP:AN, or somewhere else? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
With regrets, I tend to think that WP:AN is probably the way to go. By "with regrets", I mean that I tend to think that this subject probably should be clearly notable and well-defined, but, for whatever reason, the independent reliable sources don't seem to have ever addressed the topic in a way which would clearly establish its notability. And his rather long history of using self-published sources, despite having been repeatedly warned about WP:SPS, is another concern. With Michael Baigent being able to get his books published by regular publishers, I really can't see why the proponents of this position don't get more such publication, but the evidence seems to be that they don't. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree that there is no other way, although I will miss Bruce. Some of the interaction was just fun and funny: e.g. I had repeatedly asked Bruce not to use Model-T era scholarship as references, and in one case he followed my advice: he added a source from 1866. That was certainly not Model-T era, but predated it... But seriously, after all the talk of self-published sources, and his participation in adding an item (which was alas incorrect) to the List of self-publishing companies I had been working on, he again added a self-published source today. And now he seems to be using the "amateur research community" (yes, seriously!) as a source, without specifying who the amateurs are. I told him not to use those on his talk page today, but he did not seem pleased... sigh... History2007 (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I noticed that in the above Doherty was suggested as a source by Bruce. But Doherty is self-published by his own company, if you guys had not noticed, so I noted that in the above. And as suggested above, I think the ban should also apply to some other articles (I would say 4 or 5 for he will go to the others next) that relate to this one, not just this one. Or in fact should be broadly construed. History2007 (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban requested

I have requested that BruceGrubb be banned from editing articles related to Christianity on the Administrator's noticeboard, here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_a_topic_ban_for_User:BruceGrubb. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Closure

A topic ban was done and the article is being rebuilt. I believe this issue can be closed. Jobberone (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Citizen exploitation

I was going to do an AFD for Citizen exploitation, but I thought it might be worth getting some opinions here first - the author put a lot of work into it. It does seem like a fairly clear case of WP:SYNTH to me, though. I think maybe some of the content (minus the original synthesis) could be added to the citizen journalism and Huffington Post articles, and maybe others, but I just can't find any reliable sources that use the expression "citizen exploitation" to mean "exploitation of unpaid 'citizen journalists' and bloggers", like this article does. Does anyone else think this should maybe be deleted as OR/synth? Thanks! Dawn Bard (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

List of corporate jargon

This article seems to be mostly original research. It's a list of English business jargon. More than half of the terms in this list are not linked our sourced. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

2001 QF298 (Astronomy, dwarf planet candidate)

2001 QF298 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There was a question posed at WP:RSN here that ended up with an OR question. The article currently says "As of 2012 the object is not considered a viable dwarf planet candidate by Tancredi et al and is not mentioned in the latest update of their list". Since Tancredi previously listed this object in his list, but no longer does, is it OR to say that as of 2012 he does not consider it a candidate? The only purpose for the list is to state those bodies he considers candidates. I am not an editor of that article. It was just brought to RSN, and I commented on the original question there, which ended up with this question, which I'm not sure I know the answer to. I will post a note at RSN pointing here for anyone else interested as well. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 01:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Beef Products, Inc.

Is [41] ("cow-based" is a term not found in any source I found, nor was his original "cattle-based" found in any RS sources I noticed) an example of "original research"? Collect (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless they exclude male cattle it can't be described as "cow based".Momento (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Opinions please

An editor has extracted a sentence from an article by Gordon Melton in the Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, which says, "Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God". An editor has claimed that the sentence "shows that people thought that Maharaj Ji considered himself god". I have objected to that opinion on the grounds that it is OR. That is, it is "an analysis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the source", in that the Melton sentence doesn't provide any material about who or what Maharaj Ji considered himself to be. If you agree that the source does NOT provide any material that addresses what Maharaj Ji thought, please write Agree. If you don't, I'd like to hear your arguments.

AGREE.Momento (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's accurate... well, except you left out the other half of what he says, and you left out the other 18 sources I listed here (it's hatted, so you'll have to expand and scroll to the "secondary sources list" section). Oh, and also, you've misrepresented the problem. As stated at the mediation that you stopped, the issues were:
  • Is there confusion over whether or not Rawat claimed to be God in the past, either directly, or indirectly, and how has that changed since the 1980s?
  • Was there controversy about this?
And don't forget, that's only the secondary sources, we never got around to listing the primary ones, I have several of those as well if anyone else here would like to see them, but somehow I doubt that will be necessary here.
-- Maelefique(talk) 16:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not a de facto Med:COM. It is a simple request as to whether experienced agree that "the source does NOT provide any material that addresses what Maharaj Ji thought".Momento (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Momento, you did not specify which article your question applies to, so I'm only guessing that this is about Prem Rawat. If you have a WP:RS secondary source that wrote something specific such as "Maharaj Ji considered himself god", you could then use it in the article and attribute it accordingly, e.g. "According to Author X, Maharaj Ji considered himself god". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Correct LL, it does pertain to the Rawat article but the comments were made during a Mediation attempt. I don't know of a WP:RS secondary source that wrote something specific such as "Maharaj Ji considered himself god". Can I take it that you agree with me that "the Melton sentence doesn't provide any material about who or what Maharaj Ji considered himself to be"?Momento (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I scanned through the squabbling on the article Talk page and the mediation attempt. I don't see anything that indicates the main issue of conflict centers around the Gordon Melton quote you provided. Straw man arguments really aren't helpful to resolving content disagreements. At this point the only advice I can give is that opinions regarding Maharaj Ji claiming divinity or thinking himself divine should be strictly attributed to secondary sources that discuss this issue at length and in depth. Passing mentions or analyzing primary sources such remarks, writings, or quotes by Maharaj Ji isn't the way to go about it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, the PR talk page and the mediation aren't relevant here. This is a question about WP:OR, pure and simple. As you say, "opinions regarding Maharaj Ji claiming divinity or thinking himself divine should be strictly attributed to secondary sources that discuss this issue at length and in depth". Melton's sentence does not "discuss this issue at length and in depth", in fact it doesn't discuss Maharaj Ji's thinking at all. Which is why I objected to the analysis and why I brought the quote and the analysis here so that uninvolved editors such as your self could point that fact out.Momento (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I can also offer this observation: you selected one sentence out of two dozen supplied by Maelefique on the mediation page and made it the object for a forced-choice question where the only logical answer is "Agree". I understand you are seeking a compromise with Maelefique, but in my opinion, bringing such obvious straw man arguments to a noticeboard isn't helpful to resolving the issue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I didn't "select one sentence out of two dozen supplied by Maelefique on the mediation page and made it the object for a forced-choice question where the only logical answer is "Agree"". I brought the Melton sentence here because it is the one that the supposedly knowledgeable and neutral mediator Seddon claimed "helps show that people thought that Maharaj Ji considered himself god".[42] I pointed out the obvious OR in Seddon's analysis and expected him to correct it but he didn't.[43] I waited until Seddon posted again and asked him to address my comment about his OR. [44]. He didn't reply to that either. At which point I contacted MED:COM and asked them to replace Seddon with a mediator who followed WP:OR and replied to requests. They replied that Seddon had a "clear understanding of Wiki policy" at which point I informed them that I wasn't prepared to be part of a mediation about content with a mediator who didn't know what was acceptable and what wasn't. MED:COM closed the case falsely claiming "The mediation broke down after a party demanded a change in mediator, alleging that the mediator had misinterpreted content policy [he might equivocate with WP:OR] mistakenly and then maliciously". They added "As a result MedCom is considering referring the case to ArbCom".[45] Since I seem to be the only one in the mediation who knows what WP:OR means I thought I would bring the sentence and Seddon's analysis here for an independent opinion. And I thank you for agreeing that Seddon's interpretation of Melton sentence is OR.Momento (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't "agree that Seddon's interpretation of Melton sentence is OR." I said your question "If you agree that the source (Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God) does NOT provide any material that addresses what Maharaj Ji thought, please write Agree." is a forced choice question where the only logical choice is "Agree". Good luck in your Arbcom. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
So you agree that the only logical conclusion is that the Melton's sentence (Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God) ) "DOES NOT provide any material that addresses what Maharaj Ji thought" but Seddon's claim that Melton's sentence DOES provide material that "shows that people thought that Maharaj Ji considered himself god" is correct and not Seddon's OR.Momento (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Your noticeboard entry asks for "opinions please", yet it's obvious you have designed your question to force responses into either supporting your position or defending one you have deliberately chosen to be undefendable. I am uninvolved in the Prem Rawat dispute. The first I even heard of the article was responding to your question and having to look up "Maharaj Ji" to find out the context. It only took me a few minutes of reading the article Talk page and the subsequent Mediation page to see that you have misrepresented the other editors positions on the matter. It also appears this is part of an ongoing dispute with at least one previous Arbcom and numerous Mediations to its credit. Sorry, I won't play. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
How can I "misrepresent the other editors" when I didn't mention them or their positions? They are irrelevant to my question. My interest is solely mediator Seddon's interpretation of Melton. So I quoted only Melton and Seddon and asked a simple question - does Melton's quote support Seddon's claim that Melton's quote could be used to "show that people thought that Maharaj Ji considered himself god". Answer, no it can't. But since no editor responded to my comment at the mediation I brought it here to the appropriate forum NOR. End of story. I've done nothing wrong.Momento (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting how convoluted arguments can get on points of logic. The sentence "Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God," implies "Maharaj Ji was, at one time, to be venerated as a God, but no longer." The "to be venerated" phrase is a parallel to the famous "mistakes were made" construction. There is nothing in the statement to even suggest who said that Maharaj was "to be venerated". It certainly does not imply anything about what Maharaj Ji said. It doesn't even say what Maharaj Ji's followers said. All it implies is that somebody, unnamed, said at one time that Maharaj Ji was to be venerated as a God and that somebody at a later time said otherwise. And that's as far as Wikipedia can go with this source. Surely there are other sources that are more explicit. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You've just well described why this is a straw man argument. It's an over-laboured fuss over a small logical point which has successfully derailed the wider argument. It can only be deliberate obstruction or immature debating skills. Either way I object. You're right, there are many sources that paint a much broader picture and are more explicit. PatW (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Rick, thanks for your comments. When I brought Melton's sentence and Seddon's interpretation here for comment I fully expected my simple question would produce a stream of "AGREE". Instead some editors have tried to hi jack this simple request and paint me as "obstructive", "an immature debater" and presenting a "straw man argument" for raising it. Melton doesn't support Seddon's interpretation and Seddon, the other editors involved and MED:COM should have recognised Seddon's error and corrected it not attacked the messenger.Momento (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the source quote presented is not a valid source for the subject being considered. However, I'm not sure what he point of this post is, since it appears there are a number of other primary and secondary sources on the same matter. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Keithbob. As explained above, I only brought Melton's sentence and Seddon's interpretation here because he refused to correct it and MED:COM started criticising me for raising it. I hope your and Rick's comment will finally encourage the other editors involved and MED:COM to admit that Seddon comments were OR and not supported by Melton as he claimed.Momento (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A reminder to User:PatW that we are here to discuss a content dispute not alleged contributor behavior, tendencies or past history. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

my comments removed. PatW (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ouroboros

We have an IP hopper here who is continually either adding original research or replacing it when removed. They don't accept that sources need to discuss the Ouroboros and are adding their own interpretation. In their latest reversion [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ouroboros&diff=prev&oldid=493957211] they have restored a section called "Judeo-Christianity" (whatever that is) - neither this section nor its sources mention the Ouroboros, but it is being kept in as the IP says "The Ouroboros is a symbol of overcome duality" which whether true or not is irrelevant in this case, as there's no mention of the Ouroboros. The IP is also adding OR at Atum, where he attacked an editor in an edit summary saying "Expelled a topic-banned user". Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like uncited WP:SYNTH to me. --NeilN talk to me 14:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
And the IP is continuing to edit war their contributions back into the article, with their only talk page contributions being insults, making it pretty clear they aren't going to discuss this. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Find someone who agrees with you and take turns reverting OR by this user. The more people who join in, the better. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This has been going on for years hasn't it? I'm sure I remember something like this before. I would have thought there was a good case for protection from ip users being put on a month at a time at least whenever they come back if they can't be specifically blocked. Dmcq (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
4 IP addresses have been blocked now. Hopefully that will settle this for a while, but no guarantees. If this continues I'm sure I can get page protection (can't do it myself as involved with the article). Thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
And then I looked at the article.[46]. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ireland-Crown dependencies relations

I have tagged Ireland-Crown dependencies relations as WP:OR because it appears to me to be a form of WP:SYN. It conflates 3 sets of bilateral relationship between Ireland and other entities into one topic, without any external evidence to support the notion that the combined entity is a notable topic.

The material contained in this new article is mostly referenced, and may be incorporated elsewhere in Wikipedia, but I see no evidence so far to support a standalone article.

Please can someone else take a look? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be anything that couldn't be stuck into Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland much better. Dmcq (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Based on the sources provided it appears to be an OR article and its notability. It may need to be considered for merger and/or deletion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Long articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia

This article seems to consist entirely of statistics (lengths of articles) from editions of an encyclopaedia. There are no sources so I can only conclude that this is mostly original research. I think there might also be a notability issue here. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The encyclopedia itself is the source. I see what you mean about notability, but it is a very important publication (Luke Howard and William Blake in the same place!). The parent article Rees's Cyclopaedia has a number of embedded lists, and I wonder if one solution would be to turn them all into one sortable list, so you users can sort on article title or on author, depending on their interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is a clear notable WP:SPINOUT of a main-article subsection, which just needs some touchup (e.g. 3 of the lists could be combined as IMJ says). Rees is the primary source, and the 1820 article referenced is the secondary source. The information supplied about Rees is particularly pertinent to citing it and to scientific claims of priority. If the title were List of Rees's Cyclopædia articles (or "topics"), the cutoff of 15 columns (even if arbitrary) would clearly align with longstanding precedent as "not OR" found in the list-inclusion guidelines. The very interesting N question directly relates to ongoing discussion at WP:VPP#Splitting articles arbitrarily, to which I invite you both; the exec summary is that this is a keeper, not much different from List of minor planets: 200001-201000. JJB 16:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Another consideration is that if it were List of topics in Rees's Cyclopaedia or List of articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia, it could still be limited to the long articles only. Article length would be a reasonable inclusion criterion. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I have refactored (also included the correct orthography "æ"). JJB 17:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

AFD by KoshVorlon. JJB 19:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Corporatocracy redirected to Corporate plutocracy

The term corporatocracy has 21 valid references including a textbook definition and has 250+ pageviews daily. Another use didn't like the term for various reasons and redirected it to corporate plutocracy. There are no references saying the terms are interchangeable or that one term means the other. Few people use corporate plutocracy (only two usages in references). The redirect is original research.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved
by BullRangifer--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

lists in articles

There was a recent addition to Mill Run Playhouse which was a list of people who performed at this theater. The list looks legitimite but it's not sourced and the heading "notable performers" open things up to debate. I don't want to just delete the list, but it bugs me. Are lists in article subject to the same criteria as the rest of the article?

BTW, I had this same problem with Allstate Arena. I posted a similar question on that page's talk, but I no one responded, and the list is now endless.

Fuddle (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, anything included in an article is subject to the same source rules as anything else. However, not all unsourced information is contentious either. It's common knowledge that actors do plays, stadiums host concerts, etc. If there's a particular claim that's not verified, try going with WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM before just removing it. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 19:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've columned the list which makes things a lot neater. Fuddle (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Identifying animals in photos

I have taken a high-resolution photo of what I believe is an Arizona gray squirrel, and I am considering donating it to the project. However, it is OR for me to determine what species of squirrel the photo depicts, and since the photo is my own there are no reliable sources that are able to back up my claim. Wikipedia:NOR#Original_images states that "original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article." So... can I claim that my photo depicts a particular species or not? Obviously, this happens all the time as a matter of practice but is it correct? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your stance, but I thought I was the only one who felt this way! It seems to happen a lot with photos of wildlife. Presenting a photo is fine, but associating that with a label that you chose (ie. the species) has a whiff of OR. I've seen a couple of similar questions over photos of dog breeds. It's less of a problem with, say, landscapes or photos of manmade objects.
It's difficult to think of a workaround which absolutely avoids the taint of OR, unless your photo is very similar to some other image (possibly nonfree) which has been properly identified by some source. As a compromise, I'd be happy to take things like this to the relevant wikiproject, where editors with subject-matter expertise could agree/disagree with the identification...
In general, en.wikipedia seems to make a big distinction between editors and sources - you can rarely be both, and in a few other corner cases where this happens, we tie ourselves in knots. Pretending that a photographer is only a source and not an editor would be a whole new can of worms... bobrayner (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The image policy is a bit relaxed when it comes to illustrations, they do not have to come from a reliable source if just used as illustration rather than to say something new - but they should be reasonably faithful to the subject of the article. So yes I'd ask at a relevant wikiproject or the science reference desk before labelling it as a particular animal and even then I'd just say believed to be in the commons description if not absolutely certain even if the Wikipedia article doesn't. Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Pakistan sentiment

There is an RfC for the article Anti-Pakistan sentiment which appears to be covering a question of original research (can events be included in the article if no sources mention "anti-Pakistan" motivations?). Experts in the OR policy may wish to help out . Please provide any comments there, not here. --Noleander (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Haj Mirza Sayyed Ali Aqa Qadhi Tabatabai Tabrezi or Allamah Qazi

Hi. Could I please get some input at the above article. It was created a few days ago and was in a poor state. I removed a chunk of unencyclopaedic content that was unsourced/sourced to blogspot, but the author has continuously re-inserted it and ignored all communication attempts. I don't want to carry on reverting lest I fall foul of WP:3RR. Could someone help out please? I've also raised this at the WikiProject Islam talk page. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 08:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I moved the article because the name didn't meet with our naming conventions. I created a redirect, so you can still find it. If the editor carries on putting this material in, then the article may need temporary protection. Have another go at engaging the editor in discussion. I imagine that we ought to have an article on every ayatollah, but sourcing is always likely to be difficult. WikiProject Islam is a good place for that general discussion. There is still material in there that needs to be reduced, e.g. peacock terms. I'll have a quick go at doing that. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you that it's important to have an article about the subject, but it's the unsourced puffery that's the problem. I've gutted the article and I believe in its current state it's acceptable, but no doubt the author will have reverted within the hour. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 08:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I did a little bit more. Let's see what the other editor does. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Ayta ash-Shab

There is a large chunk of text in Battle of Ayta ash-Shab that doesn't belong to the article. All of the sources don't talk and don't mention at all this specific battle but rather on the results of the whole war.So its WP:UNDUE.Also this texts serves as WP:COATRACK to cast doubt in IDF number and present like the IDF numbers of killed Hezbollah member a bloated such argument may belong to the 2006 Lebanon War or to the Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon_War but definitively not to specific article about the war.Here the text that in question [47]--Shrike (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Shrike (talk) has repeatedly deleted well-sourced material from my contributions, claiming I am violating WP:OR. At first I couldn’t understand his reasoning at all, partly due to Shrike’s apparent lack of command of the English language. Now after this [[48]] I think I finally understand what he means. Shrike is of course welcome to protest if I’m – again – misinterpreting him.
Our disagreement concerns this formulation from WP:OR:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

My interpretation of this paragraph is that you are not allowed to advance ideas that are not covered in reliable sources or to combine two different sources creating a new idea that neither source propose. Nothing else.
Shrike’s interpretation is that you are not allowed to introduce, however well-sourced, any material into an article that is not directly related to that article’s topic. So his argument is really about irrelevance and not about original research. The problem is amplified by the fact that Shrike uses an extremely narrow definition of the topic of the article, namely the title of the article. An article about, say, the battle of Stalingrad, must not, according to Shrike, not contain any material about WWII in general or about other battles during this war, unless it contains specific information about the battle of Stalingrad itself.
In the example referred to above Shrike deleted an entire paragraph from an article about the bunker system in south Lebanon that Hezbollah used for firing rockets at Israel during the 2006 war. Those bunkers were nick-named “Nature Reserves” by Israeli soldiers, hence the article’s name. The reason Shrike gave for his deletion was “Nature reserve are not mentioned at all.Its not clear if the HRW report talk about those installation or some other bunkers.”
Because the cited Human Rights Watch report did not use the Israeli term "nature reserves" for this bunker system the quote was violating WP:OR (according to Shrike) and therefore had to be deleted. If the article had been named “Hezbollah Bunker systems” I guess Shrike would have allowed the quote. See Talk:Hezbollah Nature Reserves for details.
Shrike’s complaints about by my editing of Battle of Ayta ash-Shab follow a similar line. The argument concerns the number of Hezbollah fatalities in this battle. We don’t have any official Hezbollah or Israel Defense Forces estimates. We have several sources (from Western, Lebanese and Israeli press) that the number of fatalities was around a dozen or less. We have a Lebanese source that present a list of the names of 11 Hezbollah fighters who died in the battle. Then we have William Arkin, "Divining Victory”, which no doubt is a reliable source - I was the one who introduced this item to the Wikipedia article. He writes:

The IDF says that between 41–70 rockets were fired from Aiyt a-Shab and its surrounding. Overall, the IDF lost seven soldiers in Aiyt a-Shab battles, and suffered 60 injuries, battling Hezbollah on the ground. It claimed to have killed 40 Hezbollah fighters.

This quote is problematic in several respects. On the one hand it is the closest we get to an official Israeli version of the events and is therefore relevant. That is why I choose to refer to it in the first place. On the other hand it is unsourced and Arkin generally supports his claims by footnoted sources. Not so in this case. What is even more problematic is that none of the factual claims in this paragraph can be supported by other sources. According to Israeli daily Yedioth Achronoth 300 – not 41-70 – rockets were fired from the area of Ayta ash-Sha’b (see article for link). The fact that Arkin also published a photo of a damaged 10-story buildings described as “Damage in Aiyt a-Shab” (p. 87) does not increase his credibility. There were no 10-story buildings in Ayta as-Sha’b. According to official Israeli sources 28 IDF soldiers died in the battle of Ayta ash-Sha’b – not 7 (see article sources). Even if we exclude the five who died in the outskirts of the town on the July 12 and the ten who fell in the nearby village of Dibil, we still have 13 Israeli soldiers who died inside the town of Ayta. The claim that only 7 IDF soldiers died in the battle cannot be supported irrespectively how you look at it. It is totally false. The claim that the IDF estimated the number of Hezbollah fatalities to 40 cannot be supported by any other source (as far as I has been able to determine). It was therefore decided by discussion in the talk page that this source should not be used at the same level as the other claims. My personal opinion is that equating Arkin’s claim with that of every other source is a contravention of WP:UNDUE.
Shrike’s complaint concerns another point. He claims that we are not allowed to introduce well-sourced material unless that is covered by the title of the article. The offending paragraph that Shrike wants to delete is the following:

The Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth estimated that around ten local fighters were killed, in addition to an unspecified number fighters from outside the town.[19] According to the Yedioth Achronoth "Encyclopedia" of the Second Lebanon War, Lebanese sources put the number of Hezbollah fatalities during the war to 300 while Israeli sources claim that 700 were killed. This difference was, according to Yedioth Achronoth, mainly explained by the distinction made by the Lebanese between "combatant" and "civilian" members of Hezbollah.[59]

The first sentence was deleted by Shrike without any justification what so ever. The rest of the deletion was justified by it being irrelevant to the topic of the article. Shrike claims it to be irrelevant and therefore contravening WP:OR According to my interpretation of the Wikipedia rules that is not the case. I also claim that the quotation from Yedioth is relevant. The quotation shows that Israel maintained a different definition of Hezbollah fatalities that included civilian non-combatant members of Hezbollah. So even if Arkin’s claim is deemed credible it doesn’t prove that the mainstream media’s statistics is wrong. In any case this information is just as relevant to the topic of the article as as is Arkin’s claim.
My hope by this my intervention is that Shrike will finally be told that his interpretation of [[WP:OR] ] is wrong.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe Shrike's interpretation is the correct one. It doesn't have to mention the exact title, it just has to cover the topic, but the stuff above just doesn't mention anything specific about the battle that I can see. However we should not say that the ones sides version of events is true if there is some doubt, we should say something like 'according to Israeli sources' about stuff only reported by them for instance. As to reliable sources we might infer something about the reliability and due weight to be attached to them. However a reliable source does not stop being a reliable source just because something in it is uncited. Dmcq (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Esau

User Dilek2 has been adding a fringe theory that the Ottoman Turks are descended from Esau.[49][50]. This editor has also posted this theory to several other pages[51][52] and claimed the Orghuz Turks are descended from Uz (son of Aram) [53][54] At no point has Dilek2 provided even the most unreliable of sources to support any of this. Edward321 (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well its clearly unsourced and fails WP:V so it could be removed just because of it.--Shrike (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dynamic Bible Articles

Could we create a dynamic paraphrase Bible? The article on Second Timothy has a section titled, "Content," but it is opinions and descriptions of the text in 2nd Timothy - not the actual text/content of that Bible book. I would like to start with the KJV text and then see what editors develop. The page would have notes dealing with the Hebrew/Greek for each verse. Would these violate any guidelines? Just checking. OpusScript (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they woould, because this would constitute original research and synthesis, something which has no place here.--Orange Mike | Talk14:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved from WP:Requests_for_comment/Request_board Coastside (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Source of Periyar River

Hi. Can someone clarify on whether WP:OR is being used in the following example. The Periyar is one of the rivers flowing through the state of Kerala in India. The Mullaperiyar dam is built along the upper course of the river, about 60-65 km from the source. There are a couple of references (1,2) which state that the catchment area of the Mullaperiyar dam lies entirely in Kerala. Would it constitute WP:OR to conclude from the above that the source of the Periyar lies in Kerala? - Ashinpt (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your sources refer to the Mullaperiyar dam only they don't say anything at all about the source of the Periyar. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't mention the source of the Periyar. But the point is that by the making a statement that the catchment area of the dam lies entirely in Kerala, the authors/officials are by the very definition of catchment area also making a statement that the extent or the area of land from where surface water from rain and melting snow or ice flow to the Mullaperiyar dam lies entirely in Kerala. It's not an opinion or original research, it's what the authors/officials are saying. Therefore, they also are stating that the source of Periyar is in Kerala. It is implicit in their statement about the catchment area of Mullaperiyar dam by the definition of catchment area.
I have argued before that an analogy would be if an author states that some 10-digit number is a prime number, he/she is also in turn stating implicitly that the same 10-digit number is not divisible by 7. It doesn't need to be specifically stated. We can’t say that there is no reliable published source for the idea/fact that the said 10-digit number is not divisible by 7 given that there is a source stating that the same number is a prime number. What do you say? Ashinpt (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum

There is a dispute at Feminazi regarding whether the term is an example of reductio ad Hitlerum, and whether this should be stated in the article. Currently, no source provided in the article makes this claim explicitly. Proponents of inclusion say that it is "obvious" and "simple", while opponents claim that its inclusion would violate the policy on original research. I would appreciate it if editors familiar with the policy would provide their valuable insight.--Joshua Issac (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


First of all, why is there invisible arabic text on this page above my text that I only see in the edit window (including a link in arabic)???
Secondly, my two cents here, it's obvious and simple, and unless there's a source, it's OR. Wikipedia has rules, and that's what they say, unless you want to invoke WP:IAR, but if it's contentious, I doubt other editors will let that slide. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
To answer to your first point, the invisble Arabic text is an interwiki link, added with this edit. It’s linking this page to the Farsi WP, for what reason I couldn’t say. As it was added by a bot, and the main page is already linked, and the link will end up getting archived with this section very soon, it seems like an exercise in futility.
I’m raising the point with the bot’s owner, to suggest it be called off. Swanny18 (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: The issue of the term Feminazi being an example of "reductio at Hitlerum" is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Feminazi. To avoid duplicate threads on the same issue, I am centralizing the discussion there. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced speculation to Pleistocene Rewilding

Because many find the topic (releasing large dangerous animals in order to approximate the ecological communities of the late Pleistocene) exciting, the article had accumulated a lot of cruft about "ecological proxies", all of it beyond the original set unreferenced, and much of it clearly made up on the spot. I finally (after a two-month warning) deleted all the unreferenced stuff. An IP, user:74.130.58.198, has reinserted the deletions several times since ([55], [56], [57]). The IP admits on my talk page that the items are "fictious" and needed to enhance creativity. I have pointed the IP to WP:NOR, but I fear an edit war, and would appreciate it if others could keep an eye on the article for a while.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Colón. La Historia Nunca Contada as Reference

Request for input on inclusion of alternative historical views regarding Filipa Moniz Perestrelo, the wife of Christopher Columbus. (on behalf of User_talk:Colon-el-Nuevo). See article talk page. Coastside (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of best-selling music artists/talk mbox

Please see - the rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:No original research. These rules are not subordinated for consensus some users. This box violated the rules of Wikipedia. He invents the numbers taken from space, percentage counts and establishes the rights inconsistent with the principles of Wikipedia. User (author) makes use incomplete sources - not presenting the complete data. Template for delete. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Can a source written before a book was published be used to refute the book?

At Talk:Gavin Menzies#When did Taccola complete his treatise? I am arguing that a source that was written long before a book by Gavin Menzies was published cannot be used in the article to refute a book by Gavin Menzies. This also came up at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Fringe, established facts and synthesis. I'm being asked to provide A, B and C but this seems pretty simple, in a situation like this, sources need to directly address the subject, which in this case is the book. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe it could only be used if someone wrote that it was applicable and so connected them, in which case you could cite the place that made the connection. Dmcq (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Our discussion evolves around this: Author Gavin Menzies claims in his 2002 fringe theory that a Chinese fleet visited Europe in 1434 and that the knowledge it brought along directly influenced the works of Renaissance artist Taccola. I added a reliable source from 1975 which states that Taccola finished his technical sketchs as early as 1433. Now Dougweller thinks that my adding is WP:SYN because Shelby (from 1975) did not address and refute Menzies directly (from 2002). However, I fail to see how this could be a synthesis. A synthesis is defined as

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.

So a synthesis is if the disputed statement in the WP article arrives at a conclusion which is neither found in Menzies nor in Shelby. But the fact that Taccola had already completed his works in 1433 is what Shelby says, so it is found in one of the sources, and therefore it is no synthesis to reproduce what he says. To clarify the matter I asked Dougweller, now for the third time, to specify what he thinks is A, B and especially C, his supposedly synthetical conclusion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The synthetic conclusion (C) is the implied "Shelby (A) refutes Menzies (B)". What you need to state or imply the conclusion is a source that discusses both what Menzies says, and what Shelby says, and puts them together to reach that conclusion. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I realize it is a bit frustrating when you have proof the person wrote nonsense, but that has been well established in the article already you don't have to show it for every item. If Wikipedia allowed editors to start making their own conclusion like that then besides it not summarizing what people have written, which is the main thing, it would allow loads of people who are just as sure as you but are just wrong or plain nuts to stick in their synthesis into all sorts of conspiracy theory, quack medicine, ancient genealogy, and suchlike articles so they can argue that someone else devised the Special Theory of Relativity besides Einstein or some other strange idea that occurs to them. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually I think this is more than a WP:SYNT issue... if we look at the actual text of our article, there is a more basic OR problem... The section of text that is relevant starts off by discussing:
  • "Martin Kemp, Professor of the History of Art at Oxford University questions the rigor of Menzies' application of the historical method and, in regard to European illustrations purporting to be copied from the Chinese Nong Shu, asserts that Menzies "says something is a copy just because they look similar. He says two things are almost identical when they are not."
This is cited to Kemp and if fine. Kemp did indeed say this, and said it as a direct criticism of Menzie. However the text goes on... stating:
  • "Further, Menzies is directly contradicting himself by conceding elsewhere in his book that Taccola had started his work on his technical sketches in 1431, when Zheng He's fleet was still assembled in China, and finished his technical sketches in 1433, that is one year before the purported arrival of the Chinese fleet."
The word "further" implies that this sentence is a continuation of Kemp's criticism. But that is not actually the case. Kemp did not say this. It is actually Gun Powder Ma's criticism of Menzie, a criticism GPM came up with based upon what Shelby wrote in 1975. That is basic Original research (a Wikipedia editor drawing and stating their own original conclusion, based upon his/her reading of the sources). Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. It's GPM's original research. If he can add that, our policy is pretty meaningless. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm finding this a big confusing. Blueboar, could you take a look at this source for that[58]. This doesn't vitiate the point being made here as it's about a source discussing Menzies & Taccola. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah... yes, that changes everything... try this for the second sentence:
  • Captain P.J. Rivers also criticizes Menzies' theory that Taccola's sketches are based on Chinese information. He notes that Menzies directly contradicts himself by conceding elsewhere in his book by saying that Taccola had started his work on his technical sketches in 1431, when Zheng He's fleet was still assembled in China, and that Taccola finished his technical sketches in 1433 - one year before the purported arrival of the Chinese fleet.[59]
By directly attributing the second sentence to Capt. Rivers, we separate the two criticisms tell the reader who says what. The reader is informed that the bit about Menzies contradicting himself is Rivers' criticism (as opposed to implying that it is a continuation of what Kemp says, or something that GPM came up with on his/her own)... It also takes Shelby completely out of the picture. With such a change, we would no longer have an OR situation (either directly or through synthesis). Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can say "X refutes Y" if X was written before Y. But I don't see why you can't say that "Mr A proposes theory B, which was previously disproven/challenged by Professor C in D". It really depends on the points in question and how closely they're linked. John Smith's (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with John Smith. Just include them as competing ideas. I wouldn't even say previously challenged though, just "A said X, but previously, B concluded Y". Contradictory explanations are not necessarily refutations, even when chronologically presented. (ooh, check out all the big words on me!) -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 18:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the order should not matter. One way to tell if one source is being used to refute another source (improperly) is to swap them around...
  • "Today A says X, but previously B concluded y"
  • "Previously B concluded Y, but today A says X"
If swapping things around like this changes the meaning of the sentence, then we are setting up an OR conclusion and need to find a different way to present the two facts. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm unhappy about this where it pertains to a specific book as it means that we are starting to argue the content of the book rather than representing the views of reliable sources on the book. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem with saying "Mr A proposes theory B, which was previously disproven/challenged by Professor C in D" is that it is the editors own original research if nobody else has pointed it out and the article is not about B. This is the sort of thing that infests contentious articles with people bringing in their own evidence for their side of the argument. Wikipedia is not a place for people to work out their arguments, it is a place for summarizing what is in reliable sources. If nobody has pointed out the disparity then we should not be doing so. If you find it disquieting that no-one has pointed out a problem then point it out yourself in the real world and maybe someone will take note and then it can go into Wikipedia. And if they can't be bothered about it why should we bother? Dmcq (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
But everyone conducts their own research' to find sources for Wikipedia articles. And I really don't see the problem. If an author is writing about something today about an issue which has previously been refuted/countered/addressed, there is nothing wrong with an editor simply referring to that. The problem only arises where someone is analysing, applying or modifying research to turn it into a refutation. E.g. saying that the moon landings were fake because a reliable source has simply said that a critical component was malfunctioning 2 weeks before the launch and there were no spares, coupled with another source says it took 4 weeks to manufacture the product.
I think it would help if we could discuss the specific issue, rather than offer theoretical/"philosophical" views. As far as I understand it, Menzies says the Chinese brought inventions/technologies that have previously been identified as the work of people like Taccola. If it's the case that Taccola's written research has been dated before the supposed Chinese arrival, it seems fine to me to refer to that fact. The exact wording can be up for debate, such as whether it's necessary to say who dated his research and when. But the key issue of the date of his research seems key to me, and if anything the article would be seriously lacking if it skirted over that fact. John Smith's (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
That particular point is solved because a citation has been found which connects up the two things. You are saying it should still have been okay even without that. I completely disagree with that. In this case we can say Captain P.J. Rivers also criticizes Menzies' theory that Taccola's sketches are based on Chinese information because ... Instead you want to say the ... without saying it was some editor on Wikipedia who cricicized Menzies because of that, an even stronger statement than when we had a reliable source providing the connection. In the moon case it would be as if someone stuck in some reliable source saying a critical part was malfunctioning without anything further. If you allow that then we have another saying that bit would have a spare, then we have another saying there were no spares and then another sying it takes 4 weeks to produce one. We leave all that argument to reliable sources and we have enough problems with them disagreeing without us doing the same as well. Dmcq (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, if the point has been resolved, what is the problem? John Smith's (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
None I believe as far as the particular problem is concerned, I was just replying about your general observation. See above where Dougweller found the new citation and Blueboar confirmed it fixed the problem. Dmcq (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I edited Gavin Menzies using the text Blueboar suggested above (with a slight change). I'm not totally sure the source used is WP:RS, but I suppose that's a matter for a different board. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the site is okay on the basis of being published by established experts, see [60]. The weight is fine, it is not as though the book was peer reviewed and needs a peer reviewed refutation! By the way you might be amused by their page with an abusive letter ;-) I obviously need to improve my abuse skills! Dmcq (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Next match day scenarios

Does this violates WP:NOR?

Republic of Ireland have been eliminated.

On the next match day (18 June):

  • Spain will advance to the quarter-finals if
    • they do not lose to Croatia OR
    • Italy do not defeat Republic of Ireland.
  • Croatia will advance to the quarter-finals if
    • they defeat Spain OR
    • they draw with Spain with at least two goals scored OR
    • they draw with Spain 1–1 while Italy defeat Republic of Ireland 2–0 or by a single goal margin OR
    • Italy do not defeat Republic of Ireland.
  • Italy will advance to the quarter-finals if
    • they defeat Republic of Ireland and the Spain–Croatia match does not end as a score draw OR
    • they defeat Republic of Ireland by two or more goals, except for a score of 2–0 and the Spain–Croatia match ending 1–1.

or

On the last match day (17 June) the teams advancing from this group (winner; runner-up) will be[1]:

If: Portugal win draw Netherlands win
Denmark win Denmark and Portugal or Germany1 Denmark; Germany Denmark; Germany
draw Germany; Portugal Germany; Portugal Germany; Denmark
Germany win Germany; Portugal Germany; Portugal Germany; Portugal or Netherlands2

  1. Positions determined by score of Denmark v Germany
    (a) Portugal; Denmark - if Denmark win 1-0
    (b) Denmark; Germany - if Denmark win by 1 goal margin (except 1-0 or 2-1)
    (c) Denmark; Portugal - if Denmark win 2-1 or at least 2 goal margin
  2. Portgual will be runner-up if they lose by 1 goal; otherwise the Netherlands will be runner-up

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Next_match_day_scenarios concerning this and people who are putting this stuff are claiming that it falls under routine calculations. As Euro 2012 is under way you can see examples at UEFA Euro 2012 Group A, UEFA Euro 2012 Group B, UEFA Euro 2012 Group C, UEFA Euro 2012 Group D.

WP:NOTOR clearly states the following:

  • Any relatively simple and direct mathematical calculation that reasonably educated readers can be expected to quickly and easily reproduce. For example, if given the population and the size of a specific area, then the population density of that area may be included.
  • Complex calculations (for instance, those involving statistics) should not be used to build an argument, because they require skills that common educated readers do not possess, or involve a large number of steps that may not be obvious, making it difficult to detect errors. However, you can use simple descriptive statistics to describe data without advancing any argument. For example, rather than reproducing an entire table of data, you may describe the range or the median from a table of data, e.g., "The town's population during the last century has ranged from X to Y".

I don't see how this is a routine calculation. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

before this debate gets strung across two different sections, I'd like to point out that sources have now been found for all four group atricels mentioned. Discussion is also still ongoing in the area linked by the above poster, so perhaps anyone who wants to add anythign should do so there. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to leave this one to WikiProject Football, which I've always found to be one of the most careful WikiProjects. The calculations look pretty routine to me, not even maths, just applying the rules of a knock-out tournament to spell out the implications of results. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Why are we bothering with all this crystal ball gazing? The result will be out soon enough. Isn't it enough to just report on what is without putting in what might be without a source on it? Dmcq (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
That's my main concern, we are not a newspaper. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Such calculations are transitory, by the time you have debated the subject the match (should) have played out and the result known. Wikipedia is about "enduring notability". Now if something happened after the fact and the calculation was retroactively important - that might be worth including. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

CIO -- recent edits seem more appropriate for a blog, not here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_information_officer -- edits by Rrastin might be appropriate but didn't seem helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrflip (talk • contribs) 02:57, 18 June 2012

Removed. Unsourced apparent self-promotion.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Continued Restoration of "Ethereal Beings"

Hello. After a lengthy discussion pointing out that it was nothing more than a pile of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, the article Ethereal being was redirected to non-physical entity. Its continents were found to be unsalvageable by consensus. There was also suspicion of sock puppetry among some of the editors opposing its removal (its problems were quite evident). That was thought to be the end of the sordid affair. However, recently a couple editors—at least one from that prior opposition—have taken it among themselves to continually restore that problematic article over at ethereal beings (as if a plural form solves the many issues). One user in particular has been spouting made up policy in an attempt to justify it. All the while ignoring the huge OR and synthesis issues, of course. Currently it redirects again, but it's likely that this user will simply be reverted again. More eyes could be used at Talk:Ethereal beings. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Literature#Overlooked literary achievements

Pretty obviously OR. Described as a "List of notable and controversial omissions", it seems to be the editor, who also created the now deleted List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature, is the one who decided who'd been overlooked. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It would make sense to get rid of the list but include the information it contains into the running text of the article. When I started editing it, it contained - as far as I remember - around 10 to 20 "omissions". I found those to be highly subjective and instead of proposing them for deletion, found it more fruitful to expand the list to increase greater neutrality. This admittedly very long list influences the readability of the general article. What do you suggest? --Anthrophilos (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Why are we discussing this? Just delete the whole section as it is obviously not suitable for an article at Wikipedia. There is no algorithm or other scientific procedure for deciding which literary works warrant winning an important award, so any list of "overlooked" authors is just someone's opinion—perhaps a very valid opinion, and perhaps not: that would be someone else's opinion. It might be amusing to have a separate article with a list of what critics have said about the Nobel Prize in Literature (with content of the form "X said awarding the prize to Y when Z should have got it was absurd and a clear case of ethnocentric bias[ref], but W said the reverse[ref]"), but such an article would just be a collection of anecdotes cherry picked by editors—pure WP:SYNTH and usable only on someone's blog. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Original research for plot summary or synopsis

Imagine that there is a book or movie with a plot or describable content. The precedent on Wikipedia is that any article on any work of fiction can have a plot summary or any work of non-fiction can have a synopsis as typically these cite the work itself as a source.

Where I can find a written policy which states that plot summaries can be either citable to the primary source or that they could be someone's original research into interpreting the content? This seems like original research, but I have never seen it listed as an exception to the rule of "no original research". Also, has anyone ever made a list of the kind of content which one may legitimately add to Wikipedia either without citations or otherwise by using the article's subject as a reliable source?

Please centralize discussion here - Wikipedia_talk:Plot-only_description_of_fictional_works#Plot_summaries_as_original_research.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Rectal malodor

Yes, "stinky ass." Rectal malodor is extensively referenced, but one of the only articles the user has contributed too; a Google search yields hardly any hits whatsoever. (Be warned; it's illustrated). OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Shrimp and prawn

The articles Shrimp and Prawn do not appear to follow common usage, and I've started an RfC to address this. In particular, according to Wikipedia, Whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) is in fact not a shrimp. I think that's ridiculous; but my (overwhelming) evidence based on google hits has been rejected as original research. Due to the desire to restrict the scope of the "shrimp" article to a well-defined biological concept, across Wikipedia the term "shrimp" is now reserved for Caridea, which is much more restrictive than most of the world uses. Comments and help with the RfC would be welcome; thanks. 24.84.4.202 (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Epiousios

Is this original research? Comments are welcome at Talk:Epiousios#Original research. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that the correct term (in colloquial English) is 'bollocks', but 'original research' about covers it, yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump has hit the nail on the head. bobrayner (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bereishit (parsha) - counting words

The section 'Key words' here seems to be simply someone's count. Besides the fact I don't understand why the counts are here, shouldn't we have a reliable source for this? And it's not a pretty sight. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. Not sure whether we should pigeonhole it as "OR" or "synth" or something else entirely, but... well... it did have lots of links which sets it apart from the usual OR discussed here. bobrayner (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Good. It looks enough like the Conservapedia Bible project without sticking in a concordance as well. Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ernie Davis

There seems to be a repeating reference to Ernie Davis being awarded the MVP of the 1961 Liberty Bowl. He did not receive this award because Dick Easterly won it that year. I am speaking on behalf of Dick Easterly. I am his wife and I have his trophy sitting in his office. Years back, I had viewed a College Statistics book that mentioned Ernie as the winner. I notified the author. Nothing was ever done to correct the mistake. Having earned the MVP that year, I feel that Dick should be given the proper recognition for the award. And, knowing Ernie Davis as my husband had known him for four years, Ernie would have gone to the same extremes as I am doing to correct the mistake. If you need to contact me, please do so by phone at (contact information removed).

The Liberty Bowl's official website's "Legends" page has a photo of Davis that is captioned "Ernie Davis, 1961 MVP Syracuse." The website then entirely contradicts this claim and supports the above in its 2010 media guide, which, on page 62, lists Easterly as the winner. The confusion likely stems from the fact that Davis and Easterly each won an award that game, with the Associated Press reporting that "Easterly was voted the game's most valuable player. Davis was voted the outstanding back..." It could also stem from the fact that Davis was named MVP of the 1960 Cotton Bowl, a much more famous (or infamous, given the segregation and resulting Syracuse boycott of the awards banquet) occurrence. The claim that Easterly won is further backed by Robert C. Gallagher's definitive book, The Express: The Ernie Davis Story, which, on page 90, makes the same awards claims as the AP. A lot of the top Google hits that list Davis as the winner aren't great and are probably sourced to Wikipedia. A series of photos of the trophy Davis won does not indicate which award he received. I think we ought to list Easterly as the winner and source such a claim to the AP, the Gallagher book, and the Liberty Bowl media guide. CityOfSilver 15:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I was able to find the claim only once, at Liberty Bowl. I replaced Davis with Easterly. It appears you removed the only other reference to Davis winning the MVP, which was at Davis's page. If there are any more, Davis's name ought to be replaced with Easterly's. CityOfSilver 16:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Argaman

There are currently discussion whatever to include the line this line[61] with proposed source[62] that does't mention Argaman in any way.Thus I and several other editors argue that this inclusion is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.I am asking for input of uninvloved editors about this issue.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like clarification of when content that relates to a category can be included in articles discussing specific objects of that category when no source makes a direct link. Ankh.Morpork 13:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, the source for a statement about the legality of all instances of Israeli settlements of the form "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this" could be any of a large number that provide WP:V compliance (see this set of samples for example). I should also add that it is always possible to find a source that ties the legality issue to a specific named instance of an Israeli settlement (e.g. this United Nations document and it's Annex I connects the legality issue and this particular named instance of a settlement) but I think the objective here is to constrain the scope of this discussion to the specific question as to whether the statement based on a transitive relation is OR/UNDUE. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Would you state that a sentence that relates to "regions within the Middle East" or "all instances of regions within the Middle East", should be included in every article discussing specific Middle East locations? If not, why not, and how does this differ from what you are proposing regarding general views regarding settlements? In both instances, sources have not made a direct link to the specific location. Ankh.Morpork 20:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The issue is not the sourcing for such a statement, this view has been well documented. What needs clarification is whether this general view relating to settlements at large should be included in every article regarding a minor settlement locality when no sources discuss the issue of settlement legality in conjunction with this specific settlement. Is the insertion of a broad statement that addresses a wide category, into an article discussing a specific place contained within that category, a breach of synthesis and WP:DUE as no source emphasises this general overarching aspect. Ankh.Morpork 20:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Shrike is looking for uninvolved editors. I'm involved. I only commented here to clarify some of the issues for uninvolved editors e.g. the BBC source itself isn't relevant (as you say) because it's one of many and sources that tie the legality issue to a specific named instance of a settlement are always going to be available but they are not relevant to the specific question based on the specific scenario that Shrike wants discussed here. I've given my view on this specific issue (that affects hundreds of articles about Israeli settlements of course) at Talk:Argaman. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

CatholicVote.org

An editor is using raw data to add text to the article here [63]. According to WP:OR the source must "explicitly" support the text. This is not the case.– Lionel (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I jumped in and reverted that, but I fully expect it to be reinserted. Using "WP:CALC" to justify his OR? Good grief. The editor didn't even count right. Belchfire (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who soundtracks

The OR on all of them is acceptable as it helps to identify where the tracks were used.

Could you give more detail of what the issue is. Is someone removing OR that you think is necessary for an article and why do you think that material that goes against Original Research rules should be kept? Please note that the reason needs to be a strong one because WP:OR is one of the core policies of Wikipedia.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes someone called "Etron81" is removing it and it is very necessary for all the articles "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack", "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 3","Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4" and "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4: The Specials" because someone could be scouring their Doctor Who collection trying to find the pieces of music, when in fact, a non-main episode, i.e. one that it appears in, but not the one associated with it, has it in clearly enough to be heard.

Have you tried, I don't know, talking to Etron? At all? Someguy1221 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Tried so just now. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI you posted your message on Etron's user page. It belongs on their talk page otherwise they might not see it. I have moved it for you. MarnetteD | Talk 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question at the Doctor Who Project talk page and got a response there that this was OR that needed to be removed. After I started a dissenting opinion came in so I have stopped editing to see if consensus could be reached - I was not aware of this discussion here until just now. In my opinion there is a lot of OR here - especially notes that state "variation of", "a few notes used in", etc. that are VERY subjective and should be removed if it's an obvious reuse of a cue I would have no objection to it's inclusion. I will not edit any of these articles for OR until consensus is reached here - some of my edits have been reverted by others now. Etron81 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was me, Etron, because I very strongly believe that they are completely fine. But also, not as important but I still want to point it out, I made some of the changes that you are removing myself. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC). P.S. I have just noticed that my reverts were only on Series 5 onwards. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this kinda of OR minutia is more fitting for the Doctor Who wiki than a more general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Perhaps we should invite some non-involved people to comment? Etron81 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am opening a request for comment so that we can get more input into this issue. On these pages, should the "episodes used in" column only list what is listed in the liner notes (or other reliable sources), or can users recognise melodies and add them? My view that it should be the former, as the latter is very subjective at time, especially as motifs can be used in multiple pieces. Etron81 (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that even if a motif comes as part of two tracks (i.e. the musical sting at the beginning of "Westminster Bridge" and "All The Strange, Strange Creatures (The Trailer Music)"), both of those tracks would be counted as being used simultaneously, but maybe with a note saying, "At the same time as ...", so that a reader will know it's a part of two songs. P.S. Do leave a comment on my talk page if that makes no sense. James Morris-Wyatt (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think that there is entirely too much trivial (and uncited) minutiae within the Doctor Who articles, from the uncited nods to prior episodes/seasons/incarnations to stuff like this. Find a source for where each piece was used - and this is important - and why it is important to an understanding of the article or subject. Not only does it have to be cited, but it needs to be referenced as to its importance within the article. We cannot use the editor's fervent belief that it is important.
Do I think there could be an article about Doctor Who music used within the series? Maybe. Do I think every track used per episode or arc needs to be shoehorned into the article? Absolutely not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple more edits removing unsourced notes have been made by another person: [64] [65] Etron81 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Windows refund

This entire article seems to be laden with original research as to (1) what companies allow for users to purchase PCs without Windows or obtain refunds for unused Windows copies/licenses, (2) the applicable law, and (3) self-reported cases of obtaining or not obtaining a refund. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory#Elements of the show

Two weeks ago, I added a section on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research named "WP:WAF conflict with WP:NOR". Here is a shortened version my first posting.

Recently I added this talk section (please read) for the TV series The Big Bang Theory. In it, I warned that I would delete a section in the article that contained about 200 lines. My rationale was that this section was either (a) almost entirely based on the episodes of The Big Bang Theory and that is regarded (see WP:TVPLOT [and here]) as a primary source, which allows no interpretation (see WP:PSTS), or that (b) the majority of statements in the section should have inline citations to secondary sources.
However, the WP:WAF guideline, which covers classic plays as well as comic books, talks about in-universe perspective, based on the work itself. It implies that we can use in-universe perspective for fictional works, with limitations. This is even more egregious on the talk page (for example, see this). WP:NOR says nothing about in-universe perspectives or their effect on primary sources.
Normally, I would say that policies trump guidelines but the history of WP:WAF gives me pause. Allowing some in-universe perspective is not a new idea. The majority of articles about fiction do use in-universe perspective for things other than the plot.
Does "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" (per the primary sources policy in WP:NOR) include fictional "in-universe perspectives", which, of course, must be based on the written text, a primary source? I would like a clear statement in WP:NOR about using the work itself for fiction.

(If you want, you can read the whole section here.)

There did not seem to be much enthusiasm for changing the policy on primary sources so the talk section morphed into a discussion about what to do with the "Elements of the show" section in TBBT. I regret to say that the other editors wore me down and eventually I agreed that we should leave "Elements of the show" essentially alone.

But, since this the venue to have such conversations, I'm wondering what you think? Should the entire section be deleted, tagged (and if so, with what?), left alone or what? And what should we do about the many, similar articles where the subject is a work of fiction? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies in Robin Hood (2010 film)

There has been longterm disagreement between editors of Robin Hood (2010 film) about whether discussion of historical inaccuracies in this movie should be included in the article or not. This was subject to lengthy discussions in 2010, and has come up again recently after I removed a paragraph of original research and synthesis in this edit, which was reverted by Gautier lebon with the edit summary "Reverted change that contradicts agreement reached on talk page". Whilst the film undoubtedly includes historical inaccuracies (it is, after all, an adventure film not an historical documentary), there are no reliable sources that discuss this issue, and in my opinion the current text of the article is based on original research and synthesis. As there seems no possibility of consensus between the only two active editors of the article (myself and Gautier lebon), I am raising the issue here for input from uninvolved editors. BabelStone (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the dead link and added links to sources that discuss the historical inaccuracies. Hopefully this resolves the issue.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Gautier, I think you misunderstand the relationship between sourcing and original synthesis. We don't need sources that discuss 13th century Anglo-French politics. We need sources that discuss how "Robin Hood (2010)" got Anglo-French politics wrong. Without those sources, the section is basically dead in the water. Without those sources, the content is either original research or simply undue weight. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that point, and I have added referecnes that do exactly what you say, that is, discuss how the movie got history wrong. Please take a look at the sources that I have just added.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you don't understand referencing and reliable sources either. Five of the six newly added refs ([66][67][68][69][70]) are self-published or anonymous reviews from blogs or other unreliable sources. The only reliable source is a review in The Guardian by Alex von Tunzelmann, and although she is critical of the historical inaccuracies in the movie, the only specific example of an historical inaccuracy she notes is: "Richard the Lionheart was not on his way back from the Holy Land in 1199. He left it in 1192 after making peace with Saladin. By 1199 he was fighting in France, as he is in the film – but seven years had passed since he or any of the men with him had returned from the Crusades, and they had been home in between." and this does not support any of the "history lesson" given in the article. BabelStone (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Dearl BabelStone, may I ask you to avoid ad-hominem attacks of the form "you don't understand?"? Actually, I do understand. Of the five new citations, 2, not 1, were frome reliable sources, the second being from MSN Enternainment which states "They've taken a thin scrap of history - a legendary hero who may never have existed - and given us their own spin on the character. History has very little to do with it. And that's fine." Given what the Guardian says, and what MSN says, I don't see how it is impermissible original research or synthesis to document the historical inaccuracies. The 3 blogs are of course not reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, but they do support the assertion that critics found the film to be historically inaccurate, because members of the public are also critics, and they do point to specific historical inaccuracies. Thus, I think that they are permissible citations in this context.--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have now removed the unreliable references and replaced the unsourced history lesson with a single specific sourced example of historical inaccuracy in the movie (dif). I think that this is suffient to show that the movie has been criticised for its historical inaccuracies, but does not give undue weight to the issue. BabelStone (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted your changes, because I thought that it was agreed that we would wait for inputs from other editors before removing the material to which you object. I haven't seen comments from any other editors yet, so I think that your deletion was premature.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Gautier lebon clearly does not understand reliable sources policy as he proposes using as source unreliable sources (at 06:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)). MSN may not be reliable for the historical critique of contemporary pop-culture's use of history. The Guardian's film reviewer may only be minimally reliable—it depends on the specific claims. But Gautier lebon's conduct, including deceit from apparent ignorance of policy (despite policy being clearly explained) is concerning. I would encourage Gautier lebon to read WP:HISTRS and consider whether newspaper film reviewers, even from "broadsheets" such as the Guardian, meet the standards required. Anonymous blogs with Gautier lebon themselves admits are unreliable are not appropriate sources to base claims upon—this is what the reliable sources system exists to prevent. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Filelfoo, I don't understand why you use the word "deceit" which could be considered offensive, when in fact you are simply saying that either I don't understand the policy or that I'm unable to explain what I think the policy means. The issue at hand is whether or not there are sources that mention the historical inaccuaries in the movie in the context of a critique of the movie. It seems to be that both The Guardian and MSN are relaible sources for critiques of films, so, in this context, they are reliable sources for the statement that critcs questioned the historical accuracy of the film. Regarding the blogs, they are criticism from individual movie viewers, and thus they also support the statement that some critics noted the historical inaccuracies in the film; further, the individual viewers identified some specific historical inaccuracies, so it would appear appropriate to me to document those inaccuracies in the article. Stepping back a bit, I don't understand how the article is at all diminished in value if it contains material that gives the correct historical background. On the contrary, it seems to me that this increases the value of the article for the casual reader.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
You have pushed unreliable sources, been counselled for it, and then push unreliable sources. One time is ignorance, the second time is wilful and a conduct issue. "It seems to be that both The Guardian and MSN are relaible sources for critiques of films" I don't remember seeing this at WP:RS/N; and I don't remember this extending to historical critique of films. "Regarding the blogs, they are criticism from individual movie viewers, and thus they also support the statement" No—they do not, as they are unreliable. This is an invitation to you to please stop; for you to go read about reliable sourcing, and for you to only propose to use as sources sources that are reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Fiflefoo, thank you for your detailed reply. Indeed both The Guardian and MSN do state that that film contains historical inaccuracies, but don't go into details. You state: "please stop". I'm not quite sure whether you mean that I should stop adding material to the article on the film, which I already did, or whether you mean that I should stop explaining why I think that it might be appropriate (in accordance with the Wikipedia policies on sources) to add a citation to what an individual movie viewer thought about the film.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Gautier lebon, please note that selectively notifying editors who you think may be favourable to your side of the argument, as you did here and here, with the non-neutral words "You may recall that you had commented favorably on the need for a section on historical inaccuraties in the article on Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. One of the editors opposed to that section has reactivated the discussion and is determined to delete the section ...", is contrary to Wikipedia behavioral guidelines (see WP:Votestacking). Please ensure that any future notifications to other editors are in line with the guidelines given at WP:CANVAS. Also, I am not determined to remove the section on historical inaccuracies, only remove those parts that are contrary to Wikipedia principles, as clearly indicated by my recent edits, which you again reverted to your preferred version. BabelStone (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear BabelSone, thank you for the references to proper ways of notifying other editors. Indeed I did not know about those guidelines, which are perfectly sensible. I will adhere to them in the future. I understand that you are not against a general reference to the historical inaccuracy of the film. Indeed, the film is a about a character who is probably not historical, so historical accuracy is not an essential feature of the film. What bothers me is that the current version of the article does not mention the main "whopper" in the film, that is the naval invasion by the French. Apparently there is consensus on this page that "synthesis" has to be understood so that nothing can appear on a Wikipedia page that does not appear in a reliable third-party source. But in that case, it would be difficult to summarize the plot of the film, because the film itself is the best source of that. And indeed the Wikipedia policy on sources contains an exception for this sort of situation, see Wikipedia:Sources#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. Given that the movie itself is the main source for the Wikipedia summary of the events that it depicts, and given that several reliable third-party sources note that the movie contains historical inaccuracies, I still don't understand why the article should not flesh out those inaccuracies. The policy on synthesis states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The sources say "the film has historical inaccuracies". Why is it synthesis to add details on that? This is not reaching or implying a conclusion not stated by the sources. Of course the argument can be made that no source says "the depicted invasion of England by the French is not historically accurate", but it seems to me that this is an excessively restrictive application of the no-synthesis policy.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll add that I appreciate Gautier's perseverance in seeking to add what (s)he feels is good information about the article. That said, the user needs to listen to what is being said. And stop reverting. COMPLETELY. That is precisely the sort of behavior that alienates other users and makes people a lot less likely to listen to any point you make, despite its validity.
You are new, Gautier, so we are cutting you some slack. You cannot add material from bloggy or unreliable sources. The sources you need to identify are those that speak to the historical inaccuracies within the film. Any source that fails to do this is useless to both Wikipedia and to the article. If all you have is one source, and it only touches on a minor point of inaccuracy, a convincing argument can easily be made that it is offering undue weight. A better tactic would be to simply wait for more sources to make themselves known. We aren't in a hurry, and it is absolutely vital that you understand this. We wait for sources; if you are finding that not a lot of reliable sources aren't popping uo, either wait a while or consider that they aren't going to come up. If so, it isn't our job to make a minor argument a major one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. Indeed, I am still learning about Wikipedia, so I do appreciate all the advice given above, and I do appreciate the recognition that I'm working in good faith to improve Wikipedia. I rarely revert (unless it is obvious vandalism), because I prefer to sort out issues on the talk page. In this case, I did revert becuase Bablestone reverted text that had (I thought) been agreed by consensus on the film's talk page, and had been there for nearly 2 years without comment on the talk page. In response, I found some extra citations, which I thought were appropriate, so I restored the deleted material. Regarding more sources, the movie is 2 years old. The best source for the historical inaccuracies became a dead link. Only two people seem to be monitoring the article. It is highly unlikely that any future sources will identify what I think is the main whopper (the invasion by sea). So I think that it is a pity that this particilar article does not fullfil the main purpose of an encyclopedia, which is "to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe" (see the end of the intro of Encyclopedia)--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. I haven't seen any replies to my 30 July postings, but I don't suppose that silence implies consent, so I don't suppose that there is agreement to restore the material deleted by Babelstone. Nevertheless, I wonder whether a compromise solution would be acceptable, namely to add at the end of the Critical Reception section something like "For an accurate account of the events during King John's life, see John of England".--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Euro 2012 Diary: Mathematicians to work out who qualifies from Groups A and B". Betfair. 14 June 2012. Retrieved 14 June 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_23&oldid=1089641557"